2010
"Conditional Exhaustivity Presuppositions in Clefts (And Definites)"
Draft of a note, ZAS.
Info: Some puzzling facts about exhaustivity in clefts are laid out,
and an idea for how to get them right is sketched. This may very well
all be nonsense, or clever but old. I'm just posting it so I can get
some feedback from people who actually know about this stuff.
Download
2009
"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.
Download
@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},
}
Predicate Integration --- Phrase Structure or Argument Structure?
To appear in the Proceedings of the UCL Workshop on Information Structure, September 2008
Info: 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)
Download
@inCollection{Buring:integration,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Predicate Integration --- Phrase Structure or Argument Structure?},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the UCL Workshop on Information Structure, September 2008},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
year = {to appear},
}
2008
"What's Given (and What's New) in the Theory of Focus"
to appear in the proceedings of BLS 2008
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?},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society Meeting 2008},
year = 2008,
editor = {},
pages = {},
address = {Berkelely, CA},
}
"Been There, Marked That --- A Theory of Second
Occurrence Focus"
to appear in a volume edited by Makoto Kanazawa and
Christopher Tancredi
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.
This is a revised version of the 2006 manuscript of almost the same
name. I cut out all the appendices with suggestions for further
experiments etc. (the old ms. is still available down below, if you're
interested in that), and the part about prosodic focus domains is
considerably more worked out, though still highly speculative,
especially regrading the treatment of interveners, such as in Rooth's grow rice -- eat rice examples.
Download
@inCollection{Buring:2of08,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Been There, Marked That --- A Theory of
Second Occurrence Focus}.
booktitle = {t.b.a.},
year = {in preparation},
editor = {Kanazawa, Makoto and
Christopher Tancredi}
}
"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.
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},
}
2007
"Cross Polar Nomalies"
Paper presented at Semantics and Linguistics Theory 17. To appear in the proceedings.
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.
Download
@inProceedings{Buring:SALT07,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Cross-Polar Nomalies},
booktitle = {Paper presented at Semantics and Linguistics Theory 17},
address = {University of Connecticut},
year = 2007,
}
"More or Less"
Paper presented at the Chicago Linguistic Society Meeting 2007 (under the title "When less Is more (and When It Isn't)"). To appear in the proceedings (though probably shortened).
Info: I propose a new analysis of ambiguities in less-comparatives and (mo)re-comparatives with negative As like short, poor etc., originally discussed in Rullmann (1995) and recently Heim (2006). The less-comparative
is alternatively interpreted as the `more'-comparative of the
antonymous adjective (and the other way around). Using naturally
occuring data with modals in the than-clause, I argue that this analysis is better suited to the data than previous ones. The analysis proposed here is the same argued for on independent grounds in
"Cross Polar Nomalies" above.
Download
@inProceedings{Buring:CLS07,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {{\em More\/} or {\em Less\/}},
booktitle = {Paper presented at the Chicago Linguistic Society meeting},
address = {Chicago},
year = 2007,
}
"Intonation,
Semantics and Information Structure"
Info: An overview article about information structure, in particular
Focus and Topic: How are they realized, what do they mean, what
theories are out there, and how should we think of the interfaces
involved? A good starting point for anyone who wants a summary of my ideas about information structure.
Download
@inCollection{Buring:interfaces,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Intonation, Semantics andInformation Structure},
booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces},
year ={2007},
publisher = {Oxford University Press}
editor = {Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss},
}
"Binding", "Focus", "Topic and Comment"
In: Patrick Colm Hogan (ed) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences
Info: Three two-page encyclopedia entries. Download
@inCollection{Buring:focusenc,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Focus},
booktitle = {The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
year = {in preparation},
editor = {Patrick Colm Hogan},
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 = {in preparation},
editor = {Patrick Colm Hogan},
address = {Cambridge},
}
@inCollection{Buring:bindingenc,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Binding},
booktitle = {The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
year = {in preparation},
editor = {Patrick Colm Hogan},
address = {Cambridge},
}
Pronouns
To appear in: Klaus Von Heusinger and Claudia Maienborn and Paul Portner (eds) Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning
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.
Download
@inCollection{Buring:pronouns,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Pronouns},
booktitle = {Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language
Meaning},
publisher = {Mouton De Gruyter},
year = {in preparation},
editor = {Klaus Von Heusinger and Claudia Maienborn and Paul
Portner},
address = {Berlin},
series = {Handb\"ucher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft /
Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science},
}
Topic and Focus: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation
Edited volume: Chungmin Lee and Matthew Gordon and Daniel Buring
Info: Based on papers presented at the workshop we held at the 2001 LSA institute in Santa Barbara. Link to Springer's site for this book
@book{Leeetal:2007,
editor = {Chungmin Lee and Matthew Gordon and Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Topic and Focus: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation},
publisher = {Springer},
year = 2007,
series = {Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy},
number = 82,
}
2006
"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).
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,
}
2005
"Bound to Bind"
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
@article{Buring:bound2bind,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title = {Bound to Bind},
journal ={Linguistic Inquiry},
year = {2005},
volume = {36},
number = {2},
pages = {259--274}
}
Binding Theory
(2005) Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University
Press.
Info: An advanced level textbook. I present the standard syntactic
theory of binding (Conditions A-C), and numerous extensions thereof
(Dalrymple's classification of binding domains, Reinhart's Coreference
Rule, Pollard
& Sag's exempt anaphora etc.). Moreover, a completely explicit
semantics
for interpreting binding is provided, starting from a simple
extensional
system to interpret indices on referencial expressions, up to one that
includes
semantic binding, multiple indexing, individual concepts (Heimian
guises),
plurals and reciprocals. While the book presents almost exclusively
proposals
from the published literature, it probably provides the most
comprehensive
semantic treatment of binding, aiming to integrate various proposals
into
a uniform formalism.(See the `Links' section of my main page.)
check
it out
@book{Buring:bindingbook,
author = {Daniel B\"{u}ring},
title = {Binding Theory},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
year ={2005},
address ={Cambridge},
series = {Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics}
}
2004
"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},
}
"Crossover Situations"
Natural Language Semantics 12:1. 23-62
Info: Revised and much extended version of my SALT 2001 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 son
and 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
Download
@article{Buring:Crossoversit,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title ={Crossover Situations},
journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
volume = 12,
number = 1,
pages ={23-62},
year = {2004},
}
2003
"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.
Download
@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}
}
2002
"Orphan Attributes"
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)
Download
@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},
}
2001
"A Situation Semantics for Binding out of DP"
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).
Download
@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},
}
"Discourse-Trees and Dynamic Updates". Manuscript.
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)
Download
@unpublished{Buring:dtreesdyn,
author = {Daniel B\"uring},
title ={Discourse Trees and Dynamic Updates},
note = {Ms. UCLA},
year = 2001,
}
"The Syntax and Semantics of Focus-Sensitive Particles in
German".
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,
}
"Focus Related Word Order Variation Without the NSR: A Prosody-Based
Crosslinguistic Analysis"
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},
}
"Let's Phrase It! -- Focus, Word Order, and Prosodic Phrasing in
GermanDouble Object Constructions".
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).
Download
@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},
}
"What Do Definites Do That Indefinites Definitely Don't?"
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).
Download
@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},
}
2000
"Aren't Positive and Negative Polar Questions the Same?"
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).
Download
@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},
}
1999
"Topic".
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).
Download
@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,
}
1998
"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).
Download
@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},
}
"Asymmetrische
Koordination".
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).
Download
@article{Buring&Hartmann:1998,
author = {Daniel B\"uring and Katharina Hartmann},
title ={Asymmetrische Koordination},
journal = {Linguistische Berichte},
year = 1998,
pages ={172-201},
number = 174,
}
1997
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},
}
"The Great Scope Inversion Conspiracy".
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).
Download
@article{Buring:1995,
author = {Daniel B\"{u}ring},
title ={The Great Scope Inversion Conspiracy},
journal = {Linguistics \& Philosophy},
year = 1997,
pages ={175-194},
volume = 20,
}
" Doing the right thing".
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).
Download
@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,
}
1996
"Economy"
Sprachwissenschaft in Frankfurt 17. Frankfurt, Main.
Info: A detailed introduction to Chomskian economy theory as
proposed
in the Minimalist Program.
Available via schmitt-spall@uni-frankfurt.de
@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).
Download
@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},
}
"On Drinking, Accents, and Negation".
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,
}
1995
"On the Base Position of Embedded Clauses in German"
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,
}
"Is it [only Rock'n Roll] Or Just Like It?"
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},
}
1992
Linking
Hürth: Gabel (=KLAGE Nr.27).
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)},
}
Reviews
@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,
}