Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T13:11:35.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-canonical questions at the syntax–prosody interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2023

AGNÈS CELLE Open the ORCID record for AGNÈS CELLE [Opens in a new window]  and
MAUD PÉLISSIER
AGNÈS CELLE
Affiliation:
Université Paris Cité, CLILLAC-ARP UR 3967, 8 place Paul Ricoeur, 75013 Paris, France
MAUD PÉLISSIER
Affiliation:
Université Paris Cité, CLILLAC-ARP UR 3967, 8 place Paul Ricoeur, 75013 Paris, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This special issue is dedicated to the syntax-prosody interface in non-canonical questions and originated in the international workshop Non-Canonical Questions at the Syntax-Prosody Interface, organised at the Université Paris Cité and held online in November 2020. Recent research has demonstrated that the phonology-syntax relation cannot solely account for prosodic structure, prosody being closely intertwined with discourse organisation, information structure and focus structure (Gussenhoven 1983, Féry 2001). Questions are a case in point, as they crucially call on the addressee before a proposition may be added to the common ground.

Type
Special Section: Non-canonical questions at the syntax–prosody interface
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , February 2024 , pp. 1 - 6
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartels, Christine. 1999. The intonation of English statements and questions: A compositional interpretation. 1st edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beyssade, Claire & Marandin, Jean-Marie. 2010. Commitment : Une attitude dialogique. Langue Française, 162.2, 89–107.Google Scholar
Braun, Bettina, Dehé, Nicole, Neitsch, Jana, Wochner, Daniela & Zahner, Katharina. 2019. The prosody of rhetorical and information-seeking questions in German. Language and Speech 62.4, 779–807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Celle, Agnès & Pélissier, Maud. 2022. Surprise questions in spoken French. Linguistics Vanguard 8.2, 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciardelli, Ivano, Groenendijk, Jeroen & Roelofsen, Floris. 2013. Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass 7.9, 459–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespo-Sendra, Verònica, Vanrell, M. M. & Prieto, P.. 2010. Information-seeking questions and incredulity questions: Gradient or categorical contrast? In Hasegawa-Johnson, Mark (ed.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Chicago, 100164:1–4.Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth. 2016. Prosodic phonology and its interfaces. In Fischer, Susann & Gabriel, Christoph (eds.), Manual of grammatical interfaces in Romance, Manuals of Romance linguistics, vol. 10, 75–104. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth & Beyssade, Claire. 2019. Information seeking vs. rhetorical questions: From gradience to categoricity. Presented at the Phonetics and Phonology in Europe 2019 (PaPE), Lecce, Italy.Google Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth, Post, Brechtje, Avanzi, Mathieu, Buthke, Carolin, Di Cristo, Albert, Feldhausen, Ingo, Jun, Sun-Ah, Martin, Philippe, Meisenburg, Trudel, Rialland, Annie, Sichel-Bazin, Rafèu & Yoo, Hi-Yon. 2015. Intonational phonology of French: Developing a ToBI system for French. In Frota, Sonia & Prieto, Pilar (eds.), Intonation in Romance. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre. 1966. Les dix intonations de base du Français. The French Review 40.1, 1–14.Google Scholar
Di Cristo, Albert. 1998. Intonation in French. In Hirst, Daniel & Di Cristo, Albert (eds.), Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, 88–103. Cambridge, U.K., New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 2020. Canonical and non canonical questions. UCSC/UCLA, Princeton.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. & Bruce, Kim B.. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27.1, 81–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. & Roelofsen, Floris. 2017. Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives. Journal of Semantics 34.2, 237–289.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2001. Focus and phrasing in French. In Féry, Caroline & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae, 153–181. Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunlogson, Christine. 2003. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Testing the reality of focus domains. Language and Speech 26.1, 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10.1, 41–53.Google Scholar
Michelas, Amandine, Portes, Cristel & Champagne-Lavau, Maud. 2013. Intonational contrasts encode speaker’s certainty in neutral vs. incredulity declarative questions in French. In Proceedings of the 14th Edition of the Interspeech Conference in Lyon, 783–787.Google Scholar
Munaro, Nicola & Obenauer, Hans Georg. 1999. On underspecified wh-elements in pseudo-interrogatives. Working papers in linguistics, 9, 181–253. Venice: University of Venice.Google Scholar
Munaro, Nicola & Obenauer, Hans Georg. 2002. On the semantic widening of underspecified wh-elements. In Leonetti, Manuel, Soriano, Olga Fernández & Vidal, Victoria Escandell (eds.), Current issues in generative grammar, 165–194. Madrid: Universidad Alcalá de Henares.Google Scholar
Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2004. Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto. In Lohnstein, Horst & Trissler, Susanne (eds.), The syntax and semantics of the left periphery. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2005. La syntaxe des questions non standard : Les questions de surprise-désapprobation en Bellunese. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 33.1, 3–3.Google Scholar
Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2006. Special interrogatives — Left periphery, ‘wh’-doubling, and (apparently) optional elements. In Doetjes, Jenny & González, Paz (eds.), Current issues in linguistic theory, 278, 247–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Portes, Cristel & Beyssade, Claire. 2015. Is intonational meaning compositional? Verbum: Analecta Neolatina 37.2, 207–233.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Kluwer international handbooks of linguistics. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2014. Syntactic cartography and the syntacticisation of scope-discourse semantics. In Reboul, Anne (ed.), Mind, values, and metaphysics: Philosophical essays in honor of Kevin Mulligan - Volume 2, 517–533. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris & Farkas, Donka F.. 2015. Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language 91.2, 359–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25.5–6, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wochner, Daniela, Schlegel, Jana, Dehé, Nicole & Braun, Bettina. 2015. The prosodic marking of rhetorical questions in German. 16th annual conference of the International Speech Communication Association, 987–991. Dresden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar