2026-09-20T13:03:42Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/1240892021-07-05T14:03:20Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131023
Norvin Richards and David Pesetsky.
Hehl, Verena,S.M.Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
2020-03-09T18:53:00Z
2020-03-09T18:53:00Z
2019
2019
https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/124089
1142631719
Thesis: S.M., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, 2019
Cataloged from PDF version of thesis.
Includes bibliographical references (pages 63-66).
This paper explores to what extent Richards' Contiguity Theory can insightfully be applied to so-called Intervention Effects in German, a set of phenomena which were originally described as constraining the syntax in an interesting way and have mostly been studied in Alternative Semantics terms by S. Beck et al, and H. Kotek. Branan (2018) has offered a Contiguity-theoretic account of Japanese, Korean, and Mongolian intervention facts. I will try to do so for German here. German, as will be discussed, differs crucially from the languages explored by Branan's (2018) cross-linguistic study. Japanese, Korean, and Mongolian, being syntactically right-headed, prosodically left-active languages, first destroy but then reestablish a Contiguous Probe-Goal relationship in the course of the derivation of intervention effect examples. In German, a prosodically left-active but syntactically mixed-headed language, by contrast, Contiguity relationships in multiple wh-questions are terminally destroyed in intervention configurations. This, I claim, triggers the familiar unacceptability judgments. I will further show that, contrary to the languages that Branan examines, in German the effect of Grouping cannot be observed in the prosody.
by Verena Hehl.
S.M.
S.M. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
66 pages
eng
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MIT theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed, downloaded, or printed from this source but further reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Linguistics and Philosophy.
Intervention effects in German : a contiguity approach
Thesis
application/pdf
2020-03-09T18:52:59Z
Publication
Master
Ling
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="c423e0e8-a92a-4851-9cfc-29391054d748">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Language>eng</Language>
<Title>Intervention effects in German : a contiguity approach</Title>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>2019</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Hehl, Verena,S.M.Massachusetts Institute of Technology.</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License>
<Keyword>Linguistics and Philosophy.</Keyword>
<Abstract>This paper explores to what extent Richards' Contiguity Theory can insightfully be applied to so-called Intervention Effects in German, a set of phenomena which were originally described as constraining the syntax in an interesting way and have mostly been studied in Alternative Semantics terms by S. Beck et al, and H. Kotek. Branan (2018) has offered a Contiguity-theoretic account of Japanese, Korean, and Mongolian intervention facts. I will try to do so for German here. German, as will be discussed, differs crucially from the languages explored by Branan's (2018) cross-linguistic study. Japanese, Korean, and Mongolian, being syntactically right-headed, prosodically left-active languages, first destroy but then reestablish a Contiguous Probe-Goal relationship in the course of the derivation of intervention effect examples. In German, a prosodically left-active but syntactically mixed-headed language, by contrast, Contiguity relationships in multiple wh-questions are terminally destroyed in intervention configurations. This, I claim, triggers the familiar unacceptability judgments. I will further show that, contrary to the languages that Branan examines, in German the effect of Grouping cannot be observed in the prosody.</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>