"Towards a Theory of Morphosyntactic Focus Marking"
Muriel Assmann, Daniel Büring, Izabela Jordanoska and Max PrüllerInfo:
Based on six detailed case studies of languages in which focus is marked morphosyntactically, we propose a novel formal theory of focus marking, which can capture these as well as the familiar English-type prosodic focus marking. Special attention is paid to the patterns of focus syncretism, that is, when different size and/or location of focus are indistinguishably realized by the same form.
The key ingredients to our approach are that complex constituents (not just words) may be directly focally marked, and that the
choice of focal marking is governed by blocking.
@article{UAS:MorphFoc,
author = {Muriel Assmann and Daniel B\"{u}ring and Izabela Jordanoska and Max Pr\"{u}ller},
title = {Towards a Theory of Morphosyntactic Focus Marking},
year = {2023},
journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
volume = 41,
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09567-4},
doi = {10.1007/s11049-023-09567-4}
}
"Correspondence between XPs and Phonological Phrases"
In: Linguistic Inquiry 52:4Info:
Bresnan (1971, 1972) establishes an interaction between stress assignment and syntactic movement. We are interested in a restriction on this interaction. We argue that this restriction shows that the constraint STRESS-XP needs to be part of the syntax-prosody mapping and that it needs to be a restriction on a correspondence relation between syntactic XPs and phonological phrases. (A second constraint on the correspondence relation is either WRAP-XP or MATCH-XP.) In the course of our argument, we analyze Bresnan's interaction between stress assignment and movement within an account in which Internal Merge induces reconstruction effects at both LF and PF.
@article{BuringTruckenbrodt:2021,
author = {B\"{u}ring, Daniel and Truckenbrodt, Hubert},
title = {Correspondence between {XP}s and Phonological Phrases},
journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
volume = {52},
number = {4},
pages = {791--811},
year = {2021},
month = {10},
issn = {0024-3892},
doi = {10.1162/ling_a_00391},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1162/ling\_a\_00391},
eprint = {https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article-pdf/52/4/791/1970146/ling\_a\_00391.pdf},
}
"Relational Focus Semantics"
Daniel Büring, Muriel Assmann, Izabela Jordanoska and Max Prüller andInfo:
This paper presents a novel approach to focus semantics in English, one in which the relational nature of metrical trees, and the distinction between default and marked structures directly input to compositional focus semantics. Our proposal is simpler than existing approaches, yet covers a wide range of phenomena, including ones that have proven problematic for previous accounts, to wit pre-nuclear accents and focusings, second occurrence focus, optional deaccenting and non-constituent foci. In a first step, we show how focus alternative sets can be directly and compositionally derived without the mediation of syntactic [F]-markers, from metrically annotated syntactic trees. In a second step we eliminate the need for competitive focus minimization principles like \textsc{AvoidF} by restricting focus alternative sets for focused nodes. We show that this relational account derives known generalizations, but also makes new, fine-grained predictions about focusing patterns in English.
\end{abstr
@article{Buringetal:RFS,
title={Relational Focus Semantics},
author={B{\"{u}}ring, Daniel and Assmann, Muriel and Jordanoska, Izabela and Pr{\"{u}}ller, Max},
journal = {submitted},
}
"Second Occurrence Focus in Wolof: Patterns and Consequences"
Izabela Jordanoska, Daniel Büring, Max Prüller and Muriel AssmannInfo:
This paper presents the first study of Second Occurrence Focus (SOF) in a language with non-prosodic focus marking, Wolof (Atlantic, Niger-Congo). As would be expected, such a broadeningof the empirical basis has various consequences for the general theory of (Second Occurrence)focus, two of which we highlight in this paper. First, we show how the Domain Theory of SecondOccurrence Focus can account for the Wolof data, despite initial appearances. We then zoom in ona second, subtle but striking finding: beinginterpretedas focal (i.e., having non-trivial alternatives)is not contingent on beingmarkedas focal; rather it is contingent onnotbeing marked as non-focal.
@inproceedings{tripleA:SOFwolof,
title={Second Occurrence Focus in {W}olof: Patterns and Consequences},
author={Jordanoska, Izabela and B{\"{u}}ring, Daniel and Pr{\"{u}}ller, Max and Assmann, Muriel},
booktitle={Proceedings of TripleA 6},
address={MIT},
pages = {67--78},
year={2021}}
"Focus Size in Non-Prosodically Focus-Marking Languages"
Muriel Assmann, Daniel Büring, Izabela Jordanoska and Max PrüllerInfo:
In intonational focus languages like English, focus is marked by stress, pitch accenting and post-focal deaccenting. In many other languages, however, focus is encoded by a specific syntactic position or a morphological marker, and the focus patterns we see in these lan- guages are often very different from what we are used to in the English cases. In this paper we take a closer look at the different focus configurations in three West African languages: Hausa, Buli and Guruntum. Though the focus marking patterns in these languages are well described, they have thus far not been linked to formal focus semantics theories. We thus propose a model that allows us to formally compute the focus semantics of those languages.
@inproceedings{AssmannetalNELS49,
Author = {Muriel Assmann, Daniel B\"{u}ring, Izabela Jordanoska and Max Pr\"{u}ller},
Booktitle = {Proceedings of NELS 49},
Title = {Focus Size in Non-Prosodically Focus-Marking Languages},
Year = {2019},
crossref = {NELS49},
pages = {73--86}}
@book{NELS49,
editor = {Maggie Baird and Jonathan Pesetsky},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society},
title = {Proceedings of the Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society},
address = {Amherst},
publisher = {{GLSA}},
volume = {1},
year = {2019}}
"Topless and Salient -- Convertibles in the Theory of Focus"
In: Daniel Altshuler and Jessica Rett (eds) The Semantics of Plurals, Focus, Degrees, and Times -- Essays in Honor of Roger Schwarzschild. 137--155.Info:
This paper tracks recent developments of focus semantics, emanating from Schwarzschild's (1999) convertible examples. It discusses the theoretical impact of the various variations on these examples. The paper ends up arguing that we need contrastive focusing as a precondition for deaccenting, but that, in turn, we need to give up the idea that focusing is anaphoric. This, in turn, opens up crucial gaps in our coverage of the data, which should be closed by making deaccenting -but not backgrounding in general- subject to: a givenness condition.
@incollection{Buring:2019convertibles,
Author = {Daniel B{\"{u}}ring},
Crossref = {RettAltshuler:2019},
Title = {Topless and Salient — Convertibles in the Theory of Focus},
Pages = {6--44},
}
@book{RettAltshuler:2019,
Editor = {Daniel Altshuler and Jessica Rett},
Booktitle = {The Semantics of Plurals, Focus, Degrees, and Times ---
Essays in Honor of Roger Schwarzschild},
Year = 2019,
Address = {Switzerland},
Publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
Doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-04438-1},
}
"Focus, Questions and Givenness"
In: Klaus von Heusinger, Edgar Onea and Malte Zimmermann (eds) Questions in Discourse Volume 2: Pragmatics 6-44.Info:
This paper combines a Question(-under-Discussion)
account of focusing with a givenness account of prosodic demotion
(`deaccenting'). Its main tenets are, first, that all focusing is
contrastive, i.e. points to a proper question ---a question with
contrasting answers; second, that any deviation from default stress signals
focusing; there is no `anaphoric deaccenting' of given elements, only
contrastive focusing. Third, the question that licenses focusing need
not be contextually salient, merely identifiable and relevant.
Fourth and finally, where the prosodic realization of focusing requires
prosodic demotion ---the assignment of less-than-default stress to a
constituent--- that constituent must be given; a question under discussion,
even if identifiable and relevant, cannot lead prosodic demotion of
discourse-new elements.
The approach is couched in terms of unalternative semantics, a new method
of relating stress patterns to sets of potential focal targets
(`alternatives') which does not rely on syntactic F-marking. The overall
approach is argued to successfully explain cases in which given elements
fail to deaccent, in which focal backgrounds are not contextually salient,
as well as, more speculatively, cases of double focus.
@incollection{Buring:qid,
Author = {Daniel B{\"{u}}ring},
Crossref = {Oneaetal:qid},
Title = {Focus, Questions and Givenness},
Pages = {6--44},
}
@book{Oneaetal:qid,
Address = {Holland},
Booktitle = {Questions in Discourse Volume 2: Pragmatics},
Editor = {von Heusinger, Klaus and Editors: Klaus von Heusinger, Edgar Onea
and Malte Zimmermann},
Publisher = {Brill},
Title = {Questions in Discourse},
Year = {2019},
Series = {Current Research in the Semantics / Pragmatics Interface, Volume: 36},\
Doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378322},
}
"Focus Constraints on Ellipsis --- An Unalternatives Account"
Muriel Assmann, Daniel Büring, Izabela Jordanoska, Max PrüllerInfo:
We explore the interplay between focusing and ellipsis. The paper presents a new account of the generalization that focused elements cannot be elided, framed within Unalternative Semantics, a framework that does away with syntactic F-marking. We propose the mirror image of the generalization: what is elided cannot introduce alternatives. We implement this as a focus restriction in UAS and then go on to show how to account for MAXELIDE effects using the same technique, without making reference to any transderivational constraints.
@incollection{UASellipsis,
Author = {Muriel Assmann and Daniel B{\"{u}}ring and Izabela Jordanoska and Max Pr{\"{u}}ller};
Crossref = {SinnBedeutung2017},
Pages = {109-126},
Title = {Focus Constraints on Ellipsis --- An Unalternatives Account}}
@book{SinnBedeutung2017,
Address = {Berlin},
Booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn \& Bedeutung 22},
Editor = {Uli Sauerland and Stephanie Solt},
Volume = {1},
Series = {ZAS Papers in Linguistics},
Number = {60},
Publisher = {Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft},
Title = {Proceedings of Sinn \& Bedeutung 22},
Year = {2018},
url= {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/issue/view/2}}
"Ja Doch!"
In: Clemens Mayr and Edwin Williams: Festschrift für Martin Prinzhorn. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 82. 23-35.Info:
I argue that the German discourse particles "ja" and "doch" relate to the utterances of the sentences they occurr in, not just their propositional content.
"ja" means, roughly, that the addressee, too, was in a position, and ready to, make the utterance, whereas "doch" means that
the addressee was in a position, but not about to make the same utterance.
@incollection{Buring:jadoch,
Author = {Daniel B{\"{u}}ring},
Crossref = {PrinzhornFestschrift},
Pages = {23--35},
Title = {Ja Doch!}}
@book{PrinzhornFestschrift,
Address = {Vienna},
Booktitle = {Festschrift f{\"u}r Martin Prinzhorn},
Editor = {Clemens Mayr and Edwin Williams},
Number = {82},
Publisher = {Wiener Linguistische Gazette},
Title = {Festschrift f{\"u}r Martin Prinzhorn},
Year = {2017}}
"Discontinuous Foci and Unalternative Semantics"
In: Linguistica LVI. 67-82.Info:
Discontinuous foci ---cases in which the focus as
expected by semantic or pragmatic considerations is not a single
constituent within the phrase marker--- are not commonly discussed in the
formal literature on focussing. This paper proposes to use Unalternative
Semantics to analyze such foci. Unalternative Semantics is a novel
framework for calculating focus alternatives from metrically annotated
trees (instead of trees with F-makers); this format naturally lends itself
to the modelling of discontinuous foci. The paper compares this approach
to other, alternative options involving F-markers and argues in favor of
the F-less treatment.
@incollection{Buring:discontinuousfocus,
Author = {Daniel B{\"{u}}ring},
Crossref = {LinguisticaLVI},
Pages = {67--82},
Title = {Discontinuous Foci and Unalternative Semantics}}
@book{LinguisticaLVI,
Address = {Ljubljana},
Editor = {Ga\v{s}per Ilc and Fran\v{c}i\v{s}ka Lipov\v{s}ek and Tatjana Marvin and Andrej Stopar},
Publisher = {Filozofska Fakulteta Ljubljana},
Series = {Current Trends in Generative Linguistics},
Title = {Linguistica {LVI}},
Volume = {56},
Year = {2016}}
"A Beginner's Guide to Unalternative Semantics"
Manuscript, ViennaInfo:
A beginner's guide to unalternative semantics.
@manual{Buring:2016UASBeginner,
Address = {Vienna},
Author = {Daniel B{\"{u}}ring},
Edition = {manuscript},
Organization = {University of Vienna},
Title = {A Beginner's Guide To Unalternative Semantics},
Url = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jVmZjAxN/},
Year = {2016},
}
"Unalternative Semantics"
Proceedings of SALT25Info:
Unalternative Semantics (UAS) is a new approach
to deriving semantic focus alternatives compositionally. It does not use
F-features but directly interprets relational aspects of grammatical
representation such as the weak-strong relation among metrical sisters.
UAS collects restrictions on possible foci, the
unalternatives; at every branching node, constraints on what the
focal target of an utterance cannot be are added.
The paper introduces the basic machinery and demonstrates how to model
contrastive focus, answer focus, and second occurrence focus. More
speculative suggestions are added on the relation between contrast and
givenness, and on modelling non-prosodic focus related phenomena in Hausa.
@inproceedings{Buring:salt25,
Author = {Daniel B{\"{u}}ring},
Booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 25},
Crossref = {SALT25},
Doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3634},
Pages = {550--575},
Title = {Unalternative Semantics},
Year = 2015,
}
@proceedings{SALT25,
Booktitle = {Proceedings of the 25th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference},
Doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt},
Editor = {Sarah D'Antonio and Mary Moroney and Carol Rose Little},
Publisher = {Linguistic Society of America},
Title = {Proceedings of the 25th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference},
Url = {http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/132},
Year = {2015},
}
"Semantic Coordination Without Syntactic Coordinators"
with Katharina HartmannInfo:
German "aber" walks and talks like a syntactic
connective, but, as we discuss in this paper, it may occur buried within
the second conjunct, rather than between conjuncts, as one would expect; an
example is "Norman hat bedrohlich zugenommen, trägt ABER trotzdem noch
seine alten Frosch-Hosen". Yet, semantically and distributionally, it clearly is a
coordinator, and not just an adversative particle, like "trotzdem" and
"dennoch". Moreover, "aber" shares this behavior with other elements like
"allerdings" and "jedoch", which never occur between conjuncts.
We develop an analysis on which semantically, "aber" is a coordinator, but
syntatically it is just another particle.
@inCollection{BuringHartmann:2015,
author = {Daniel B\"uring and Katharina Hartmann},
title = {Semantic Coordination Without Syntactic Coordinators},
crossref = {Toivonenetal:2015},
pages = {41--61},
}
@book{Toivonenetal:2015,
editor = {Toivonen, Ida and Piroska Cs\'uri and Emile Van Der Zee},
title = {Structures in the Mind: Essays on Language, Music, and
Cognition in Honor of {R}ay {J}ackendoff},
booktitle = {Structures in the Mind: Essays on Language, Music, and
Cognition in Honor of {R}ay {J}ackendoff},
publisher = {{MIT} Press},
address = {Cambridge and London},
year = {2015},
}
"Advantage: Obligatory Binding Into Finite Complements?''
In: Grazer Linguistische Studien 83Info:
Analyzes the semantics of the noun "advantage"
as in "Joan has the advantage that she owns an electric worm stunner" and
similar. The curious fact about in particular "have the advantage that" is
that the "that" clause needs to contain a bound pronoun, similar to PRO. To
make matters worse, that pronoun appears to be bound not by one of the
matrix DPs, but by the word "advantage" itself. The paper tries to shed
some light on this disreputable behavior by way of explicating the meaning
of "advantage".
@inCollection{Buring:advantage,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {``Advantage'': Obligatory Binding Into Finite Complements?},
crossref = {gls83},
pages = {7--26},
}
@book{gls83,
title = {Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Syntax, Phonology
and Language Analysis --- SinFonIJA VII},
year = 2015,
address = {Graz},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Syntax, Phonology
and Language Analysis --- SinFonIJA VII},
editor = {Remus Gergel and Andreas Bl\"{u}mel},
series = {Grazer Linguistische Studien},
number = {83},
}
"(Contrastive) Topic"
In: Caroline Féry and Shin Ishihara (eds)(in press) Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press.Info:
A brief overview of contrastive topic phenomena
and accounts proposed therefore. Includes a slightly simplified version of
my D-Trees proposal (namely one without D-Trees).
@inCollection{Buring:ctopicOUPishandbook,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {(Contrastive) Topic},
crossref = {FeryIshihara:IShandbook},
pages = {64--85},
}
@book{FeryIshihara:IShandbook,
title = {The Handbook of Information Structure},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
year = {to appear},
address = {Oxford, {UK}},
editor = {Caroline F\'ery and Shinichiro Ishihara},
booktitle = {The Handbook of Information Structure},
}
"A Theory of Second Occurrence Focus".
Language and Cognitive Processes. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2013.835433
Info:
This paper proposes to analyse second occurrence foci as foci whose domain
is properly contained in the background of another focus domain, and
linearly follows the last focus of that domain. It is shown that general
assumptions about the representation and prosodic realisation of focus
predict that foci with these properties will be realised by stress, but not
pitch accent, i.e. as second occurrence foci. Furthermore, whether a focus
domain is subordinated in this sense follows from general principles of
focus assignment and interpretation. No assumptions specific to second
occurrence foci are required to explain the phenomenon. The analysis relies
on, and thus indirectly supports, the assumptions that focus/background,
rather than new/given are the relevant concepts in stress and accent
assignment, and that focus realisation is mediated by prosodic,
particularly metrical, structure.
@article{Buring:SOF2013,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {A Theory of Second Occurrence Focus},
journal = {Language as a Cognitive Process/Language, Cognition and Neuroscience},
year = {2013/15},
volume = 30,
number = {1--2},
pages = {73--87},
doi = {10.1080/01690965.2013.835433},
}
"It's That and That's It! - Exhaustivity and Homogeneity Presuppositions in Clefts (And Definites)".
with Manuel Kriz
Info:
This paper proposes a way to encode exhaustivity in clefts as a
presupposition, something which has been claimed to be adequate, but never
successfully implemented. We furthermore show that the facts that prompted
the need for such an analysis carry over to identity sentences with
definite DPs and propose a way to achieve the same presuppositions for
definite DPs.
This paper builds on the ideas in my 2010 paper on
clefts. In the newer version the formulation of the presupposition is
slightly different, and much more empirical and theoretical ground is
covered.
@article{buring-kriz:2013:clefts,
Author = {B{\"u}ring, Daniel and Kri{\v z}, Manuel},
Doi = {10.3765/sp.6.6},
Journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
Keywords = {clefts, definites, presuppositions, homogeneity, exhaustivity},
Month = {August},
Number = {6},
Pages = {1--29},
Title = {It's that, and that's it! {Exhaustivity} and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites)},
Volume = {6},
Year = {2013}}
"Syntax and Prosody, Syntax and Meaning"
In: Marcel den Dikken, (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 860-896.Info:
Handbook article; special attention on how
syntax, prosody and information structure interact and what options that
leaves us for the `architecture of grammar'.
@inCollection{Buring:CambridgeSyntaxHandbook,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Syntax, information structure, and prosody},
crossref = {CambridgeSyntaxHandbook},
pages = {860--896},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571.029},
}
@collection{CambridgeSyntaxHandbook,
editor = {Den Dikken, Marcel},
booktitle = {The {C}ambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax},
address = {Cambridge, {UK}},
title = {The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax},
year = 2013,
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571},
}
"Reciprocal Reflexives"
In: Thomas Graf and Denis Paperno and Anna Szabolcsi and Jos Tellings (2012) Theories of Everything: In Honor of Ed Keenan. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, no.17, 2012. 22-34.
Info:
The German plain reflexive `sich', when anteceded by a plural DP, can
receive a reciprocal interpretation. This is possible only if `sich' occurs
in direct or indirect object function, but not when it is the object of a
preposition. This squib illustrates this pattern in detail and outlines an
analysis that treats `sich' as an intransitivizing element, along the lines
of Keenan (1988, 2007).
@inCollection{Buring:reciprocals,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Reciprocal Reflexives},
crossref = {keenanfestschrift},
year = 2012,
pages = {22--34},
}
@book{keenanfestschrift,
author = {},
title = {Theories of Everything: In Honor of Ed Keenan},
publisher = {},
year = 2012,
address = {http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/wpl/issues/wpl17/wpl17.html},
editor = {Thomas Graf and Denis Paperno and Anna Szabolcsi and Jos
Tellings},
booktitle = {Theories of Everything: In Honor of Ed Keenan},
series = {UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics},
volume = {17},
}
"Predicate Integration --- Phrase Structure or Argument Structure?"
In: Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure. Edited by Ivona Kucerova and Ad Neeleman. Cambridge University Press. 27-47Info:
Presents a novel formal account of predicate integration, i.e. the
fact that argument--verb combinations are regularly realized with a single
accent on the argument and an unaccented verb. The formalism captures
basically the same empirical ground as the Sentence Accent Assignment Rule
in Gussenhoven (1983, and later pubs), but it does so within a framework
that relates focus to metrical prosodic representations, rather than just
accents. I zoom in on a number of cases in which argument and predicate
stand in a non-local relation, either after movement or by base-generation.
It is argued that such cases justify an appeal to the non-structural
notions `argument' and `predicate', as did Gussenhoven's original proposal,
but remain problematic under otherwise more elegant phrase structure-based
accounts such as Truckenbrodt (1995,1999,2006) or Selkirk & Kratzer
(2007). This paper also covers the material presented in my 2009 CLS talk.
(26 pages)
@inCollection{Buring:integration,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Predicate {I}ntegration --- {P}hrase {S}tructure or {A}rgument {S}tructure?},
booktitle = {Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
address = {Cambridge},
editor = {Ivona Ku\v{c}erov\'a and Ad Neeleman},
year = {2012},
pages = {27--47},
}
@inCollection{Buring:integration,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Predicate {I}ntegration --- {P}hrase {S}tructure or
{A}rgument {S}tructure?},
pages = {27--47},
crossref = {KucerovaNeeleman:2012},
}
@book{KucerovaNeeleman:2012,
title = {Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
year = 2012,
address = {Cambridge},
editor = {Ivona Ku\v{c}erov\'a and Ad Neeleman},
booktitle = {Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure},
}
"Focus and Intonation"
Info:
Handbook article for readers with little previous
exposure to the topic.
@inCollection{buring:2012philhandbook,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Focus and Intonation},
crossref = {RoutledgePhilLang},
pages = {103--115},
year = {2012},}
@book{RoutledgePhilLang,
title = {Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language},
booktitle = {Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language},
publisher = {Routlegde},
address = {London},
year = {2012},
editor = {Gillian Russell and Delia Graff Fara},
series = {Routledge Philosophy Companions},
}
"Pronouns"
Info:
An overview of the semantics of pronouns, including indefinite and
demonstrative pronouns, phi-features, plurals, reciprocals, binding v.
coreference, functional pronouns and all that other good stuff.
@inCollection{Buring:pronouns,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Pronouns},
booktitle = {Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language
Meaning},
publisher = {Mouton De Gruyter},
year = 2011,
editor = {\Heusinger{}, Klaus and Claudia Maienborn and Paul Portner},
pages = {971--996},
address = {Berlin},
series = {Handb\"ucher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft /
Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science},
number = {33/2},
}
"Binding", "Focus", "Topic and Comment"
In: Patrick Colm Hogan (ed) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences
Info:
Three two-page encyclopedia entries.
@inCollection{Buring:bindingenc,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Binding},
booktitle = {The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
year = {2011},
editor = {Patrick Colm Hogan},
pages = {128},
address = {Cambridge},
}
@inCollection{Buring:focusenc,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Focus},
booktitle = {The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
year = {2011},
editor = {Patrick Colm Hogan},
pages = {312},
address = {Cambridge},
}
@inCollection{Buring:topicenc,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Topic and Comment},
booktitle = {The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
year = {2011},
editor = {Patrick Colm Hogan},
pages = {866},
address = {Cambridge},
}
"Conditional Exhaustivity Presuppositions in Clefts (And Definites)"
Draft, ZAS/Vienna.
Info:
Some puzzling facts about exhaustivity in clefts are laid out, and an idea
for how to get them right is sketched.
This ms. is superseded by
Büring & Kriz 2013.
@article{Buring:clefts,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Conditional Exhaustivity Presuppositions in Clefts (And
Definites)},
journal = {Ms. ZAS/Vienna},
year = 2011,
}
"Towards a Typology of Focus Realization"
in: Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds) Information Structure. OUP
Info:
I try to squeeze existing analyses of focus realization done in
intonational phonology, prosodic phonology, OT syntax, and some more into a
unified framework of prominence based focus realization (Truckenbrodt
1996). The paper follows the general lines of Gutierrez-Bravo &
Büring (2001), but tackles a much wider variety of languages and
language types, including Hungarian, Italian, Chichewa, Japanese, and
Bengali. I also talk about some rather puzzling phenomena in the Chadic
languages Guruntum and Hausa, based on work I did with Katharina Hartmann
and Malte Zimmermann in Berlin. This paper is more programmatic than
conclusive, and hopefully will inspire more work in this direction.
@inCollection{Buring:focustypology,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Towards a Typology of Focus Realization},
booktitle = {Information Structure},
editor = {Malte Zimmermann and Caroline F\'ery},
year = {2009},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
address = {Oxford},
pages = {177--205},
}
"What's New (and What's Given) in the Theory of Focus"
Proceedings of BLS 2008 (published 2012)
Info:
The paper develops a theory of focusing and focus domain construction
that is based on the principle Maximize Anaphoricity (similar to that
proposed in Williams' 1997 LI paper), which is formally spelled out. The
resulting focusings lead to the same accent patterns as Schwarzschild's
(1999) Givenness account, but different F-markings in the representation.
It is then shown that the interpretation of focus in the system can be
strengthened to include a notion of Contrast, as urged in Wagner's (2007)
SALT paper, something which is problematic within the Schwarzschild 1999
system. Finally, I review a set of examples brought up in Kehler's (2006)
SALT paper and show their treatment is easily achieved within the theory
proposed.
Download
@inProceedings{Buring:WhatsNew,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {What's New (and What's Given) in the Theory of Focus?},
crossref = {BLS34},
pages = {403--424},
}
@book{BLS34,
author = {},
title = {Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the
Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 8--10 2008},
publisher = {Berkeley Linguistics Society},
year = 2012,
address = {Berkeley, {CA}},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the
Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 8--10 2008},
editor = {Sarah Berson and Alex Bratkievich and Daniel Bruhn and Amy
Campbell, Ramon Escamilla and Allegra Giovine and Lindsey
Newbold and Marilola Perez, Marta Piqueras-Brunet and Russell
Rhomieux},
}
"Comparative Sandwichology"
To appear in the proceedings of WECOL 2007
Info:
I demonstrate that sandwich
scenarios as discussed for least-superlatives in Sharvit & Stateva (2002) have a
parallel in less-comparatives,
contrary to what is concluded by these authors. I then search for an
analysis that circumvents the problem such scenarios pose for traditional
degree based theories and develop two approaches, one based on degree
intervals, including `negative' intervals as in Heim (2006), one based on
individuals, as in Sharvit & Stateva's superlative semantics. Both are
shown to be problematic, though for entirely different reasons. The upshot
of the paper is that Sharvit & Stateva's argument in favor of their
superlative semantics is somewhat weakened by the failure of their proposal
to extend to the parallel comparative cases, but that their criticism of
degree based approaches is as yet unanswered.
Download
@inProceedings{Buring:wecol07,
author
= {Daniel B\"uring},
title
= {Comparative Sandwichology},
booktitle
= {Proeceedings of WECOL 2007},
year
= 2007,
editor
= {},
pages
= {},
address
= {},
}
"Be Bound or be Disjoint" (with Andrew Kehler)
To appear in the proceedings of NELS 38
Info:
We outline a new approach to `missing readings' phenomena in VP
ellipsis (like Dahl's "John thinks he loves his wife and Bill does too"),
which is based on Questions Under Discussion. We present a range of new
data that show analogous effects, in particular sentences with `only' like
"Only Sue said that she likes her appartment" (which can't entail `no other
x said that Sue likes x's appartment'), but also questions, certain plural
readings, VP deaccenting a.o. Our approach is based on a disjointness
presupposition that comes with bound pronouns, and the idea that (parallel)
utterances are answers to (possibly implicit) QUDs.
Download
@inProceedings{KehlerBuring:2008,
author
= {Kehler, Andrew and Daniel B\"uring},
title
= {Be Bound or Be Disjoint!},
booktitle
= {Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of the North East Linguistic
Society (NELS)},
year
= 2008,
}
"The Least at least Can
Do"
Paper presented at WCCFL 26 (2007), UC Berkeley.
Info: A new meaning for the number modifier at least is proposed. At
least n is argued to mean `n or more'. Taken together with independently observable
implicatures of disjunction (global as well as local, as recently agued
e.g. in Klinedinst's UCLA dissertation) this yields the correct implicature
for sentences containing at least,
including its puzzling interaction with modal verbs (recently discussed in
Geurts & Nouwen's work). 12 pages.
This paper is part of a larger paper that also discusses at most, which I hope to post soon.
Erratum, Sept 2022: Elias Qijun Xiang just pointed out to me that many of the formulae in the paper use < where it should say > and vice versa (i.e. at least 3 should of course mean max(...)= 3 or max(...)>3). My sincere apologies, I know how annoying such 'obvious' typos can be!
Download
@inProceedings{Buring:WCCFL07,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {The Least {\em at least\/}
Can Do},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on
Formal
Linguistics},
address = {Somerville, MA},
publisher = {Cascadilla Proceedings Project},
year = 2008,
pages = {114--120},
editor = {Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie},
}
"Cross-Polar Nomalies"
In: Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory 17.Info:
I observe that positive and negative adjectives can be successfully
compared, as in The ladder is shorter
than the house is high. I proposed to analyze these via re-analyzing
shorter as `less long'. The
analysis is formally implemented and an alternative is discussed, but not
adopted. The analysis proposed here is the same argued for on independent
grounds in "More or Less" below. Paper comes complete with
pictures and cool sentences about moats.
@inProceedings{Buring:SALT07,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Cross-Polar Nomalies},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory 17},
address = {http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/issue/archive},
year = 2007,
pages = {37--52},
}
"Focus Projection and Default Prominence"
In: Valeria Molnar and Susanne Winkler (eds) The Architecture of Focus
Info: In this paper I try to eliminate focus projection rules, i.e.
rules that define which patterns of F(ocus)-markers in a phrase structure
tree are permitted, and which are not. I review the purpose focus
projection rules serve, and argue that they comprise two very different
aspects, which I call vertical and horizontal focus
projection, respectively. I argue that the empirical generalizations about
vertical focus projection are inaccurate, and that, upon closer inspection,
no restrictions on vertical focus projection are required. I then return to
horizontal focus projection to show that it can be accounted for in terms
of the mapping between accents and focus, hence doesn't require separate
syntactic focus projection rules. Taken together, these two arguments
suggest that focus projection rules can indeed be dispensed with.
The goal of this paper is not entirely novel, and views and arguments
similar to the ones presented here have been given in particular in section
6 of Schwarzschild (1999). I mainly try to marshal more evidence, and
refine the theoretical proposal given there.
Download (version is slightly more comprehensive than the one that
appears in the book)
@inCollection{Buring:focusprojection,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Focus Projection and Default
Prominence},
booktitle = {The Architecture of Focus},
publisher = {Mouton De Gruyter},
year = 2006,
editor = {Val\'eria Moln\'ar and Susanne
Winkler},
address = {Berlin/New York},
}
"Been There, Marked That --- A Tentative Theory of Second Occurrence
Focus"
Ms. UCLA
Info: I attempt to formulate a theory of focus representation (in the
syntax) and focus realization (the focus-to-prosody mapping) that can
handle ordinary focus as well as so-called second occurrence focus (2OF),
i.e. a repeated focus that is marked by lengthening, but lacks a pitch
accent. I propose to use the notion of `domain of a focus' to predict both
when a focus will be realized as a 2OF, and why it is realized in that way.
The account advocated blends the focus theories of Rooth (1992) and
Schwarzschild (1999), and the focus realization theories of Truckenbrodt
(1999) and my own earlier work (32 pages).
NOTE: This version is only here for historical accuracy, and because it
contains some appendices not found elsewhere. It is superseded by the
(finally!) published version here.
Download
@article{Buring:2of,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Been There, Marked That --- A Tentative Theory of Second
Occurrence Focus}.
journal = {Ms. UCLA},
year = 2006,
}
"Intonation und Informationsstruktur"
Proceedings of the IDS Annual Meeting 2005
Info: Dieser Aufsatz gibt eine eher informelle Zusammenfassung neuerer
Ideen zum Thema Fokus und (kontrastives) Topik, vornehmlich im Deutschen.
Schwarzschilds Theorie der Gegebenheit, und meine eigene zu kontrastiven
Topiks werden kurz dargestellt und anhand von deutschen Beispielen
illustriert. Besondere Beachtung wird den Fragen gewidmet, wie diese
Kategorien zur Vermittlung neuer Information benutzt werdern können,
und wie sie sich in geschriebenen Texten niederschlagen. Ziel ist es, diese
recht sparsame Theorie auch für Linguisten, die nicht im formalen
Rahmen arbeiten, zugänglich und plausibel zu machen.
Info: A summary of current thinking on Focus and Topic, illustrated with
German examples.
Download
(this version is slightly longer than the one that will appear in the
proceedings)
@inProceedings{Buring:IDS2005,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Intonation und
Informationsstruktur},
booktitle = {Text --- Verstehen. Grammatik und dar\"uber
hinaus},
address = {Berlin/New York},
publisher = {de Gruyter},
editor = {Bl\"uhdorn, H. and E. Breindl and U.H. Wa\ss{}ner},
year = 2006,
pages = 144--163,
}
Linguistic Inquiry 36:2. 259-274.
Info: Two familiar ideas in the theory of binding are explored: That semantic binding is preferred over coreference (Reinhart 1983), and that (pronoun) binding seeks the closest antecedent (Fox). It is shown that both proposals, when combined, yield an alternative and arguably simpler approach to the co-binding facts discussed in Heim (1993), but that neither alone does (contrary to what is suggested by Fox (2000)). Then a unification of both ideas is proposed.
Download"Negative Inversion"
Proceedings of NELS 2004
Info: I discuss semantic and some syntactic properties of Negative
Inversion in English (e.g. Under no circumstances did Rafaella want to
stay behind). Looking at cases of apparent optionality, such as With
no job would John be happy versus With no job, John
would be happy (originally discussed by Klima 1964 and
Liberman 1974), I propose a specific analysis of the SAI construction
vis-a-vis its cousin, plain topicalization. Of special interest are
downward entailing quantifiers such as in less than 30 lockers (not,
to my knowledge, previously discussed in the literature), which, too, allow
inverted and non-inverted fronting, which results in a contrast between
distributive and cumulative readings (the latter are analyzed along the
lines of Landman's (2004) recent treatment).
Download
@inProceedings{Buring:nels2004},
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Negative Inversion},
booktitle = {Proceedings of NELS},
year = 2004,
}
"Focus Suppositions"
Theoretical Linguistics 30:1. 65-76
Info: This paper is a commentary on a target article by Geurts & van
der Sandt called `Interpreting
Focus'. The perennial question is whether focus introduces an
existential presupposition. The long and short of it is: it doesn't.
Download
@article{buring:focussuppositions,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title ={Focus Suppositions},
journal = {Theoretical Linguistics},
year = 2004,
volume = 30,
number = 1,
pages = {65--76},
}
"On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents".
Linguistics & Philosophy 26:5. 511-545
Info: A thoroughly revised analysis of topic and focus phenomena. I use what I call Discourse Trees to model complex contexts. Topic, focus, and deaccenting are pragmatically interpreted w.r.t. to these.
@article{Buring:dtrees,
author = {Daniel B\"{u}ring},
title ={On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents},
year = {2003},
journal = {Linguistics \& Philosophy},
volume = 26,
number = 5,
pages ={511-545}
}
In: Mikkelsen, Line & Christopher Potts (eds) Proceedings of WCCFL21. Cascadilla Press.
Info: This paper draws attention to a phenomenon that has, to the best of my knowledge, not been discussed in the literature: Stranding of nominal attributes after relativization of the DP they belong to (e.g. die Argumente, die wir gegen seine Theorie gehört haben, `the arguments we heard against his theory'). It is concluded that relative clauses must have a complex internal head, though not necessarily a lexical one (14 pages)
@inProceedings{Buring:wccfl2002,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Orphan Attributes},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on
Formal Linguistics (WCCFL},
year =2002,
editor = {Line Mikkelsen and Christopher Potts},
publisher = {Cascadilla Press},
}
In: Hastings, Rachel & Brendan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolensky (eds)Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XI. Ithaca: CLC Publications,Cornell.
Info: In this paper I follow a suggestion in Bach&Partee (1980) to analyze the bound pronoun him in sentences like everyboy's mother likes him and some person from every city likes it as paycheck pronouns (here: her sonand his city, respectively). I demonstrate how such an approach affords an elegant treatment of weak cross-over. I then show that a direct implementation of this idea yields incorrect truth conditions. A refined implementation using quantification over minimal situations along the lines of Heim (1990) is proposed, which can handle the problematic cases and captures the cross-over facts (24 pages). Note that a much more elaborated version of his paper is published as `Crossover Situations' (2004, see above).
@inproceedings{Buring:saltboodp,
author = {Daniel B\"{u}ring},
title = {A Situation Semantics for Binding out of DP},
booktitle = {Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory
XI},
editor = {Rachel Hastings and Brendan Jackson and Zsofia
Zvolenski},
address ={Ithaca},
publisher = {CLC},
year =2001,
pages = {56-75},
}
Info: Some thoughts on how a system like that of "On D-Trees..." would have to be set up in an update semantics framework (10 pages)
@unpublished{Buring:dtreesdyn,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title ={Discourse Trees and Dynamic Updates},
note = {Ms. UCLA},
year = 2001,
}
with K. Hartmann
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory19:229-281.
Info: We propose a comprehensive account of both the distribution and interpretation of German focus particles such as nur, auch and sogar ('only', 'also', 'even'). We argue that they always adjoin to non- arguments (in recent terms this means that they can adjoin to VPs, IPs, APs and root CPs, but never to argument DPs or argument CPs), and that they do not undergo LF raising. Presenting a range of mostly new data and observations, we show how this theory accounts for a variety of puzzling distributional facts with adverbial and ad- adjectival PRTs, their specific interpretations, and their behavior w.r.t. scoping, in particular reconstruction (30 pages).
Download (this is a pre-final version with a different title, but essentially the same paper)
@article{Buring&Hartmann:2001,
author = {Daniel B\"uring and Katharina Hartmann},
title ={The Syntax and Semantics of Focus-Sensitive Particles in
German},
journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
volume = 19,
pages ={229-281},
year = 2001,
}
with Rodrigo Gutiérrez-Bravo
in: Séamas Mac Bhloscaidh (ed.) Syntax at Santa Cruz 3. 41-58
Info: This paper completes the trilogy started with "Let's Phrase It!"and "What Do Definites Do...". It uses the same OT machinery for the syntax-prosody mapping to derive some basic stress-related worder order variation facts in English, German and Spanish (18 pages).
Download updated version (2002)
@incollection{Buring&Gutierrez:ot,
author = {Daniel B\"uring and Rodrigo Guti\'errez-Bravo},
title = {Focus-related word order variation without the NSR:
A prosody-based crosslinguistic analysis},
booktitle = {Syntax at Santa Cruz 3},
editor = {S\'eamas Mac Bhloscaidh},
pages = {41-58},
}
In: Müller, G. & W. Sternefeld (eds) Competition in Syntax. (= Studies in Generative Grammar 49). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. 69-105.
Info: A case study in focus related word order variation. It is argued that focus does not interact with word order at all, but only with prosody,and that, accordingly, all focus related word order variation is really related to prosodic structure. I propose a number of constraints on prosodic structure and its relation to syntax, as well as one focus related constraint, FocusProminence, and show how these interact to derive the well-known word order variation facts in the German Mittelfeld. The paper is couched within an optimality framework (39 pages).
@incollection{Buring:lpi,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Let's Phrase It!---Focus, Word Order, and Prosodic
Phrasing in German Double Object Constructions},
pages = {101-137},
editor = {Gereon M\"{u}ller and Wolfgang Sternefeld},
booktitle = {Competition in Syntax},
series = {Studies in Genitive Grammar},
number = 49,
publisher = {de Gruyter},
year =2001,
address ={Berlin \& New York},
}
In: Féry, C. & W. Sternefeld (eds) Audiatur Vox Sapentiae - A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. (=studia grammatica 52). Berlin:Akademie Verlag. 70-100.
Info: This is the twin paper to the above, using the same OT formalism, but devoted to a different issue: The definite/indefinite distinction,and among the indefinites, the generic/existential distinction (29 pages).
@incollection{Buring:definites,
author = {Daniel B\"{u}ring},
title = {What do Definites do that Indefinites Definitely
don't?},
series = {studia grammatica},
number = 52,
editor = {Caroline F\'{e}ry and Wolfgang Sternefeld},
booktitle = {Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von
Stechow},
publisher = {Akademie Verlag},
year =2001,
pages = {70-100},
}
with Ch. Gunlogson
Manuscript UCSC/UCLA.
Info: Some remarks and generalizations about different varieties of negative questions, such as the one in the title (the answer to which, too, is negative) (14 pages).
@unpublished{Buring&Gunlogson:2000,
author = {Daniel B\"uring and Christine Gunlogson},
title ={Aren't Positive and Negative Polar Questions the
Same?},
year = 2000,
note = {UCSC/UCLA},
}
In: Bosch, Peter & Rob van der Sandt (eds)(1999) Focus -- Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives. CUP. 142-165 (revised version of the paper in Bosch, P. & R.v.d.Sandt (eds)(1994) Focus & Natural Language Processing. Vol.2. IBM Heidelberg. 271-280)
Info: A short presentation of the theory of focus/topic as developed in my dissertation (see below). I argue that there is a maximally tripartite information structure, consisting of Topic, Background, and Focus (24 pages).
@incollection{Buring:topic,
author = {Daniel B\"{u}ring},
title = {Topic},
editor = {Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt},
booktitle = {Focus --- Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational
Perspectives},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
pages = {142-165},
year =1999,
}
"Identity, Modality, and the Candidate Behind the Wall".
Proceedings of SALT 8.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University LinguisticPublications.
Info: An investigation into the semantics and syntax of identity constructions. In particular, I compare constructions of the type 'It could bethe seamstress from Goslar' to those of the type 'She could be the seamstress from Goslar'. It is argued that modal quantification over assignment function does not provide the correct analysis for either of these constructions. (19 pages).
@inproceedings{Buring:identity,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Identity, Modality, and the Candidate Behind the
Wall},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT)
8},
year =1998,
editor = {Devon Strolovich and Aaron Lawson},
address ={Ithaca, NY},
publisher = {CLC Publications},
year =1998,
pages = {36-54},
}
with Katharina Hartmann
Linguistische Berichte 174. 172-201
Info: We present a number of new data around so called subject gap coordination in German (i.e. coordinated structures with a subjectless verb-initial second conjunct) and propose to analyze them as adjunction structures (34 pages).
@article{Buring&Hartmann:1998,
author = {Daniel B\"uring and Katharina Hartmann},
title ={Asymmetrische Koordination},
journal = {Linguistische Berichte},
year = 1998,
pages ={172-201},
number = 174,
}
The Meaning of Topic and Focus - The 59th Street Bridge Accent.
London: Routledge.
Info: (revision of my dissertation) I propose a theory of information structure, based on and relating prosodic and pragmatic effects. An extension of Rooth's (1985) framework is developed an applied to various phenomena of German and English.
@book{Buring:book,
author = {Daniel B\"{u}ring},
title = {The Meaning of Topic and Focus --- The 59\(^{th}\)
Street Bridge Accent},
publisher = {Routledge},
year =1997,
address ={London},
}
Linguistics & Philosophy 20. 175- 194.
Info: Using the theory proposed in my dissertation, the paper explores how prosody, syntax and lexical semantics conspire to allow or disallow inverse scoping of nominal quantifiers and adverbials (including negation) (17 pages).
@article{Buring:1995,
author = {Daniel B\"{u}ring},
title ={The Great Scope Inversion Conspiracy},
journal = {Linguistics \& Philosophy},
year = 1997,
pages ={175-194},
volume = 20,
}
with K. Hartmann
The Linguistic Review 14. 1-42.
Info: The paper presents a detailed discussion of embedded clause extrapositionand its interaction with various other constructions and phenomena. We show that in German (and presumably in other germanic languages as well) extraposed clauses are not hierarchically lower than the material preceding them, strongly arguing against theories like Haider 1993 and Kayne 1994. We present and defend a 'traditional' rightward movement analysis of extraposition(36 pages).
@article{Buring&Hartmann:1997,
author = {Daniel B\"uring and Katharina Hartmann},
title ={Doing the right thing},
journal = {The Linguistic Review},
year = 1997,
pages ={1-42},
volume = 14,
}
Sprachwissenschaft in Frankfurt 17. Frankfurt, Main.
Info: A detailed introduction to Chomskian economy theory as proposed in the Minimalist Program.
Download
@book{Buring:economy,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Economy},
publisher = {Sprachwissenschaft in Frankfurt 17},
year =1996,
address ={Frankfurt an Main},
}
"A Weak Theory of Strong Readings"
In: Proceedings of SALT VI. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University LinguisticPublications.
Info: A plea to derive so-called strong readings of NPs from the interaction of various prosodic/pragmatic phenomena with a standard semantics for the articles, instead of assuming lexical ambiguities, association betweensyntactic position and reading, or specific rules of LF construal (18 pages).
@inproceedings{Buring:weaknp,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {A Weak Theory of Strong Readings},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT)
6},
address ={Ithaca, NY},
editor = {Teresa Galloway and Justin Spence},
publisher = {CLC Publications},
year =1996,
pages = {17-34},
}
In the Proceedings of the 1995 Amherst Focus Workshop.
Info: Topic theory applied to examples of the kind 'He does not/NOT drinkbecause he's unHAppy.'
@inproceedings{Buring:drinking,
author = {Daniel B\"uring}
title = {Drinking, Accents, and Negation},
pages = {37-50},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Workshop on Focus},
editor = {Elena Benedicto and Maribel Romero and Satoshi Tomioka},
publisher = {GLSA},
series = {University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in
Linguistics},
number = 21,
address ={UMass, Amherst},
year =1996,
}
LinguistischeBerichte 159. 370-380.
@article{Buring:base,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title ={On the Base Position of Embedded Clauses in German},
journal = {Linguistische Berichte},
year = 1995,
pages ={370-380},
number = 159,
}
with K. Hartmann
In: Camacho, José & Lina Choueiri & Maki Watanabe (eds)Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.Stanford: CSLI Publications. 63-77.
[the claims and data discussed in this paper can all be found in B&H2001]
@inproceedings{Buring&Hartmann:wccfl14,
author = {Daniel B\"uring and Katharina Hartmann},
title = {Is it [only Rock'n Roll] Or Just Like It?},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference
on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL)},
editor = {Jos\'e Camacho and Lina Choueiri and Maki Watanabe},
year =1995,
address ={Stanford},
publisher = {CSLI Publications},
pages = {63-77},
}
Info: In German, on German argument structure -- syntax mapping.
@book{Buring:1992,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Linking},
publisher = {Gabel},
year =1992,
address ={H\"urth},
note ={(= K\"olner Linguistische Arbeiten zur Germanistik (KLAGE)
17)},
}
@article{Buring:frazyngierrez,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title ={{Review of Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, and Traci S. Curl, eds.
{\em Reflexives: Forms and Functions} and {\em Reciprocals: Forms
and Functions}},
journal = {The Linguist List},
number = 121786,
year = 2001,
}
@article{Buring:winklerrez,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title ={Review of Winkler, Susanne (1997) {\em Focus and
Secondary Predication}},
pages ={417-435},
journal = {Journal of Semantics},
year = 1998,
}
@article{Buring:matthewsrez,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title ={Review of P.H. Matthews (1993) `Grammatical Theory in the
United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky'},
journal = {Linguistische Berichte},
year = 1994,
pages ={396-400},
number = 153,
}
@article{Buring:semantikrez,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title ={Review of von Stechow/Wunderlich (eds) {\em Semantik ---
Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgen\"ossischer Forschung}},
volume = 12,
pages ={133-145},
journal = {Zeitschrift f\"ur Sprachwissenschaft},
year = 1993,
}