Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages

In this thesis I examine a variety of linguistic elements which involve ``alternative'' semantic values---a class arguably including focus, interrogatives, indefinites, and disjunctions---and the connections between these elements. This study focusses on the analysis of such elements in Sinhala, with comparison to Malayalam, Tlingit, and Japanese. The central part of the study concerns the proper syntactic and semantic analysis of Q[uestion]-particles (including Sinhala "da", Malayalam "-oo", Japanese "ka"), which, in many languages, appear not only in interrogatives, but also in the formation of indefinites, disjunctions, and relative clauses. This set of contexts is syntactically-heterogeneous, and so syntax does not offer an explanation for the appearance of Q-particles in this particular set of environments. I propose that these contexts can be united in terms of semantics, as all involving some element which denotes a set of ``alternatives''. Both wh-words and disjunctions can be analysed as creating Hamblin-type sets of ``alternatives''. Q-particles can be treated as uniformly denoting variables over choice functions which apply to the aforementioned Hamblin-type sets, thus ``restoring'' the derivation to normal Montagovian semantics. The treatment of Q-particles as uniformly denoting variables over choice functions provides an explanation for why these particles appear in just this set of contexts: they all include an element with Hamblin-type semantics. However, we also find variation in the use of Q-particles; including, in some languages, the appearance of multiple morphologically-distinct Q-particles in different syntactic contexts. Such variation can be handled largely by positing that Q-particles may vary in their formal syntactic feature specifications, determining which syntactic contexts they are licensed in. The unified analysis of Q-particles as denoting variables over choice functions also raises various questions about the proper analysis of interrogatives, indefinites, and disjunctions, including issues concerning the nature of the semantics of wh-words and the syntactic structure of disjunction. As well, I observe that indefinites involving Q-particles have a crosslinguistic tendency to be epistemic indefinites, i.e. indefinites which explicitly signal ignorance of details regarding who or what satisfies the existential claim. I provide an account of such indefinites which draws on the analysis of Q-particles as variables over choice functions. These pragmatic ``signals of ignorance'' (which I argue to be presuppositions) also have a further role to play in determining the distribution of Q-particles in disjunctions. The final section of this study investigates the historical development of focus constructions and Q-particles in Sinhala. This diachronic study allows us not only to observe the origin and development of such elements, but also serves to delimit the range of possible synchronic analyses, thus providing us with further insights into the formal syntactic and semantic properties of Q-particles. This study highlights both the importance of considering various components of the grammar (e.g. syntax, semantics, pragmatics, morphology) and the use of philology in developing plausible formal analyses of complex linguistic phenomena such as the crosslinguistic distribution of Q-particles.

Paths to peace: conflict management trajectories in militarized interstate disputes

When multiple third-parties (states, coalitions, and international organizations) intervene in the same conflict, do their efforts inform one another? Anecdotal evidence suggests such a possibility, but research to date has not attempted to model this interdependence directly. The current project breaks with that tradition. In particular, it proposes three competing explanations of how previous intervention efforts affect current intervention decisions: a cost model (and a variant on it, a limited commitments model), a learning model, and a random model. After using a series of Markov transition (regime-switching) models to evaluate conflict management behavior within militarized interstate disputes in the 1946-2001 period, this study concludes that third-party intervention efforts inform one another. More specifically, third-parties examine previous efforts and balance their desire to manage conflict with their need to minimize intervention costs (the cost and limited commitments models). As a result, third-parties intervene regularly using verbal pleas and mediation, but rely significantly less frequently on legal, administrative, or peace operations strategies. This empirical threshold to the intervention costs that third-parties are willing to bear has strong theoretical foundations and holds across different time periods and third-party actors. Furthermore, the analysis indicates that the first third-party to intervene in a conflict is most likely to use a strategy designed to help the disputants work toward a resolution of their dispute. After this initial intervention, the level of third-party involvement declines and often devolves into a series of verbal pleas for peace. Such findings cumulatively suggest that disputants hold the key to effective conflict management. If the disputants adopt and maintain an extreme bargaining position or fail to encourage third-parties to accept greater intervention costs, their dispute will receive little more than verbal pleas for negotiations and peace.