- to appear. Multiple focus strategies in pro-drop languages: evidence from ellipsis (draft)
Syntax
- submitted. Responding to alternative and polar questions (with Kyle Rawlins) (draft)
- in preparation. Or what? (with Kyle Rawlins). QID 2012.
- in preparation. Only one at least: Refining the role of context in building alternatives. PLC 36. 2012
- in press. Conditional inversion and GIVENNESS. SALT 21 (paper)
- 2011. Optatives: deriving desirability from scalar alternatives. SuB 15 (paper)
- 2009. Inverted antecedents in hidden conditionals. NELS 40 (paper)
- 2009. Using alternative questions to corner the addressee. CLA 2009
- 2009. Alternative vs Polar Questions: the cornering effect. SALT 19 (paper)
- 2009. Focus in Spanish: a processing perspective. Linguistic Symposium on Romance languages (LSRL) 39
- 2009. Processing evidence for multiple focus-assignment strategies. CUNY 22
- 2008. A covert modal in Spanish, Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) 38
- 2007. An Expressives Analysis of Exclamatives in Spanish, Going Romance 21 (paper)
Abstract: In this paper I look at that-clauses in Spanish: ¡QUE comas la sopa! (that-you eat the soup), ¡QUE viene Juan! (that-John is coming). I claim that these sentences are exclamatives, and not just declaratives used with exclamative intonation. I also claim that the crucial difference with declaratives is QUE: QUE in these sentences is different from the regular Spanish complementizer que (‘that’). I propose an analysis in which QUE is an expressive (Potts 2007) and show that all the properties attributed to exclamatives can be derived from it.
- 2007. On the consequences of being small: Imperatives in Spanish, NELS 38 (paper)
Abstract: Imperatives in Spanish can have a variety of forms: a marked morphology traditionally called imperative mood, and bare (infinitival) morphology. The marked morphology cannot co-occur with negation and a subjunctive form is called upon instead. In this paper I propose a new analysis of imperatives in Spanish in which imperatives lack tense and aspect. I propose a unified analysis for imperatives with imperative marking and those with bare morphology (the difference being the pronoun in agent position). However, when we get negation (prohibitions) semantic constraints require the presence of aspect.
- 2007. On the Interpretation of Pronouns in Spanish Imperatives, NELS 38 (paper)
Abstract: The difference between imperatives with imperative morphology and imperatives with bare forms lays on the features of the pronouns in agent position. Imperatives with imperative marking have a 2nd person and a plural or singular feature, whereas bare form imperatives are not specified for number and have a default 3rd person interpretation. This is particularly relevant since recent proposals for imperative force strongly rely on the presence of a 2nd person feature.