Download pdf version - Universität Leipzig

Welcome to the 25th Conference of the Student Organization
of Linguistics in Europe
It is our pleasure to welcome you to ConSOLE XXV! For twenty-five years now,
the Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe has provided
a platform for young researchers to present their research in formal linguistics
to an international audience.
We are very proud that the 25th anniversary of ConSOLE takes place at the
University of Leipzig. As is tradition, there are four invited speakers to cover
the four main disciplines in theoretical linguistics. The first one is Željko
Bošković, a syntactician from the University of Connecticut. The field of
phonology is represented by Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero from the University of
Manchester. Seth Cable from the University of Massachusetts Amherst will
stand up for semantics. Greville Corbett, University of Surrey, represents the
field of morphology. In addition, for the 25th anniversary, we have invited two
more speakers: Martin Haspelmath from the Max-Planck-Institute in Jena
and the University of Leipzig will give us a typological perspective and Doreen
Georgi, a young professor from the University of Potsdam, working in the field
of morpho-syntax. It is a pleasure for us that they all are with us and we hope
to learn a lot from their suggestions and ideas.
In addition to the scientific part of the conference, we also will have some
social events where we can get to know each other better. There will be a wine
reception on the first evening. It will take place at the Institut für Linguistik in
the Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum (GWZ) which was built on the spot
where the Gewandhaus, the famous concert hall, was situated from 1884 until
1944. The conference dinner is on Thursday: We are going to dine at the
Barfusz, a popular café – bar – restaurant right in the heart of the bustling
Barfußgäßchen.
We would like to take the opportunity to thank our sponsors for their financial
support that enabled us to organize the conference. Those are the Walter de
Gruyter Stiftung, which generously covered our printing costs, the Research
Academy Leipzig, which sponsored three of our invited speakers, the Vereinigung
von Förderern und Freunden der Universität Leipzig e.V., which contributed to
travel expenses, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), which granted
2
us financial means to cover miscellaneous parts of the conference, and the
J. B. Metzler Verlag, Brill Verlag, Buske Verlag and Linguistik Portal für Sprachwissenschaft, which all added their share to make ConSOLE XXV happen. In
addition, we thank the Institut für Linguistik and the graduate school Interaktion
grammatischer Bausteine (IGRA) for their support and help with various issues
concerning the practical details of organization. We would like to give special
thanks to Sabine Tatzelt and Jochen Trommer for their assistance with the
bureaucratic, legal and financial hurdles. Thanks also go out to Ana Mitrović
for her help with the graphic design of the posters and name tags. Last but
not least, we are grateful to the many researchers in Leipzig and all over the
linguistic world who invested their time in reviewing abstracts for ConSOLE
and provided us and the speakers with helpful comments and criticisms.
We hope you enjoy ConSOLE’s anniversary and your stay in Leipzig!
Sincerely,
Katja Barnickel
Laura Becker
Siri Gjersøe
Matías Guzmán Naranjo
Johannes Hein
Sampson Korsah
Local organizers
Yuriy Kushnir
Andrew Murphy
Jude Nformi
Ludger Paschen
Zorica Puškar
Joanna Zaleska
Local organizers
Kate Bellamy (Leiden)
George Saad (Leiden)
Anastasiia Ionova (Leiden)
SOLE board
Sponsors
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
Research Academy Leipzig (RAL)
Vereinigung von Förderern und Freunden der Universität Leipzig e.V.
Walter de Gruyter Stiftung
J. B. Metzler Verlag
Brill Verlag
Buske Verlag
Linguistik Portal für Sprachwissenschaft
Universität Leipzig
Contents
Welcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Program
Finding the Venue
Wednesday . . . .
Thursday . . . . . .
Friday . . . . . . .
1
7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 9
. 10
. 12
. 14
Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero
Željko Bošković . . . . . .
Seth Cable . . . . . . . . .
Greville C. Corbett . . . .
Doreen Georgi . . . . . .
Martin Haspelmath . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Daria Bikina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Imke Driemel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ragnhild Eik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anastasia Gareyshina . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ryoichiro Kobayashi & Ryan Walter Smith
Sabine Laszakovits . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mora Maldonado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sofia Nikiforova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Roberto Petrosino . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cora Pots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rong Yin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Javier Sanz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Keynote Abstracts
17
Speaker Abstracts
19
21
22
24
26
27
29
31
35
39
44
49
54
58
62
65
69
73
77
4
Contents
Ollie Sayeed . . . . . . . . . .
Ui-Jong Shin & Sunjoo Choi
Philip Shushurin . . . . . . .
Jolijn Sonnaert . . . . . . . .
Jelena Stojković . . . . . . . .
Michael Wilson . . . . . . . .
Anqi Zhang . . . . . . . . . .
Ema Živković . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Beate Bergmann . . . . . . . . . . .
Ana Bosnić . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anya Chalupová . . . . . . . . . . .
Patrick D. Elliot . . . . . . . . . . . .
Henry Zamchang Fominyam . . . .
Anastasia Gerasimova . . . . . . . .
Ryosuke Hattori . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hyunjung Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Samuel Alhassan Issah . . . . . . . .
Katsumasa Ito . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Júlia Keresztes . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ryoichiro Kobayashi . . . . . . . . .
Elizaveta Kuzmenko . . . . . . . . .
A. Marlijn Meijer . . . . . . . . . . .
Daria Mordashova . . . . . . . . . .
Takanobu Nakamura . . . . . . . . .
Louise Raynaud . . . . . . . . . . . .
Laura Vela-Plo . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maria Zarifyan & Anastasia Melnik
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Poster Abstracts
115
Practical Information
Internet Access . .
Copy Shops . . . .
Lunch . . . . . . .
Coffee Shops . . . .
Restaurants & Bars
81
85
89
93
98
102
106
110
.
.
.
.
.
117
120
122
126
130
131
135
139
143
146
150
154
160
164
168
172
177
181
185
189
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
191
191
192
193
193
Program
7
Finding the Venue
Address: University of Leipzig, Hörsaalgebäude/Seminargebäude
Rooms: HS 8/S203/S205
Universitätsstraße 1, 04109 Leipzig
Hörsaalgebäude
Seminargebäude
ConSOLE XXV ConSOLE XXV
Entrance
ConSOLE XXV
Figure 1: Plan of the second floor of the Hörsaalgebäude.
The conference will take place in the “Hörsaalgebäude” [hø:5za:lg@bOId@] and
the adjacent “Seminargebäude” [zemina5g@bOId@]. Both buildings are part of
the main campus of Leipzig University. They are situated in the city centre and
are most easily reached from the Augustusplatz [PaUgUstUsplaţ] tram station.
It is also only a 10-minute walk from the main station (Hauptbahnhof), where
most trams also stop.
To enter the Hörsaalgebäude, you will need to enter the courtyard. One
way to do it is to use the passage between the “Neues Augusteum” (a building
that looks like a church) and the VaPiano restaurant, and then turn left. The
talks will take place on the second floor of the Hörsaalgebäude, in room HS8
and the poster session will take place in the area in front of room HS8. The
registration will take place in room S205 in the Seminargebäude and coffee and
snacks for the coffee breaks will be provided in room S203. Both rooms can be
accessed from the second floor of Hörsaalgebäude (see plan of the building).
8
Program
Wednesday, 4 January 2017, Hörsaal 8
08:00 – 09:00
09:00 – 09:10
09:10 – 10:10
10:15 – 10:45
10:45 – 11:05
11:05 – 11:35
11:40 – 12:10
12:15 – 12:45
12:45 – 14:00
14:00 – 14:30
14:35 – 15:05
15:10 – 16:25
16:30 – 17:00
17:05 – 18:05
19:30 –
Registration (Seminarraum 205, continues after 9:00)
Welcome
The phonological lexicon, usage factors, and rates of
change: Evidence from Manchester English
HRicardo Bermúdez-Otero (University of Manchester)H
A stratal analysis of truncation in Spanish:
Morphological and phonological evidence
Javier Sanz (Universität Trier)
Coffee break (Seminarraum 203)
Epenthesize a mora, but pronounce a vowel –
The Serbo-Croatian language game of šatrovački
Jelena Stojković (University of Leipzig)
Some mathematical phonology – An extension
of ‘delete-and-unify’
Ollie Sayeed (Christ’s College, Cambridge)
The atoms of person: Limitations on concept formation
Jolijn Sonnaert (KU Leuven)
Lunch break
The resultative passive is agentive:
A response to Embick (2004)
Michael Wilson (University of Massachusetts Amherst)
Agreement with person mismatches in coordination
Imke Driemel (University of Leipzig)
Poster session with coffee
Norwegian compounds: The category of non-heads
Ragnhild Eik (NTNU)
Nominal classification: New perspectives
from Canonical Typology
HGreville Corbett (University of Surrey)H
Wine reception
GWZ, Beethovenstraße 15 (Room H1 5.16 [fifth floor])
Program
9
Poster session, Wednesday, 4 January 2017
¬ Feature inheritance and the syntax of lexical VV compounds
Ryoichiro Kobayashi (Sophia University/JSPS)
­ Parametrizing intralinguistic variation: Case assignment strategies in
Russian event nominalizations
Anastasia Gerasimova (Lomonosov Moscow State University, MSPU)
® Clausal pied-piping in Basque wh-questions and syntactic optionality
Louise Raynaud (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen)
¯ Superiority, economy, and information structure
Patrick Elliott (University College London)
° Pied-piping of adjuncts in Hungarian
Júlia Keresztes (Pázmány Péter Catholic Univesity)
± Similarities and differences in lexical synonymy: Far and its synonyms in
European languages
Maria Zarifyan and Anastasia Melnik (National Research University
Higher School of Economics)
10
Program
Thursday, 5 January 2017, Hörsaal 8
08:00 – 9:00
09:00 – 10:00
10:05 – 10:35
10:35 – 10:55
10:55 – 11:25
11:30 – 12:00
12:05 – 12:35
12:35 – 13:50
13:50 – 14:20
14:25 – 14:55
15:00 – 16:15
16:20 – 17:20
19:30 –
Registration (Seminarraum 205, continues after 9:00)
Harmonic Agreement
HDoreen Georgi (University of Potsdam)H
The Left Periphery fragmented: Evidence from Italian
Roberto Petrosino (University of Connecticut)
Coffee break (Seminarraum 203)
The Syntax of U/AX Right Dislocaction
Ui-Jong Shin and Sunjoo Choi (Dongguk University,
Seoul, Korea)
Syntax of Finnish numerical constructions
Philipp Shushurin (New York University)
The de re reading and the universal quantificational phrase
in Mandarin
Rong Yin (University of Massachusetts Amherst)
Lunch break
Conjunctive or disjunctive? On the syntax/semantics of
-toka and -tari in Japanese
Ryoichiro Kobayashi (Sophia University/JSPS) and
Ryan Walter Smith (The University of Arizona)
Plurality and specificity in Spanish interrogatives
Mora Maldonado (LSCP – Institut Jean Nicod/DEC –
École Normale Supérieure)
Poster session with coffee
Negation and antonymy in Tlingit
HSeth Cable (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)H
Conference dinner
Barfusz, Markt 9 (city centre)
Program
11
Poster session, Thursday, 5 January 2017
¬ Verbal aspect in Russian: Scale or continuum?
Elizaveta Kuzmenko (National Research University Higher School of
Economics)
­ Complementizer agreement in Busan Korean
Hyunjung Lee (Sogang University)
® Believing it vs. believing so
A. Marlijn Meijer (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
¯ The multifunctional morpheme /LE/ in Awing: A wh-focus conspiracy
Henry Zamchang Fominyam (University of Potsdam)
° Mechanics of variation – A case study: Genitive and derived possessive in
prenominal position in West Bohemian dialect of Czech
Anya Chalupová (Palacký University in Olomouc)
± How causal modal particles influence the mental representation of discourses – experimental evidence
Beate Bergmann (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
² Phase, plurality and floating
Takanobu Nakamura (Sophia University)
12
Program
Friday, 6 January 2017, Hörsaal 8
09:00 – 10:00
10:05 – 10:35
10:35 – 11:55
10:55 – 11:25
11:30 – 12:00
12:05 – 12:35
12:35 – 13:50
13:50 – 14:20
14:25 – 14:55
15:00 – 16:15
16:20 – 16:50
16:55 – 17:55
18:00 – 18:30
Do aliens have UG? On efficiency of grammatical coding
as an explanation for grammatical universals
HMartin Haspelmath(MPI Jena/University of Leipzig) H
Cognate adverb construction in Moksha Mordvin
Sofia Nikiforova (National Research University Higher
School of Economics)
Coffee break (Seminarraum 203)
Discourse-linked indefinite pronouns in Moksha Mordvin
Daria Bikina (National Research University Higher
School of Economics)
The at-issue status of appositive relative clauses:
Evidence for a discourse-based approach
Ema Živković (University of Niš)
Western Mari correlatives: Between two types
of A′ -phenomena
Anastasia Gareyshina (Independent researcher)
Lunch break
A configurational account of Turkish DSM
Sabine Laszakovits (University of Connecticut)
Displaced morphology in Dutch: Variation in non-finite
verb clusters
Cora Pots (KU Leuven)
Poster session with coffee
The syntax and semantics of event measurements
in Mandarin
Anqi Zhang (University of Chicago)
Spelling-out phases
HŽeljko Bošković (University of Connecticut)H
SOLE business meeting
Program
13
Poster session, Friday, 6 January 2017
¬ The presupposition of exclamatives at the syntax-semantics interface:
Evidence from German and Japanese
Katsumasa Ito (University of Tokyo)
­ Standards of comparison and the case of Spanish “que – de alternation”
Laura Vela-Plo (University of the Basque Country)
® Labeling and two types of null operators in English
Ryosuke Hattori (University of Connecticut)
¯ The question system of Dagbani
Samuel Alhassan Issah (Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main)
° Hill Mari verbal constructions on ˆl’ˆ / ˆlˆn: Discontinuous past and
beyond
Daria Mordashova (Lomonosov Moscow State University)
ee e e
± What is PO doing? Spatial distribution and group forming in Serbian
Ana Bosnić (University of Groningen and University of Nantes)
Keynote Abstracts
17
The phonological lexicon, usage factors, and rates of change:
Evidence from Manchester English
Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (University of Manchester)
[email protected]
In classical modular feedforward architectures of grammar, the phonetic
realization of lexical items depends solely on discrete phonological information
encoded in surface representations. This hypothesis accounts for fundamental
facts of human language such as double articulation and the existence of
neogrammarian change, but it fails to make sense of the observation that fine
phonetic detail is also affected by gradient usage-related properties of lexical
items such as token frequency and neighbourhood density.
Exemplar Theory seeks to explain the phonetic effects of usage factors by
abandoning the classical hypothesis that lexical phonological representations
consist solely of categorical information. Less radical approaches, however,
continue to uphold this assumption: some, such as Baese-Berk & Goldrick’s
(2009) account of neighbourhood density effects, rely on the notion of gradient
symbolic computation, according to which lexical phonological representations
are made up of symbols that are discrete but exhibit continuously varying
degrees of activation (Smolensky & Goldrick 2016).
These two approaches to the phonetic effects of usage factors differ in their
diachronic predictions. In the case of lexical token frequency, in particular,
it has been repeatedly observed that, synchronically, high-frequency words
exhibit more lenition than low-frequency words. According to Exemplar
Theory, this is because during historical language change high-frequency words
undergo reduction at a relatively faster rate due to greater exposure to reductive
phonetic biases, whose effects are registered in phonetically-detailed lexical
representations. Pace Hay & Foulkes (2016), however, this diachronic pattern
has never been reliably observed, and these accounts fail to consider another
logical possibility: that high-frequency words are ahead synchronically but
actually change at the same rate as low-frequency words.
In this talk I report the findings of an investigation into the effect of lexical
token frequency on the glottal replacement of word-medial /t/ in Manchester
English, using apparent-time data from 62 speakers born between 1926 and
1985 (2131 tokens). Two stringent tests (mixed effects logistic regression and
comparison between curve-fitting models) show that lexical frequency gives
18
Keynote Abstracts
rise to a ‘constant rate effect’ in the sense of Kroch (1989). This is consistent
with modified versions of classical modular architectures in which lexical
phonological representations encode purely categorical information and in
which the impact of token frequency is produced by time-invariant orthogonal
mechanisms.
References
Baese-Berk, Melissa & Matthew Goldrick. 2009. Mechanisms of interaction in
speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 24 (4), 527–554.
Hay, Jennifer & Paul Foulkes. 2016. The evolution of medial /t/ over real and
remembered time. Language 92 (2), 298–330.
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change.
Language Variation and Change 1 (3), 199–244.
Smolensky, Paul & Matthew Goldrick. 2016. Gradient symbolic representations
in grammar: the case of French liaison. Ms, Johns Hopkins University and
Northwestern University. Available as ROA 1286 at the Rutgers Optimality
Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
Keynote Abstracts
19
Spelling-out phases
Željko Bošković (University of Connecticut)
[email protected]
An appealing property of the phase theory is that it is relevant to many phenomena, i.e. many domain-based mechanisms are stated in terms of phases.
However, although phasal complements have no theoretical status in the phase
theory (only phases do), they are taken to define spell-out units. The talk argues
for an approach where phases define spell-out domains, which means that what
is sent to spell-out is the phase itself. Several arguments to this effect will be
presented regarding syntax-phonology interaction (concerning cliticization,
raddoppiamento fonosintattico, tone sandhi, and stress assignment) as well
as more theoretical issues such as labeling. The assumption, however, has
significant consequences for successive-cyclic movement. If phases are sent to
spell-out and what is sent to spell-out is inaccessible to the syntax, successivecyclic movement cannot target phases. Under the account explored in the talk,
successive-cyclic movement therefore does not proceed via phases (i.e. phasal
edges). As a result, the account also eliminates the Phase-Impenetrability
Condition.
20
Keynote Abstracts
Negation and antonymy in Tlingit
Seth Cable (University of Massachusetts Amherst)
[email protected]
The central focus of this talk is the curious morpho-syntactic structure of
certain negative predicates in the Tlingit language (Na-Dene; Alaska, British
Columbia, Yukon). In Tlingit, there is a small but highly frequent set of stative,
gradable antonym pairs, where the negative antonym is formed from: (i) the
root of the positive antonym, (ii) the negation marker tlél (or hél), (iii) an
additional (unproductive) morphological operation. To illustrate, the following
are the expressions in Tlingit meaning ‘it is good’, ‘it is bad’, and ‘it is not good’.
(1) a. yak’éi
0cl.good
‘It is good.’
b. tlél ushk’é
neg irr.shcl.good
‘It is bad.’
c. tlél uk’é
neg irr.0cl.good
‘It is not good.’
Note that while (1b) and (1c) both contain the negation marker, (1b) differs in
that the so-called ‘verbal classifier’ prefix has shifted from ‘0’ to sh-.
The primary goal of this talk is to develop and defend a formal syntactic
and semantic analysis of negative predicates like (1b), one that both elucidates
their morpho-syntactic structure and explains how that structure is mapped
onto their observed meaning. In particular, I will show that: (i) the negation
appearing in (1b) is VP-external, clausal negation, and is not an incorporated
negation (unlike English un- or non-); (ii) the meaning of (1b) is indeed that of
a gradable negative predicate, and is not simply the propositional negation
of (1a) (unlike the meaning of (1c)). The case for these two claims will be
based upon a variety of facts and phenomena surrounding these structures,
particularly their interactions with degree modifiers. Under my proposed
analysis, the morphological operation observed in (1b) – i.e., the change in the
verbal classifier – is the effect of a special Degree-Operator, one that can only be
licensed by (clausal) negation, and must undergo movement to SpecNegP (in
effect, a negative-concord item). We will see that this analysis predicts a variety
of facts concerning (1b), especially its syntactic/semantic contrasts with (1c).
Furthermore, I show that the proposed analysis of (1b) has consequences
for our understanding of negative gradable adjectives in English. In brief,
so-called ‘Cross-Polar Nomalies’ (CPNs) have been argued to show that all
negative adjectives in English contain an underlying negation (Büring 2007,
Keynote Abstracts
21
Heim 2008). I show that similar ‘CPNs’ can be found in Tlingit. However, due
to idiosyncrasies of Tlingit morpho-syntax, Büring’s (2007) analysis of CPNs
has an advantage over Heim’s (2008) with respect to the Tlingit facts.
22
Keynote Abstracts
Nominal classification: New perspectives from Canonical Typology
Greville C. Corbett (University of Surrey)
(joint work with Sebastian Fedden)
[email protected]
There are types of data which are handled by some as representing a single
(complex) system and by others as two systems operating side by side. Nominal
classification, including gender and classifiers, is one such domain. However,
particular analyses are often assumed rather than argued for, which can leave
important questions unanswered. Instances of explicit argumentation for one
system versus two include Goddard (1982) on case and Round & Corbett (2017)
on tense-aspect-mood. Our aim is a general typology of nominal classification,
and a crucial component will be the application of explicit arguments for
determining the number of systems involved in a given language. Hence a
focus of the talk will be interesting languages which – arguably – have more
than one system of nominal classification.
The idea of an opposition between gender and classifiers was articulated
clearly by Dixon (1982, 1986). He used a set of criteria to oppose gender systems
and classifier systems, (his terms were ‘noun class’ and ‘noun classification’,
respectively), and this approach was adopted in, for instance, Corbett (1991).
While some of his criteria have stood the test of time, others have to be jettisoned
or at least revised. Seifart’s (2005) account of Miraña presented a system with
clear characteristics of gender and of classifiers, making it harder to maintain a
divide between the two. And Reid (1997) on Ngan’gityemerri provided another
reason against maintaining a clear gender-classifier divide, since classifiers can
grammaticalize into gender systems, giving rise to a range of intermediate types.
And recent research has uncovered more and more languages that combine
gender and classifiers. These languages can be found mainly in South America,
for example Tariana (Arawakan & Aikhenvald 1994, 2000), and Ayoreo and
Chamacoco (Zamucoan & Bertinetto 2009, Ciucci 2013). A key language for us
will be the Papuan language Mian, which is analyzed as having four genders
as well as six classifiers that appear as prefixes on a subset of verbs (Fedden
2011). All this suggests that the sharp divide between gender and classifiers that
seemed reasonable and attractive cannot be maintained.
Once we see nominal classification like this, we can get a clearer picture of
the range of possible systems. If we pull apart the characteristics we traditionally
Keynote Abstracts
23
associate with gender systems, and those of classifier systems, we see that
they combine in many ways. This is a cue to adopt a canonical perspective, in
which we define the notion of canonical gender, and use this as an idealization
to calibrate from. This allows us to situate the interesting combinations of
properties present in some of the challenging systems we present, for instance
in Mawng (Singer 2016). It also leads to a typology of concurrent systems, like
that of Mian.
24
Keynote Abstracts
Harmonic agreement: On prominence scale interactions in
agreement
Doreen Georgi (Universität Potsdam)
[email protected]
I provide an argument for the use of weights à la Harmonic Grammar (HG)
in morphosyntax. It is based on multidimensional scale effects in agreement
where several prominence scales (e.g. the person and the number scale) interact
in determining (i) the agreement controller or (ii) the order of agreement affixes.
I present examples for (i) and (ii) in which the individual scales are ranked, i.e.
scale S1 outranks scale(s) S2 (S1 ≻ S2 ) in case of conflicting preferences. Such
interactions are unexpected under the widely held assumption that person and
number probe separately. Furthermore, the data seem to require the reverse
scale ranking (S2 ≻ S1 ) in certain contexts. An implementation of (reverse)
scale rankings in Optimality Theory (OT) leads to a ranking paradox; possible
solutions require (a) context-sensitive constraints for particular scenarios or
local conjunction. Neither of them derives the exceptions; local conjunction
undermines the strict dominance property of OT and introduces a complex
type of constraints. I show that the apparent exceptions fall out as cumulative
effects, known from phonology, once the individual scales (and their members)
are weighted according to their prominence, and scale interactions are modeled
by adding the weights of individual scales. The agreement / ordering rules can
refer to the harmony score resulting from the added weights. As a result, the
rules are simple and without exception. There is no need for reversing scale
rankings, context-sensitive rules or concepts like local conjunction to capture
the facts.
Keynote Abstracts
25
Do aliens have UG? On efficiency of grammatical coding as an
explanation for grammatical universals
Martin Haspelmath (Max-Planck-Institut Jena/Universität Leipzig)
[email protected]
Many linguists seem to assume that species-specific properties of human
cognition constrain the possible grammatical systems of human languages, so
that non-human languages would not be subject to these constraints, and might
be subject to other kinds of constraints. In this talk, I make the claim that many
of the most interesting universal findings are not necessarily human-specific,
and would thus be expected to be found in alien languages as well. This is
because they are due to highly general efficiency principles that constrain
any system which spends energy but has limited resources. I exemplify the
efficiency basis of grammatical universals by familiar and less familiar patterns
of argument coding, and I partially contrast the efficiency explanation with
Baker’s recent ideas concerning dependent case assignment.
Speaker Abstracts
29
Discourse-linked indefinite pronouns in Moksha Mordvin
Daria Bikina (NRU Higher School of Economics, Moscow)
[email protected]
The most widespread approach to describe the semantics of indefinite pronouns
is the semantic map proposed by Haspelmath (1997). This map is based on
five binary features; these binary distinctions divide the conceptual space into
nine functions. However, it has been mentioned many times that there are
some finer syntactic and semantic distinctions within Haspelmath’s functions,
e.g. type of comparative consruction, counterfactual vs. hypothetic condition,
subordinate vs. implicit negation and so on (Tatevosov 2002; Aguilar-Guevara
et al. 2010; Kozhanov 2015).
In Moksha Mordvin (Finno-Ugric < Uralic), there is a series of indefinite
pronouns which is derived by reduplication of the corresponding interrogative
pronoun:
(1)
m z’ard son sa-j?
when
he come-npst.3[sg]
‘When will he come?’
(2)
son m z’ard m z’ard sa-j
he when
when
come-npst.3[sg]
‘He will come someday.’
e
e
e
e
e
e
This series can occur in any irrealis context, comparative constructions, clauses
with subordinate negation, but there is an additional restriction which is related
to the semantics of partitivity or discourse-linking (D-linking) (Pesetsky 1987,
2000; Enç 1991). In such a context the referent either is supposed to be drawn
from a set of individuals previously introduced into the discourse, or it belongs
to the ‘common ground’ shared by speaker and hearer. Discourse linking of
indefinite pronouns affects the acceptability of sentences in Moksha Mordvin –
non-discourse-linked reduplicated pronouns are not allowed in imperative
contexts (3, 4) and comparative sentences (5, 6):
(3)
t’εrt’-k
kin’
kin’
lijε-n’
call-imp.sg.3[3.o] who.obl who.obl another-gen
‘Call somebody else.’
30
Speaker Abstracts
e
dumanda-k mez’ -v k / *mez’ mez’
think-imp.sg what-add what what
‘Think of something.’
(5)
mon kel’k-sa-jn’
š kaladnaj kanfeta-t’n’ -n’ čem kodam
I
love-npst-1sg.s[3.o] chocolate sweet-def.pl-gen than which
kodam lijε-t’n’ -n’
which another-def.pl-gen
‘I love chocolates more than any other sweets.’
(6)
a.
e
(4)
e
e e
e
e
e
e
e
e
mon kel’k-sa
mora-ma-z’ -n’
čem
I
love-npst[1sg.s.3sg.o] sing-nzr-1sg.poss.sg-gen than
mez’ -v k
what-add
b. *mon kel’k-sa
mora-ma-z’ -n’
čem
I
love-npst[1sg.s.3sg.o] sing-nzr-1sg.poss.sg-gen than
mez’ mez’
what what
‘I love singing more than anything.’
e e
e
e
e
It is also significant that reduplicated pronouns with partitive meaning can
be used even in specific contexts (7), while an equivalent indefinite pronoun
which is not discourse-linked is impossible in any specific context (8):
e
e
(7)
mon oš-st rama-n’
vet’ panar-t, kona-nc
˚ which-3sg.poss.sg.gen
I
city-el buy-pst.1sg five shirt-pl
kona-nc
t’ej -t
rama-jn’
which-3sg.poss.sg.gen pron.dat-2sg.poss buy-1sg.s[pst.3.o]
‘I bought five shirts in the city, one of them I bought for you’.
(8)
učit’el’-s’
mez’ b d’ / *mez’ mez’ s’ormac’
teacher-def what indef what what write.pst.3[sg]
doska-t’i,
no mon ičk z’-d’ iz’-in’
n’εj
board-def.dat but I
far-abl neg.pst-1sg.s[3.o] see.cn
‘The teacher wrote something on the board, but I could not see it from
afar.’
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e e e
e
The reduplication of indefinite pronouns is not the only case in Moksha Mordvin
when discourse linking of an indefinite pronoun series expands its distribution
31
Daria Bikina
on the semantic map. The discourse linking of pronouns with indefiniteness
marker b d’ evokes similar semantic effects: only discourse-linked b d’ pronouns are possible in imperative contexts (9, 10):
e e
e e e
e
e
e
e
sa-k
m z’ard -ng / *m z’ard b d’
when
indef
come-imp.sg when-add
‘Come someday.’
maks -t’ kodam -v k / OK kodam b d’ šava-n’ε bufet -st
give-imp.sg which-add which
indef plate-dim cupboard-el
‘Give me a plate from the cupboard.’
e
e
e e e
e e
e
(10)
e e
(9)
The data from Moksha Mordvin shows that the semantics of indefinite pronouns
depends on its discourse-linking. I suppose that the requirement for discourselinking of indefinite pronouns in some contexts is associated with semantic
weakening or desemanticization as it was described in (Haspelmath 1997:
146–154). Indefinite pronouns extend their original free-choice function to the
left of the map and lose non-specificity. Whereas specificity can be explained in
the terms of partitivity (Enç 1991; von Heusinger, Kornfilt 2005), the data from
Moksha Mordvin allow us to fixate an intermediate stage of this process.
In the talk, we will take a closer look at the cases when discourse-linking
affects the acceptability of an indefinite pronoun series. Whereas the direction
of the extension is not obvious in the case of Moksha Mordvin, I will also
discuss what the problems are with dealing this language data with Haspelmath’s
theory of desemanticization.
Abbreviations
1, 3 – 1st, 3rd person, add – additive particle, dat – dative, def – definite, dim –
diminutive, el – elative, gen – genitive, imp – imperative, indef – indefiniteness
marker, npst – nonpast, nzr – nominalizer, o – object, obl – oblique, poss
– possessive, pron – personal pronominal stem, pst – past, s – subject, sg –
singular
References
Aguilar-Guevara, A., M. Aloni, A. Port, R. Šimík, M. de Vos and H. Zeijlstra.
2010. Indefinites as fossils: a synchronic and diachronic corpus study. Ms,
University of Amsterdam.
Enç, M. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1–25.
Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
32
Speaker Abstracts
von Heusinger, K. and J. Kornfilt. 2005. The case of the direct object in Turkish:
Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic languages 9, 3–44.
Kozhanov, K. 2015. Lithuanian indefinite pronouns in contact. Contemporary
Approaches to Baltic Linguistics, eds. Arkadiev P., A. Holvoet and Bj. Wiemer.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 465–490.
Pesetsky, D. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and inselective binding. The Representation of (In)definiteness, eds. Reuland E. and A. ter Meulen. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 98–129.
Pesetsky, D. 2000. Phrasal Movement and Its Kin. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Tatevosov, S. 2002. Semantika sostavjajushchih imennoj gruppy: kvantornye
slova (The semantics of the constituents of the NP: quantifier words). Moscow:
IMLI RAN.
33
Agreement with person mismatches in coordination
Imke Driemel (Universität Leipzig)
[email protected]
Introduction Coordinations of nouns create problems for agreement if
conjuncts differ in φ-features in that they call for additional resolution rules
to determine the values the agreement target has to copy. Person resolution
typically follows a hierarchy of the form 1 ≻ 2 ≻ 3 (Zwicky 1977, Corbett
1983), with one well-known exception, namely German verbal agreement with
coordinated subjects (Findreng 1976, Timmermanns et al. 2004). The pattern
in (1) shows consistent resolution agreement in number. Person resolution,
however, cannot account for 3pl in (2).
(1) a. Ich und mein Freund trag-en
zu viel Verantwortung.
I and my friend carry-1pl/3pl too much responsibility
‘I and my friend carry too much responsibilities.’
b. Du und dein Freund trag-t/trag-en
zu viel Verantwortung.
you and your friend carry-2pl/carry-3pl too much responsibility
‘You and your friend carry too much responsibilities.’
c. Ich und du *trag-t/trag-en
zu viel Verantwortung.
I and you carry-2pl/carry-1pl too much responsibility
‘I and you carry too much responsibilities.’
None of the judgements change if the order of the conjuncts is switched. Hence,
an alternative strategy along the lines of closest conjunct agreement (Bhatt
and Walkow 2013, Marušič et al. 2015) cannot provide a solution. I propose
an analysis, couched in the framework of distributed morphology (Halle and
Marantz 1993, 1994), that derives resolution agreement without stipulating a
hierarchy but with the help of impoverishment (Bonet 1991, Frampton 2002).
Morphological Decomposition In order to derive the paradigm, shown
in table 1, I follow Müller (2006), considering the vocabulary items given
in (2), with one important exception: following recent assumptions in Albright and Fuß (2012), I assume that the 2pl/3sg syncretism is the result
of accidental homophony (see also Sauerland and Bobalijk 2013). This
assumption is due to a consistently observed intervention effect of verbs
which prohibit 2pl agreement in data of type (2) if the full form of 2pl is
34
Speaker Abstracts
Table 1: Verbal inflection markers in German.
1st
2nd
3rd
strong
pres
past
sg pl sg pl
pres
sg pl
-@
-st
-t
-@
-st
-t
-n
-t
-n
-∅
-st
-∅
-n
-t
-n
-n
-t
-n
weak
past
sg
pl
-te-∅
-te-st
-te-∅
-te-n
-te-t
-te-n
syncretic with 3sg form. Compare (2): 2pl trag-t, 3sg träg-t to (3): 2pl
geh-t, 3sg geh-t. If there is no stem allomorphy, the affix is ambiguous
between (2a) and (2e), and since pl agreement is obligatory in contexts
like (1), an intervention effect is predicted. The difference between (2) and
(3) cannot be explained with -t maximally underspecified as [−speaker].
(2) a. /-t/ ↔ [−speaker,−hearer,−pl,+pres]
b. /-te/ ↔ [−pres,−strong]
c. /-st/ ↔ [+hearer,−pl]
d. /-n/ ↔ [−hearer,+pl]
e. /-t/ ↔ [+hearer,+pl]
f. /-(e)/ ↔ [ ]
(3) Du und dein Freund *geh-t/geh-en viel ins Kino.
you and your friend go-2pl/go-3pl often in.the cinema
‘You and your friend often go to the cinema.’
Resolution Agreement I assume that the coordinator und, being the head
of its own functional projection and taking the conjuncts as its arguments
(Munn 1993, Zhang 2009), bears an already valued number feature for plural
and separate unvalued person probes that gather the person features of its
arguments via cyclic agree (Béjar 2003, Řezáč 2003, Béjar and Řezáč 2009). The
valued φ-features project to the root node &P which acts as the closest goal for
agreement with T, see (6).
(4) [&P [∗num:pl∗,∗pers:1,2∗] [DP ich[∗num:sg∗,∗pers:1∗] ] ...
... [&′ [& und[∗num:pl∗,∗pers:∗,∗pers:∗] ] [DP du[∗num:sg∗,∗pers:2∗] ]]]
This mechanism opens the doors for resolution agreement. Mimicking the
denotation of the sum operator ⊕, proposed for non-clausal coordination (Link
1983, Hoeksema 1983, Krifka 1990), I will assume that person resolution is
performed by the set union of the person features of the conjuncts (see also
Imke Driemel
35
Darymple and Kaplan 2010). With the use of the decomposed person features
[±speaker] and [±hearer] (Noyer 1992, Wiese 1994), the following functional
morphemes for T are derived (ignoring for simplicity the weak/strong and
present/past distinction):
(5) a. 1sg ∪ 3sg = [−speaker,+speaker,−hearer,+pl]
b. 2sg ∪ 3sg = [−hearer,+hearer,−speaker,+pl]
c. 1sg ∪ 2sg = [−speaker,+speaker,−hearer,+hearer,+pl]
Fission and Impoverishment The marker (e) is abstract in that its phonological realization depends on whether there is stem alternation from present
to past: (e) → /∅ if there is no stem alternation (weak forms) and (e) → ∅ if
there is stem alternation (strong forms). Moreover, fission (Noyer 1992) ensures
that weak past tense inflectional markers can contain the additional vocabulary
item: -te (see Müller 2006).
In order to derive the agreement pattern for person mismatch coordinations
we need one impoverishment rule, shown in (6).
e
(6) [+hearer] → ∅ /[±speaker]
Notice that (6) will not change anything for non-coordinated controllers, as
[±speaker] is only present if person mismatch coordination is involved. The
vocabulary items in (2), together with (6), will now derive the pattern observed
in the data above. For (5a) only (2d) -n is compatible, impoverishment applies
vacuously. Contexts (5b) and (5c) are compatible with both (2d) -n and (2e) -t,
respectively, but only in the latter does impoverishment apply and leave (2d) -n
as the only exponent compatible.
Outlook A major part of the analysis is contingent on the type of the coordinator. That this rationale is on the right track is supported by diverging
judgments on person mismatch coordination with another type of coordinator
such as either or, see (7).
(7) a. Entweder ich oder mein Freund *lauf-e/läuf-t/lauf-en
either
I or my friend walk-1sg/walk-3sg/walk-1pl/3pl
nach Hause.
to home
‘Either I or my friend walk home.’
36
Speaker Abstracts
b. Entweder mein Freund oder ich lauf-e/*läuf-t/lauf-en
either
my friend or I walk-1sg/walk-3sg/walk-1pl/3pl
nach Hause.
to home
‘Either my friend or I walk home.’
An exclusive disjunctive operator allows on the one hand for closest conjunct
agreement and on the other hand for resolution and/or a default value. The
pattern in (7) carries over to other languages like English (see Zwicky and
Pullum 1986) and requires further investigation.
Selected References
Albright and Fuß (2012) Syncretism, in: The Morphology and Phonology of
Exponence, OUP: Oxford, 236–288.
Corbett (1983) Resolution rules: agreement in person, number, and gender, in:
Order, Concord, and Constituency, Foris: Dordrecht, 175–206.
Marušič et al. (2015) The Grammars of Conjunction Agreement in Slovenian,
Syntax 18:39–77.
Müller (2006) Pro-Drop and Impoverishment, in: Form, Structure, and Grammar, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 93–115.
Sauerland and Bobalijk (2013) Syncretism Distribution Modeling: Accidental
Homophony as a Random Event, Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX., 31–53.
37
Norwegian compounds: The category of non-heads
Ragnhild Eik (Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU)
[email protected]
Introduction In this paper, I investigate the linguistic nature of non-heads
in Norwegian compounds. More specifically, I ask whether non-heads are
formally categorized as belonging to a word-class. Josefsson (1997) argues for
Swedish that non-heads of compounds do not have formal word-class. The
paper will show that for Norwegian, a language very closely related to Swedish,
non-heads do need a category. However, this finding proves hard to analyze
within existing models of syntactic categorization (i.e. Distributed Morphology,
exoskeletal syntax as in Borer 2013).
Background A compound can be defined as the concatenation of two lexical
elements, a head and a non-head, to form a single word. In the Germanic
languages, the head of the compound is the right hand element. The issue
addressed in this paper concerns the grammatical properties of the non-head of
the compound, the left-hand element. According to Harley (2009), non-heads
in English compounds are categorized for word-class. For Dutch, De Belder
(2013) argues that only some non-heads are categorized. Others are simply bare
roots without any formal category. For Swedish, Josefsson (1997) argues that
non-heads are not categorized at all.
Dutch and Swedish It is difficult to determine the nature of non-heads using
traditional criteria, seeing as the compound as a whole usually only displays
properties of the head. However, the category of non-heads seems to be closely
related to linkers. A linker is a semantically empty element appearing between
the head and non-head of a compound (Lieber & Stekauer 2009:13). In the
Germanic languages, linkers are mainly derived from genitive and plural
markers. In Modern Dutch and Swedish, linkers appear after certain nominal
non-heads.
(1)
Dutch (De Belder 2013:3)
varken.s.hok
pig.link.pen
‘pig’s pen’
(2)
Swedish (Josefsson 1997:61)
stol.s.rygg
chair.link.back
‘back of a chair’
38
Speaker Abstracts
The observation that linkers only appear after nominal non-heads suggests that
linkers are sensitive to the category of the non-head. This is in part what leads De
Belder to claim that Dutch compounds with linkers have categorized non-heads,
whereas compounds without linkers have bare roots as non-heads. Josefsson,
although noting that linkers are sensitive to noun-hood in Swedish, does not
really account for the observation in her analysis of Swedish compounds.
Norwegian Based on data from Dutch and Swedish and on previous analyses,
we would expect to find the same pattern in Norwegian. But the expectation is
only partly borne out. We do find linkers on nominal non-heads, as in dag.s.lys
‘day light’. However, in Norwegian, unlike Dutch and Swedish, a linker also
appears after verbal non-heads:
(3)
Dutch
slap.pil
sleep.pill
‘sleeping pill’
(De Belder 2013:4)
(4)
Swedish
skriv.maskin
write.machine
‘type writer’
(Josefsson 1997:57)
(5)
Norwegian
skriv.e.bok
write.link.book
‘note book’
(Vinje 1973:63)
(6)
N. Leksvik dialect
skriv.ar.bok
write.link.book
‘write book’
(Johannessen 2001:678)
The same is true for Icelandic where verbal non-heads get -i or -u (Harðarson
2016). To see that the ending on verbal non-heads is really a linker and not the
infinitive, which is also realized as -e in some varieties of Norwegian, consider
(6). In this dialect the linker is -ar and the infinitival ending is Ø. Following the
reasoning whereby linkers are sensitive to word-class, the data above suggest
that in Norwegian both verbal and nominal non-heads are formally categorized
as verbs and nouns respectively.
There are alternative ways of interpreting the Norwegian data. For example,
one could argue that what seems like verbal non-heads in Norwegian are in fact
nominalized forms. I will discuss this and other options in my talk, arguing
that they are inadequate.
Analysis If the generalization above is correct, namely that both nominal
and verbal non-heads are categorized as such, how should this be analyzed?
39
Ragnhild Eik
For reasons of space, I will focus the discussion on verbal non-heads, as these
are the ones that pose problems for previous accounts.
A first analytic option, taking a Distributed Morphology approach, is that
a root is merged with a categorizing v-head, and with the linker merged on
top of this, as in (7). The v-head is phonologically empty. A second option
is that the linker is in fact the categorizer, a phonological realization of the
v-head, as in (8). A third option, based on Borer (2013), is that categorization is
contextual. According to this view, something about the structural context
makes the non-head verbal. The structure in (9) illustrates this idea, without
make explicit exactly what that context might be. A fourth option is that the
non-head is inherently categorized as a verb, as in (10).
(7)
(8)
v
√
link
-e
v
√
skriv v
-e
v
(9)
√
skriv
(10)
skrivv link
-e
skriv v
Ø
De Belder considers the structure in (7) for Dutch verb-like non-heads, only
without the linker. She argues that the structure is ruled out based on the
observation that verbal (and adjectival) non-heads, unlike nominal non-heads,
are disallowed with phonologically realized categorizers. The argument goes as
follows: if there is indeed a categorizing v-head, this head should be able to
host phonologically realized categorizers as well, seeing as vocabulary insertion
is post-syntactic. This is not possible. De Belder’s observation seems to be valid
for Norwegian as well:
(11)
Dutch (De Belder 2013:12)
*menstru.eer.pijn
menstru.atev.pain
(12)
Norwegian (my example)
*konstru.ere.arbeid
construct.v.work
For De Belder, this shows that verbal non-heads in Dutch are not categorized
by a zero v-head, but rather that these non-heads are bare roots. Applying the
same argument to Norwegian leads to the conclusion that verbal non-heads are
not verbal by virtue of their merging with a zero v-head. Thus, the structure in
(7) is ruled out.
40
Speaker Abstracts
The second option, (8), also runs into problems. If linkers were categorizers,
that would predict that more than one linker could appear at a time. Consider
the compound in (13).
(13)
[ N [ N/LINK [ N [ V forsk ] ing ] s ] opphald ]
‘research stay’
This compound has both a nominalizer, -ing, and a linker, -s. Now, if the linker
were a realization of n, then we would be left with no explanation to the fact
that linkers are in complementary distribution. Once an n is allowed to merge
with an n, we predict that multiple n linkers can be merged. The distribution
of linkers can however be explained if we assume that the linker has its own
projection.
Moving to the option in (9), this structure states that some other part of the
context determines the category of the non-head. The problem for this account
is that if we consider the compounds in (14)–(16), the non-heads all appear to
have identical contexts.
(14)
skriv.eV .bok
write.link-bok
(15)
papirN .bok
paper-book
(16)
rosaA .bok
pink-book
That would lead to the conclusion that they are all formally the same – either
they have the same category or they have no category. Yet, as has already
been established, verbal and nominal non-heads have different properties,
presumably because they are of different categories.
We are left with the option that non-heads in Norwegian compounds have
their category inherently, as illustrated in (10). An inherent category is also what
Borer (2013) suggests for adjectives, but not for verbs and nouns in English.
Conclusion Non-heads in Norwegian compounds must be categorized as
belonging to a word-class. The data favor an approach where elements appearing
as non-heads are inherently categorized.
Selected References
Borer, H. (2013). Taking Form. Structuring sense, b. 3. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
De Belder, M. (2013). The root and nothing but the root: primary compounds
in Dutch. Ms.
Ragnhild Eik
41
Harðarson, G. (2016). Peeling away the layers of the onion: on layers, inflection
and domains in Icelandic compounds. The Journal of Comparative Germanic
Linguistics, 19 (1): 1–47.
Harley, H. (2009). Compounding in distributed morphology. I.
Johannessen, J. B. (2001). Sammensatte ord. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift, 1: 59–92.
Josefsson, G. (1997). On the principles of word formation in Swedish, 51. Lund:
Lund University Press.
Lieber, R. & Stekauer, P. (2009). The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford
University Press.
42
Western Mari correlatives: Between two types of A′ -phenomena
Anastasia Gareyshina (Independent Researcher)
[email protected]
Overview In this presentation, I aim at illustrating explicitly by means of my
own fieldwork data that Western Mari correlatives (< Mari < Uralic) in (1) mirror
conditionals in (2) and not relative clauses exemplified in (3), despite their
traditional label as a non-local relativization strategy (cf. Srivastav 1991, Bhatt
2003, Nikolaeva 2005). I propose an analysis where Western Mari correlatives
are structurally alike to hanging topics, with demonstrative phrases serving as
resumptive pronouns, effectively explaining their similarity.
Data A correlative is a construction that consists of a matrix clause containing
one or more demonstrative constituents (Dem-XPs) that are ‘associated’ with
one or more relative constituents (Rel-XPs) contained in a subordinate clause,
which precedes the matrix clause. Devices of ‘association’ are co-indexation
and matching requirement (further MR), whereby categorial features and case
features match. Typically, Dem-XPs and Rel-XPs are involved in bijection:
the number of Dem-XPs is equal to that of Rel-XPs and their denotations are
(pairwise) the same. I concentrate on simple correlatives only due to multiple
analyses theoretically possible for them, unlike for multiple correlatives (cf.
Bhatt 2003). In (4), compared with (1), we observe that when embedded under
a propositional attitude verb like “want”, the verb form in the former matrix
clause shifts from indicative to optative with respect to mood, the verb in the
former subordinate clause left unchanged. This suggests that correlatives are
subordinate rather than coordinate structures. In (5) and (6), respectively,
we provide a group of correlatives, showing that a Dem-XP and a Rel-XP
must occupy left peripheral positions within their respective clauses and that a
wh-word is inserted immediately to the right of the Dem-XP, the other options
being strongly dispreferred; we note that correlatives in Western Mari are
parallel to conditionals in these respects.
Analysis There are two camps of analyses regarding the structure of correlatives, labeled below as Option 1 and Option 2.
Option 1 suggests low (DP-)adjunction and subsequent movement to an IP
adjunct position, as in (Bhatt 2003). A CorCP is intrinsically an adjunct within
a Dem-XP, and thus intuition of similarity to restricted relative clauses is
Anastasia Gareyshina
43
captured. But for multiple correlatives, a different structure with high (IP-level
leastwise) base-generation has to be assumed, thus counterintuitively different
structures for simple/multiple correlatives have to be posited, even though
semantics is conceivably identical.
Option 2 entails that correlatives are formed via high (IP-)adjunction, as in
(Izvorski 1996). A CorCP is intrinsically adjoined to a clause at the TP/CP-level,
therefore we retain the uniform structure for simple and multiple correlatives.
The uniform semantics is another advantage of this analysis.
Cross-linguistically, it has been shown that correlatives tend to fall into the
two aforementioned types. Thus, the first question is whether a subordinate
clause in Western Mari correlatives exhibits locality properties with respect
to the main clause or not, i.e. do we choose Option 1 or Option 2? Or,
alternatively: are Western Mari correlatives more like relative clauses (Option 1)
or topics/conditionals/anything that is not a relative clause (Option 2)?
The (non-)locality issue can be resolved considering the data from three syntactic tests: (1) the question and answer test; (2) (im)possibility of coordination
of [CorCP + Dem-XP] phrases; (3) presence/absence of reconstruction effects.
Argument 1: Question-Answer Test. According to the question-answer test, a
CorCP and a Dem-XP do not form a constituent, since not only a Dem-XP can
be freely omitted in fragment answers, but answers with a correlative followed
by a Dem-XP are unanimously regarded by native speakers as ill-formed (examples in (7)). Argument 2: Coordination Test. The second argument against
the [CorCP Dem-XP] phrase is evidence from coordination. In Western Mari,
coordination of [CorCP Dem-XP] is ungrammatical, but two CorCPs alone can
coordinate (examples in (8)). Argument 3: Presence/absence of reconstruction
effects. Another evidence against a CorCP moving out of a Dem-XP is absence
of reconstruction effects. We can test variable binding to prove this. Consider
three following examples, the first modeled after ex. (43a) in (Bhatt 2003), all of
them construed so as to have an underlying representation as in ex. (43a′ ) (ibid.)
(our examples in (9) have been slightly modified along the lines of basic Western
Mari syntax). Should we suppose a CorCP being base-generated as a Dem-XP
adjunct (per Option 1), we would expect (9ib) to be severely ungrammatical.
Yet this is only slightly worse than (9iib). In sum, both examples are acceptable,
and our tentative explanation derives them, assuming two different structures
for LFs of (9ib) and (9iib) respectively:
44
Speaker Abstracts
A.
[ ForceP [ QP QPi [ TopP [ CorCP Rel-XPj . . . Proni . . . tj . . . ] j [ MatrixCP [ TopP
Dem-XPj [ QP QPi [ TP . . . ti . . . tj . . . ]]]]]]]
B.
[ ForceP [ TopP [ CorCP Rel-XPj . . . Proni . . . tj . . . ] j [ MatrixCP [ TopP Dem-XPj
[ QP QPk [ TP . . . tk . . . tj . . . ]]]]]]
In A, a QP first raises to obtain scope over matrix TP and then raises to a position
higher than the ‘overall’ TopP to obtain scope over the whole construction
and to bind a pronoun contained within a CorCP. In B, there is a single QR
instance, which clearly entails the impossibility of co-reference of a QP and a
Pronoun. The fact that variable binding in Western Mari correlatives is to some
extent controversial for speakers themselves follows from the observation that
the (covert) configuration derived in A is the one with Weak Crossover.
In sum, our findings favored Option 2. Comparing simple correlatives to left
dislocation and conditionals, we propose an even more fine-grained structure
for them:
[ForceP [TopP [CorCP [TopP Rel-XPi [TP . . . t′i . . . ]]]i [MatrixCP [TopP Dem-XPi [FocP
(Wh-XPj ) [QP (QPk ) [TP . . . (tk ) . . .¨ (tj ) . . . ti . . . ]]]]]]]
e
Examples
e e
e
(1)
t¨d¨
kü
k¨čäl-eš,
so
mo-eš.
who.nom search-prs.3sg that/she/he.nom always find-prs.3sg
‘He who looks for something will always find it.’
(2)
k¨čäl-eš
t¨d¨
g¨n’, t¨näm so
mo-eš.
that/she/he.nom search-prs.3sg if then always find-prs.3sg
‘If he looks for something, he will always find it.’
(3)
t¨d¨,
kˆdˆ
k¨čäl-eš,
so
mo-eš.
that/she/he.nom rel.nom search-prs.3sg always find-prs.3sg
‘That person [that one] who looks for something will always find it.’
(4)
m¨.län.¨m
kel-eš,
kü
k¨čäl-eš,
I.dat.poss.1sg want-prs.3sg who.nom search-prs.3sg
mo-žˆ.
t¨d¨
that/she/he.nom find-opt.3sg
‘I want that whoever looks for something always find it.’
e
e
e
e
e e
e e
e
e e
e
e
e
e e
45
Anastasia Gareyshina
e e
e
(5)
kü
p¨täri (?kü) tol-eš
jažo
(*kü), t¨d¨
who.nom first
that/she/he.nom good
come-prs.3sg
vär-¨m (?t¨d¨) näl-eš
(*t¨d¨).
place-acc
take-prs.3sg
‘Whoever comes first will get good places.’
(6)
(*mam) kü
p¨täri tol-eš,
(?mam) t¨d¨
who.nom first come-prs.3sg
that/she/he.nom
ma-m
näl-eš
(*mam)?
what-acc take-prs.3sg
‘Whoever comes first, what will he get?’
(7)
a.
e e
e e
e e
e
e
e
e e
b.
Q: kü
zvon’-en?
who.NOM call-pst2.3sg
A1: t¨d¨,
[RelCP kü
gišän ten’gec¨
that/she/he.nom
who.nom about yesterday
jad-ˆn-at].
ask-pst2-2sg
A2: [CorCP kü gišän ten’gec¨ jad-ˆn-at].
A3: *[ [CorCP kü gišän ten’gec¨ jad-ˆn-at], [Dem-XP t¨d¨] ].
‘Who called? – The person whom you asked yesterday about.’
e
e
e
e
e
e
a. *[ [CorCP kü
lekci-m
lˆd-eš],
[Dem-XP
who.nom lecture-acc read-prs.3sg
dä [ [CorCP kü
čaj-ˆm jämd¨l-ä],
t¨d¨-m]],
that/she/he-acc and
who.nom tea-acc prepare-prs.3sg
[Dem-XP t¨d¨-m] ]
väslimäš-¨šk¨ ik c¨š anžˆc
that/she/he-acc meeting-ill one hour before
pˆrt-at.
let-prs.3pl
b. [CorCP kü lekci-m lˆd-eš] dä [CorCP kü čaj-ˆm jämd¨l-ä], väslim䚨šk¨ ik c¨š anžˆc pˆrt-at.
‘Whoever delivers the lectures and prepares tea will be let in an
hour before the meeting.’
e
e
e
(8)
e e
c.
d.
e e
e
e e
e e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e e
(?)OK [CorCP . . . Proni . . . ]j [MatrixCP QPi [ tj Dem-XPj ] . . . ]
ma-m
[ t¨d¨ ]i
už-eš,
t¨d¨-m
[
what-acc that/she/he.nom see-prs.3sg that/she/he-acc
e e
e e
a.
b.
e
(9)i.
46
Speaker Abstracts
e
e
e
každˆj orod-ˆš ke-š¨ ]?i
lačok-eš
every stupid-ill go.away-prtcp.act.nom truth-el
šotl-a.
consider-prs.3sg
OK
[CorCP . . . Proni . . . ]j [MatrixCP QPk [ tj Dem-XPj ] . . . ]
ma-m [ t¨d¨ ]i už-eš, t¨d¨-m [ každˆj orod-ˆš ke-š¨ ]k lačok-eš
šotl-a.
‘[Every madman]?i /OK
k takes for truth what hei sees.’
e
e
e e
e e
a.
b.
e
ii.
References
Bhatt R. 2003. Locality in Correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,
21(3), 485–541.
Izvorski R. 1996. The Syntax and Semantics of Correlative Proforms. In:
Kusumoto K. (ed.) Proceedings of NELS 26, GLSA Amherst, Massachusetts,
133–147.
Nikolaeva I. 2005. Relative Clauses. In: Brown K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language
and Linguistics (2nd ed). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 501–
508.
Srivastav V. 1991. The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory, 9(4), 637–686.
47
Conjunctive or disjunctive? On the syntax/semantics of -toka and
-tari in Japanese
Ryoichiro Kobayashi & Ryan Walter Smith (Sophia University/JSPS &
University of Arizona)
[email protected] &
[email protected]
Synopsis In this paper, we investigate the nature of the Japanese nonexhaustive particles -toka and -tari. At first glance, the distribution of these
particles is very similar to that of the focus particles -mo ‘also’ and -sae ‘even’:
they are both used as coordinators and stand-alone particles, are incompatible
with topic, and induce intervention effects. However, while -sae and -mo carry
presuppositions that project out of non-veridical contexts, -toka and -tari do
not, and instead receive disjunctive interpretations in this context. We analyze
-toka and -tari as items that introduce alternatives, which, once they expand
into propositions, are either universally or existentially quantified depending
on the veridicality or non-veridicality of their environment, respectively, and
derive their coordinative use from their basic use as single particles.
Data In Japanese, the particles -toka and -tari are used in veridical contexts
to provide non-exhaustive conjunctions of nominal and verbal structures,
respectively, as shown in (1).
(1)
a.
b.
Taro-toka Hanako-toka-ga kita
T-toka H-toka-nom
came
‘Taro, Hanako, and others came.’
Taro-wa heya-o
soojisi-tari eigo-o
benkyoosi-tari sita
T-top room-acc clean-tari English-acc study-tari
did
‘T. cleaned his room, studied English and did other things.’
At first glance, -toka and -tari seem to pattern very closely with the focus
particles -mo and -sae. First, -toka and -tari can stand on their own, acting
much like focus particles themselves.
(2)
a.
John-wa Nihongo-toka-o benkyoosita
J-top Japanese-toka-acc studied
‘John studied Japanese among other things.’
48
Speaker Abstracts
b.
Taro-wa Eigo-o
benkyoosi-tari suru
T-top English-acc study-tari
do
‘Taro studies English among other things.’
Additionally, -mo and -sae can themselves act as coordinators, as demonstrated
in (3).
(3)
a.
b.
Taro-mo Hanako-mo paatii-ni kita
T-mo H-mo
party-to came
‘Taro and Hanako also came to the party.’
Kare-wa nusumi-mo/sae, korosi-mo/sae suru
he-top rob-mo/sae
murder-mo/sae do
‘He also/even robs and murders.’
Moreover, all of these items are unacceptable with topical -wa in (4). Likewise,
the nominal particles induce focus(/LF) intervention effects (Hoji 1986) in (5).
Note that they become grammatical when the wh is overtly scrambled over the
intervener.
(4)
a. *Taro-mo/sae-wa kita
T-mo/sae-top came
‘As for also/even Taro, they came.’
b. *Taro-toka-wa kita (ok contrastive/*topic)
‘As for also Taro, came.’
c. *Soojisi-tari-wa Taro-ga sita (ok contrastive/*topic)
clean-tari-top T-nom did
‘As for also cleaning, Taro did.’
(5)
a. *?Hanako-mo/sae dare-o hometa no?
H-mo/sae
who-acc praised Q
‘Who did also/even Hanako praise?’
b. Darei -o Hanako-mo/sae t i home-ta no?
c. *?Taro-toka-ga nani-o tabeta no?
T-toka-nom who-acc ate
Q
‘What did also Taro eat?’
d. Nanii -o Taro-toka-ga t i tabe-ta no?
However, -toka and -tari differ from -mo and -sae in one crucial respect:
although -mo and -sae are conjunctive regardless of their environment and
Ryoichiro Kobayashi & Ryan Walter Smith
49
carry additive presuppositions that project out of non-veridical contexts, such
as the conditionals in (6a–b), -toka and -tari lack such presuppositions, and
instead gain a disjunctive-like interpretation in such contexts (6c–d). For
instance, -toka and -tari (6c–d) do not entail that Taro himself comes to the
party along with someone else, or that Taro actually eats broccoli, unlike -mo
‘also’ and /-sae ‘even’ (6a–b), which do.
(6) a. Taro-mo kita-ra, Ryo-wa ocha-o dasu.
T-mo come-if R-TOP tea-ACC serve
‘If Taro also comes to the party, Ryo serves tea.’
b. Taro-ga burokkori-o tabe-sae sur-eba, mama-wa yorokobu.
T-NOM broccoli-ACC eat-sae do-if mom-TOP be.happy
‘If Taro even eats broccoli then his mom will become happy.’
c. Taro-toka (Hanako-toka)-ga kita-ra, Ryo-wa ocha-o dasu.
‘If Taro (or Hanako or someone else) comes to the party, Ryo serves tea.’
d. Taro-ga burokkori-o tabe-tari gyuunyuu-o non-dari su-reba, mama-wa
yorokobu.
‘If Taro eats broccoli (or drinks milk or does something else) his mom
becomes happy.’
To summarize, -toka and -tari exhibit many parallels with focus particles
syntactically, but they differ from them in their semantic properties.
Analysis Syntactically, we follow the spirit of previous analyses of -mo, such
as Mitrović & Sauerland (2014), and claim that -toka and -tari are actually
not the coordinator head, but are focus particles that attach to each conjunct
coordinated by a silent coordinator J, as in (7a–b). Since the appearance of the
second -toka is optional and does not affect semantics, we assume that it is
syntactically always there, but optionally has phonetic content in (7a).
(7)
a.
b.
[ JP [ tokaP NP-toka ] [ J′ J [ tokaP NP-(toka) ]]]
[ JP [ tariP VP-tari ] [ J′ J [ tariP VP-tari ]]]
On its own, -toka selects for an NP complement. As for -tari, given parallels
between it and the -mo/-sae, we propose that it selects a projection below TP.
Semantically, we propose that sentences with -toka and -tari simply denote a
set of individual and predicate alternatives, respectively, as in (8a–b), with no
additive presuppositions like those that come with -mo and -sae.
50
(8)
Speaker Abstracts
a.
b.
J Taro-toka K = {Taro, Ryoichiro, Ziro, . . . }
J heya-o soojisi-tari K = {λx.λw.x clean the room, λx.λw.x study
English, λx.λw.x eat dinner, . . . }
In the case of coordination with -toka/tari, we depart from Mitrović & Sauerland’s treatment of J by analyzing it as simply collecting alternatives introduced
by each conjunct in exactly the same way that or does in the analysis of AlonsoOvalle (2006, 2008). This allows the alternatives to be composed with other
elements of the sentence in the same way regardless of whether coordination is
present or not.
(9)
Where JXPK and JYPK ⊆ Dτ , J [[ XP ] [ J [ YP ]]] K ⊆ Dτ = JXPK ∪ JYPK
The alternatives are composed with other elements of the sentence via Pointwise
Functional Application (Hamblin 1973), ultimately yielding a set of propositional
alternatives.
(10)
J Taro-toka-ga kita K = {λw.Taro came, λw.Ryoichiro came, λw.Ziro
came, . . . }
(11)
J Taro wa heya-o soojisi-tari sita K = {λw.Taro cleaned the room, λw.Taro
studied English, λw.Taro ate dinner, . . . }
Once the alternatives become propositional, they can be manipulated by one
of two propositional quantifiers, defined below (Kratzer & Shimoyama 2002;
Alonso-Ovalle 2006, 2008).
(12)
a.
b.
J∃Kw (A) = {λw′ .∃p ∈ A & p(w′ )}
J∀Kw (A) = {λw′ .∀p ∈ A → p(w′ )}
In non-veridical contexts, the set of alternatives is existentially quantified as in
(12a), which gives rise to the interpretation that at least one of the propositions
in the alternative set is true, but not necessarily the one overtly mentioned, the
interpretation required for (6c–d). In veridical contexts, the alternatives are
instead universally quantified as in (12b), which makes all of the propositions
in the alternative set true, and thus gives rise to the conjunctive interpretation
observed in (1a–b) and (2a–b). Moreover, because the J head merely denotes the
union of the alternatives generated by each conjunct, the analysis requires no
extensions to derive the correct interpretation of the cases involving coordinate
structures.
Ryoichiro Kobayashi & Ryan Walter Smith
51
Conclusion In this paper, we have shown that -toka and -tari pattern much
like the focus particles -mo and -sae in terms of their syntactic distribution:
they can be used as stand-alone particles and as polysyndetic coordinators, are
incompatible with topical -wa, and induce intervention effects. However, they
differ from other focus particles in lacking additive presuppositions and having
interpretations sensitive to the (non-)veridicality of their environment. This
paper proposes an analysis of these particles as introducing alternatives, which
are then manipulated by propositional quantifiers higher in the structure, and
unifies their use as single particles and as coordinators.
References
Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006). Disjunction in alternative semantics. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2008). Innocent exclusion in an alternative semantics.
Natural Language Semantics, 16(2), 115–128.
Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in montague English. Foundations of language,
10(1), 41–53.
Hoji, H. (1986). Scope interpretation in Japanese and its theoretical implications.
In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vol. 5, pp.
87–101.
Kratzer, A. & Shimoyama, J. (2002, March). Indeterminate pronouns: The view
from Japanese. In 3rd Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics.
Mitrović, M. & U. Sauerland. (2014). Decomposing coordination. NELS 44,
39–52.
52
A configurational account of Turkish DSM
Sabine Laszakovits (University of Connecticut)
[email protected]
Synopsis This paper presents a purely configurational approach to differential
subject marking (DSM) in Turkish and potentially other Turkic languages.
Introduction DSM is a well-studied phenomenon in the literature on Turkic
whereby some subjects of nominalized embedded clauses are marked with
nominative and others with genitive. There are three factors that seem to be
relevant to this case-marking: 1. specificity of the subject NP, 2. location of
the subject NP, 3. type of embedded clause. Following Diesing (1992) a.o.,
1. and 2. can easily be connected: specific NPs have the tendency to appear
in higher structural positions than non-specific ones, and it is high subjects
that are marked as genitive. Regarding 3., it seems to be a robust cross-Turkic
generalization that argument and relative clauses allow this specificity-driven
DSM, but adjunct clauses are restricted to nominative-marking, at least with
‘factive’ nominalizers. This has been used to argue for hybrid case-assignment
approaches (Baker & Vinokurova 2010 for Sakha, Gribanova 2016 for Uzbek);
i.e. case assignment varies within the same language between licensing by a
functional head (Chomsky 2000, 2001) for the DSM-facts and a configurational
system (Marantz 1991) for all other case assignments.
Claim This paper aims to show that a configurational case theory can also
account for the DSM patterns (cp. Levin & Preminger 2015 for Sakha), thereby
making hybrid accounts unnecessary. Following Aygen (2007), I assume that all
argument clauses are headed by a noun that usually remains covert. It creates
a case-assignment domain that will trigger genitive instead of nominative
as unmarked case on the topicalized subject in its complement clause. All
argument clauses are therefore complex NPs. In contrast, adjunct clauses are
not headed by a covert noun and their case-assignment domains are not
nominal. I propose that the availability of DSM is not due to features on some
functional head, but to the presence or absence of an external noun.
Data Regular argument clauses in Turkish contain a nominalized verb that
retains all its matrix clause properties except for finiteness and that the subject
may be differentially marked as genitive, (1).
Sabine Laszakovits
(1)
53
Ben [ Hasan-ın bu kitab-ı
oku-duğ-un ]-u biliyorum.
1sg [ Hasan-gen this book-acc read-nmlz-3sg ]-acc I.know
‘I know that Hasan read this book.’
As has been noted by Aygen (2007), this construction can be transformed into
a complex NP by inserting a head noun such as ‘fact’, (2). This head noun is
marked by 3SG agreement similar to the head noun in compounds.
(2)
Ben [ [ Hasan-ın bu kitab-ı
oku-duğ-u
] gerçeğ-in ]-i
I [ [ Hasan-gen this book-acc read-nmlz-3sg ] fact-3sg ]-acc
biliyorum.
I.know
‘I know the fact that Hasan read this book.’
An adjunct clause is given in (3). The embedded subject must bear nominative
(morphologically unmarked) and cannot bear genitive.
(3)
[ Hasan-(*ın) söylenti-yi duy-duğ-un-a
göre
] herkes
[ Hasan-(*gen) rumor-acc hear-ptpl-3sg-dat because ] everybody
duyacak.
she.will.hear
‘Since Hasan heard the rumor, everybody will hear it.’
The complementizer heading the adjunct clause in (3) is göre ‘because’, which
appears also as a postposition in the meaning ‘according to’. As such, it may
take a headless relative clause as in (4) (Aygen 2007). We can independently
test this construction for its gap, and we observe that the head noun does not
contain a compound-marking, making it different from the complex NPs that
we postulated for argument clauses.
(4)
[ [ Hasan-ın duy-duğ-u
] (söylenti) ]-ye/na göre
[ [ Hasan-gen hear-ptpl-3sg ] (rumor) ]-dat according
herkes
sevinecek.
everybody she.will.be.happy
‘According to {the rumor/what} Hasan heard, everybody will be happy.’
When we insert an overt head noun into the adjunct clause in (3), we can
observe that it stops patterning with adjunct clauses and starts patterning with
54
Speaker Abstracts
argument clauses: 1. the subject must receive genitive case, and 2. göre in (5)
has the postposition meaning, not the complementizer meaning.
(5)
[ [ Hasan-ın söylenti-yi duy-duğ-u
] gerçeğ-in ]-e göre
[ [ Hasan-gen rumor-acc hear-ptpl-3sg ] fact-3sg ]-dat according
‘according to the fact that Hasan heard the rumor’
I suggest to deduce from these data that the adjunct clause in (3) does not
contain a covert head noun.
Analysis I propose that the head noun that can be made visible in argument
clauses, is always present even though it usually cannot be seen. The structure
for an argument clause is given in (6a) and for an adjunct clause in (6b). Both
are parallel to Aygen (2007: ex. 26).
(6)
a.
b.
. . . [ [ subject-gen . . . verb-nmlz-agr ] {noun-agr / Ø} ]-kase . . .
. . . [ subject-nom . . . verb-nmlz-agr-kase comp ] . . .
Case assignment is configurational (Marantz 1991, a.o.), and genitive case is the
unmarked case in the nominal domain. The outer NP creates the nominal
domain for genitive to be licensed in the left periphery of the embedded clause
on whatever NP does not yet have a case assigned. Non-topic positions are
inside the complement of C and therefore not in a nominal domain and will
receive nominative as unmarked case. (7a) shows the full structure for an
argument clause and (7b) for an adjunct clause.
(7)
a.
b.
. . . [ NP [ CP topic-gen [ TP [ [ vP subject-nom [ VP V ] v ] Asp ]
T-agr ] C ] N-agr ] . . .
. . . [ CP topic-nom [ TP [ [ vP subject-nom [ VP V ] v ] Asp ] T-agr ]
C]
Conclusion This paper argues for a purely configurational approach to DSM
in Turkish and similar Turkic languages, such as Uzbek (against Gribanova
2016). It proposes to account for the availability of genitive case on the subject
of embedded clauses by adding a nominal case-assignment domain above the
CP that is projected by a usually covert head noun. Whenever genitive case
is not available, we can show that there is no covert head noun present. The
structure of an adjunct clause is therefore a proper subset of the structure of an
argument clause, contra Colley & Davis (2016).
Sabine Laszakovits
55
Selected References
Aygen, Gulsat (2007): Syntax and Semantics of Genitive Subject-Case in Turkic.
California Linguistic Notes 32 (Spring 2007): 1–39.
Baker, Mark & Nadya Vinokurova (2010): Two Modalities of Case Assignment:
Case in Sakha. NLLT 28: 593–642
Colley, Justin & Colin Davis (2016): A new approach to Turkish nominalized
clauses, WAFL 12.
Gribanova, Vera (2016): Case, agreement, and differential subject marking in
Uzbek nominalized clauses. Ms., Stanford.
Levin, Ted & Omer Preminger (2015): Case in Sakha: are two modalities really
necessary? NLLT 33(1): 231–250.
56
Plurality and specificity in Spanish interrogatives
Mora Maldonado (Institut Jean Nicod, École Normale Supérieure, Paris)
[email protected]
1 Background The meaning of interrogative sentences is contained in their
answerhood conditions (Kartunnen, 1977). Singular wh-questions in English
differ from plural and neutral interrogatives in that they trigger an uniqueness
effect: they require a single true answer which names a singularity, and lead to
a presupposition failure otherwise. Most accounts explain these differences
by assuming that (a) only singular marking has semantic import (i.e. weak
account of plurality, Link 1983, Sauerland 2003, 2005, Spector 2007); and (b)
interrogatives admit a maximally informative answer (Dayal 1996, Heim 2004,
Fox 2013, a.o.). By (a), a question such as ‘Which students called?’ will denote a
set of singular and plural propositions, while ‘Which student called?’ will only
contain singularities in its denotation. By (b), a complete answer to each of
these questions should specify all the students who called. This maximality
requirement has been captured by proposing an answerhood operator, which
presupposes the existence of a maximal true proposition in the question
denotation, and it returns this proposition as an answer in w (e.g. Dayal’s ANS
in (1)).
(1)
JANSK(Q)(w)= ιp.p∈Q ∧ p(w) ∧ ∀p′ ∈Q: p’(w)→ p’⊂p
Since a matrix question Q can be uttered in w iff ANS(Q) is defined in w, the
uniqueness effect is explained. The fact that plural questions typically get plural
answers is accounted for as the result of a pragmatic competition between
singular and plural alternatives (Dayal 1996).
2 Puzzle Spanish distinguishes morphologically between singular and plurals
forms of interrogative pronouns or quantifiers (e.g. (2)). While quiénesinterrogatives typically require a plurality named in the answer, singular
quién-questions (e.g. (2a)) can give rise to both singular and plural answers (i.e.
no uniqueness effect), suggesting that the wh-element ‘quién’ is not semantically
singular and it denotes both atomic and plural individuals (cf. English ‘who’).
Once we assume an underspecified meaning for ‘quién’, keeping a weak account
of plurality would make the system redundant: ‘quién’ and ‘quiénes’ would have
exactly the same denotation and they should be interchangeable.
Mora Maldonado
57
(2) w1 : Only John and Mary went to the party; w2 : Only John went to the party
a. Quién fue a la fiesta? ANS(Q)(w1 )=John and Mary; ANS(Q)(w2 )=John.
Whosg went to the party?
b. Quiénes fue a la fiesta? ANS(Q)(w1 )=John and Mary; ANS(Q)(w2 )=#
Whopl went to the party?
In this paper, I will describe the distribution of quién and quiénes interrogatives
in Spanish, and claim that ‘quién’ and ‘quiénes’ can be only understood under a
strong account of plurality, such that ‘quiénes’ is semantically plural.
3 Distribution of quién and quiénes interrogatives The availability of quién
and quiénes interrogatives is restricted by the utterance context: the possibility
of using each of these questions depends on the information that speaker
and hearer share about the expected answer (i.e. common ground). Quiénes
interrogatives can be felicitously uttered iff it is common knowledge that
a plurality will be named in the exhaustive answer (e.g. (3b)). Conversely,
whenever (i) the speaker is ignorant about the exact cardinality of the answer
(e.g. ‘at least one’ scenarios in (4)) or (ii) the speaker targets a singular maximal
answer (e.g. ‘exactly one’ scenarios in (3a)), quiénes-interrogatives will lead to a
presupposition failure, and only the alternative with ‘quién’ would be available.
(3)
a.
b.
(4)
a.
b.
Una de mis amigas fue a la fiesta pero no me acuerdo quién
(# quiénes).
‘One of my friends went to the party but I don’t remember whoSG
(# whoPL )’.
Varias amigas fueron a la fiesta pero no me acuerdo quiénes
(?? quién).
‘Several friends went to the party but I don’t remember whoPL
(?? whoSG )’.
Quién fue a la fiesta? Alguien debe haber ido.
WhoSG went to the party? Someone must have been there.
# Quiénes fueron a la fiesta? Alguien debe haber ido.
WhoPL went to the party? Someone must have been there.
3.1 Cardinality requirement: ‘cuáles NP’ vs ‘quiénes’ Quiénes-interrogatives
only have plural propositions in their denotation and, therefore, they give rise
to a plurality effect (mirror image of the uniqueness effect in English questions).
This contrasts with the denotation of plural cuáles-interrogatives (cf. which-
58
Speaker Abstracts
interrogatives). For instance, in ((5)), the interrogative with ‘quiénes’, but not
the one with ‘cuáles’, lacks a cumulative reading where for each day there is a
single friend that John invited.
(5)
Each day Juan invited at least one friend.
a. Juan sabe a cuáles/qué amigos invitó cada día de la semana.
‘Juan knows which friends did he invite each day of the week.’
b. #Juan sabe a quiénes invitó cada día de la semana.
‘Juan knows whopl did he invite each day of the week.’
3.2 Specificity or D-linking constraint In certain cases, speaker’s knowledge
about answer cardinality is not enough to license quiénes-interrogatives (e.g.
(6)). On top of the plurality requirement, these questions seem to require
specific contexts, where the speaker can identify the elements in the domain,
and ask for a choice among them. This notion corresponds to the D-linked
property (Pesetsky 1987, 2000) attributed to which-phrases in English.
(6)
Mary and John arrive at their apartment, where there is supposed to be no
one. They hear two people whispering inside. Mary says to John:
Quién está ahí? / # Quiénes están ahí?
‘Who is in there?’
4 Account The use conditions of quién and quiénes interrogatives can be
summarized as follows: A quiénes-interrogative Q can be uttered in w iff (i)
ANS(Q) is defined in w; and (ii) for all x ∈ D e , JxKw is known. Otherwise, the
alternative with ‘quién’ should be used. This distribution can be accounted
by assuming that ‘quiénes’ contains in its lexical entry both a plurality and a
D-linked requirement, whereas ‘quién’ is underspecified.
Let us assume a known domain D e , such that D e = {m, b, j, m ⊕ b, m ⊕
j, b ⊕ j, m ⊕ j ⊕ b}. The denotations for ((2a)) and ((2b)) are given in ((7)).
(7) a. J(2a)Kw = λp.∃x ∈ D e . x is human & p = λw *went-to-the-party(w)(x)
= {m went, j went, b went, m ⊕ j went, m ⊕ b went, j ⊕ b went,
m ⊕ j ⊕ b went}
w
b. J(2b)K = λp.∃x.∣x∣ > 1& x are human & p = λw went-to-theparty(w)(x)
= {m ⊕ j went, m ⊕ b went, j ⊕ b went, m ⊕ j ⊕ b went}
Mora Maldonado
59
Employing the ANS operator will yield to two LFs with different presuppositional strength: the worlds where ANS(J(2b)K) is defined are included in
the worlds ANS(J(2a)K) is defined. In every world where the maximal true
answer is predicated from a singularity, ANS(J(2a)K) will correctly yield to a
presupposition failure. Conversely, in any scenario where more than one person
went to the party and the speaker knows it, ANS(J(2a)K) and ANS(J(2b)K) will
be strawson equivalent. A pragmatic principle such as Maximize Presupposition!
(Heim 1991, Schlenker 2012) would then select the latter, since this is the LF
carrying a stronger presupposition. When a quién-interrogative is uttered, one
should infer that it’s not presupposed that the question has a plural answer,
or the alternative with ‘quiénes’ should have been used. Questions such as
((2a)) are therefore preferred in ‘at least one’ type of situations, triggering an
ignorance inference regarding the cardinality of the answer. However, if the
speaker is assumed to be opinionated, the alternative with ‘quiénes’ can be
safely negated, deriving an exhaustive, ‘exactly-one’, implicature. The concrete
implementation of this derivation depends, crucially, on the particular account
of scalar implicatures that we choose.
Selected References
Dayal, V. 1996. Locality in wh quantification: questions and relative clauses in
Hindi. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fox, D. 2013. Mention-some readings of questions. Class notes, MIT Seminars.
Heim, I. 1991. Articles and definiteness, In: Semantics. An international
handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Karttunen, L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and philosophy,
1, 3–44.
Pesetsky, D. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. The representation of (in) definiteness, 98, 98–129.
Pesetsky, D. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. MIT press.
Sauerland, U. 2003. A new semantics for number. Semantics and Linguistic
Theory, 13, 258–275.
Sauerland, U., Anderssen, J. and Yatsushiro, K. 2005. The plural is semantically
unmarked. Linguistic Evidence, 4, 409–430.
Schlenker, P. 2012. Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Natural
Language Semantics, 20, 391–429.
Spector, B. 2007. Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higherorder implicatures, In: Presupposition and implicature in compositional
semantics. Springer, 243–281.
60
Cognate adverb construction in Moksha Mordvin
Sofia Nikiforova (NRU Higher School of Economics, Moscow)
[email protected]
This study focuses on semantics of the cognate adverb construction in Moksha,
a Finno-Ugric language (Uralic language family) spoken in Mordovia, Russia.
This phenomenon has never been looked at closely before, nor has it been
compared to similar constructions in other languages. In this study the Moksha
data is viewed in the typological perspective; we provide a thorough description
of the construction’s semantics and propose an analysis which can be applied to
other languages as well.
The cognate adverb construction (CAC) is formed by a conjugated form of a
verb and a deverbal adverb derived from the same stem. Such constructions,
unlike usual ‘verb + adverb/gerund’ combinations that have more or less
compositional semantics, possess their own meaning, see (1).
c’ora-s’
ud- z’
ud-i
boy-def.sg sleep-conv.atd sleep-npst.3sg
(lit.: ‘The boy sleeps (how?) sleeping.’)
1. ‘The boy sleeps soundly.’
2. ‘The boy is sleeping (and not just lying with his eyes shut).’
(1)
e
Meanings of the Moksha cognate adverb construction fall into two categories:
intensification and ‘accuracy of description’.
Intensification Different groups of verbs get intensified in different ways.
Many verbs get intensified with respect to the most prominent parameter in
their semantic class.
For example, for most of the motion verbs it is the speed parameter:
las’k z’ las’k ms ‘to run very quickly; lit.: to run running’; šačt z’ šačt ms ‘to
crawl very slowly; lit.: to crawl crawling’.
For most of the sound verbs it is the loudness parameter:
ivad’ z’ ivad’ ms ‘to shout very loudly; lit.: to shout shouting’; toškaz’ toškams
‘to whisper very softly; lit.: to whisper whispering’
In the case of verbs with an incremental theme, the CAC indicates that the
whole theme is affected by the event.
e
e
e
e
e
e
Sofia Nikiforova
kuc
pal- z’
pal-i
house.def.sg burn-conv.atd burn-prs.3sg
‘The whole house is burning.’
e
(2)
61
Not all verbs get intensified when they appear in a CAC; however, given a
context of implicit or explicit contrast, all Moksha verbs in this construction can
receive the next meaning we are going to discuss– the ‘accuracy of description’.
Accuracy of description The use of the construction can also indicate the
speaker’s certainty that the chosen verb is the most suitable one for this particular
situation.
s’orma-t’
son s’ormad- z’
s’ormad- z’
he write-conv.atd write-pst.3sg.s.3sg.o letter-def.gen
‘He wrote the letter (he didn’t type it).’
e e
e
(3)
This meaning of the CAC is often found in metaphors and exaggerations.
e e
l’ij- z’
l’ij-s’
od
ping -z’
fly-conv.atd fly-pst.3sg young time-1sg.poss.sg
‘My young years have really flown by (not just gone by).’
e
(4)
Constructions with similar form and meaning can be found in other languages
as well (Uralic, Semitic, Slavic, Nilo-Saharan). The examples below provide a
mere illustration:
• Almost identical (both in form and meaning) CACs can be found in
languages closely related to Moksha Mordvin: Erzya Mordvin, Shoksha
Mordvin, Hill Mari, etc.
• In Hungarian there is a syntactic reduplication construction formed by a
deverbal adverb derived from the stem by the suffix -va/-ve, followed by
the conjugated form of the same verb:
(5)
Hát kér-ve kér-ünk titek-et
well ask-adv ask-1pl 2pl-acc
‘We beg you very much.’ (Brdar et al. 2014:5)
It is used to express intensification.
• So called ‘tautological infinitive’ constructions are found in many, if not
all, Semitic languages (Biblical Hebrew, Old Aramaic, Syriac, Ugaritic,
62
Speaker Abstracts
Akkadian, Classical Arabic, Maltese and others). These constructions are
formed by a conjugated verb and a special verbal form usually called ‘the
infinitive absolute’.
(6)
Biblical Hebrew
sakol
visakel
stone:inf.abs stone:npst.3m.sg
‘He will be surely stoned.’
It is also used to show the completeness of an occurrence (as in horeš lo horišo
‘did not utterly drive them out’) or to intensify the idea of the verb in some
other way (as in šim’u šamoa ‘listen attentively’).
The hypothesis Our hypothesis is that the two meanings of the Moksha
cognate adverb construction are in fact two manifestations of a single meaning.
This meaning is defined as follows: the construction narrows down the verb
denotation leaving only its nuclear part, its most prototypical ‘representatives’.
In the semantics of some verbs there is a parameter that is crucial for
distinguishing between prototypical and non-prototypical situations denoted
by the verb. It is, for example, the speed parameter for the verb ‘to run’: fast
running is prototypical and slow running is not. When a speaker uses a verb
like ‘to run’ in a CAC, only prototypical (i.e. fast) running is meant. And so it
brings about the intensification effect.
If there is no such parameter in the verb’s semantics, there is no intensification
effect. But the use of a CAC still means the same thing – that the situation
the speaker is describing is prototypical for the verb in the construction. This
creates an implicature: ‘if the situation is prototypical for the verb V, there can
be no mistake in choosing V for its description’ and thus leads to the ‘accuracy
of description’ meaning.
Data from different Uralic, Semitic and other languages mentioned above
can be analyzed in a similar way. The proposed analysis puts Moksha CACs
next to other cases of lexical and syntactic reduplication that are sometimes
described within the prototype theory.
63
The left periphery fragmented: Evidence from Italian
Roberto Petrosino (University of Connecticut)
[email protected]
Introduction The purpose of this paper is to provide new evidence shedding
light on the status of cartographic projections. The cartographic approach
assumes that the underlying syntactic structure of sentences is more complex
than the usual functional projections – i.e., CP, IP/TP, vP, VP, DP/NP. Thus,
regarding traditional CP, Rizzi (1997) argues that the traditional CP is actually
made up of several projections, where scope-discourse features (such as focus
and topic) are licensed. One of the issues that is currently debated regarding
Rizzi’s (1997) is whether the full structure in (1) is always projected (i.e. whether
CP is always fully split).
(1)
[[ ForceP Fore [ TopP Top [ FocP Foc [ TopP Top [ FinP Fin ] IP ]]]]]
By analyzing data regarding anaphor binding across clauses in Italian, the
present contribution bears on two issues. First, I show that an anaphor in
an embedded clause can be bound from a higher clause only if it is at the
outmost edge of the embedded clause, in compliance with the phasal approach
to Condition A. Second, based on such anaphor-binding data, I show that the
full CP cartography from (1) is not always projected, thus providing a new
perspective on the issue.
Discussion In Italian, anaphor binding across clauses is generally disallowed,
as illustrated by (2) (all the unacceptable examples in the abstract are fine if
they are modified so that they do not contain an anaphor).
(2)
*Giannii si
chiede [ se
Maria ha
comprato [ il
Gianni refl ask.3sg whether Maria aux.3sg buy.ppt.msg [ the
ritratto di [ se stesso
]i ]].
picture of [ refl same.msg ]
‘Johni wonders whether Mary has bought the picture of himselfi .’
However, such examples improve if the anaphor-containing DP is fronted.
Crucially, the anaphor must be fronted to the embedded clause initial position,
as the examples in (3–4) show, where the anaphor-containing DP is fronted to
the embedded clause initial position in (3), but not in (4).
64
Speaker Abstracts
(3)
?Giannii si
chiede [ [ quale ritratto di [ se stesso
]i ]
Gianni refl ask.3sg which picture of refl same.msg Maria
Maria ha
comprato ].
aux.3sg buy.ppt.msg
‘Gianni wonders which picture of himself Mary bought.’
(4)
*Giannii si
chiede, [ Maria, [ quale ritratto di [ se stesso
]i ],
Gianni refl ask.3sg Maria which picture of refl same.msg
ha
comprato ].
aux.3sg buy.ppt.msg
‘Gianni wonders which picture of himself Mary bought.’
The effect is confirmed by anaphor-containing topics, as in the examples in
(5–6), both of which contain a topic and a wh-phrase in the embedded clause.
Although both orders of these two elements are in principle possible, when the
topic contains an anaphor, the topic must precede the wh-phrase.
(5)
Giannii si
chiede, [ [ [ il ritratto di [ se stesso
]i ]j , chi loj
Gianni refl ask.3sg
the picture of refl same.msg
who cl
ha
comprato ].
aux.3sg buy.ppt.msg
‘John wonders, the picture of himself, who bought.’
(6)
*Giannii si
chiede, [ chi, [ [ il ritratto di [ se stesso
]i ]j , loj
Gianni refl ask.3sg who the picture of refl same.msg
cl
ha
comprato ].
aux.3sg buy.ppt.msg
‘John wonders, the picture of himself, who bought.’
In the talk I will discuss a number of other constructions that involve interaction
between different types of fronting and anaphor binding which all confirm the
pattern that was exhibited by the above constructions: cross-clausal binding
of an anaphor is possible only if the DP that contains the anaphor is clauseinitial. I argue that this pattern, i.e. the data given in examples (3–6), provides
support for the phase-based conception of Condition A (see Bošković 2016b,
Canac-Marquis 2005, Despić 2013, Hicks 2009, Lee-Schoenfeld 2008, Safir 2014,
among others), where an anaphor may be bound outside of its clausal phase
only if it is located at the edge of that phase, under the assumption that the
highest clausal projection is a phase (see Bošković 2014, 2015; Wurmbrand
Roberto Petrosino
65
2014, for a number of arguments to this effect). The anaphor-containing DP is
at the edge of the embedded clause phase in (3), but not in (4). It is also at
the embedded clause phase edge in (5), but not in (6). Crucially, this is the
case only if the full CP cartographic structure is not always projected: if it
were, all the cases where the anaphor se stesso is not in [Spec, ForceP] should
be unacceptable. Being the highest clausal projection in (1), ForceP would
always be a phase if present: the anaphor-containing DP, which is located
in [Spec, FocP] in (3) and in [Spec, TopP] in (5), then would not be located
at the phasal edge, hence these examples should also be unacceptable. The
data presented above then indicate that the finely-articulated sequence of
functional projections in the traditional CP field is not always projected – in
fact, only the projections with overt morphological manifestation are projected
in the examples discussed above (for recent arguments to this effect from very
different considerations, see Bošković 2016a, Erlewine 2016).
Conclusion This talk provides data regarding anaphor binding across clauses
in Italian which show that an anaphor may be bound cross-clausally only
when it is located at the phasal edge of the clause. It is shown that the data can
be captured under the phase-based approach to Condition A. The data also
provide evidence that the full left periphery may not be always projected. The
talk will also discuss more complicated constructions where the relevant phase
has more than one edge, which will be used to test Bošković’s (2016b) claim that
in the case of a phase which has multiple edges, only the outmost edge counts
as the phasal edge for the purpose of the Phase-Impenetrability Condition.
References
Bošković, Željko (2014). Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the
variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45,
27–89.
Bošković, Željko (2015). ‘From the Complex NP Constraint to everything: On
deep extractions across categories’, The Linguistic Review 32, 603–669.
Bošković, Željko (2016a). On the timing of labeling: Deducing Comp-trace
effects, the Subject Condition, the Adjunct Condition, and tucking in from
labeling. The Linguistic Review 33, 17–66.
Bošković, Željko (2016b). Getting really edgy: On the edge of the edge. Linguistic
Inquiry 47(1), 1–33.
Canac-Marquis, Réjean (2005). Phases and binding of reflexives and pronouns
66
Speaker Abstracts
in English. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on head-driven
phrase structure grammar, 482–502. CLSI Publications Stanford, CA.
Despic, Miloje (2013). Binding and the structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian.
Linguistic Inquiry 44, 239–270.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka (2016). ‘Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel
Agent Focus.’ Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2), 429–479.
Hicks, Glyn (2009). The derivation of anaphoric relations, vol. 139. John
Benjamins Publishing.
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera (2008). Binding, phases, and locality. Syntax 11, 281–298.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In: Elements of
grammar, pp. 281–337.
Safir, Ken (2014). One true anaphor. Linguistic Inquiry 45, 91–124.
Wurmbrand, Susi (2014). Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic
Inquiry 45, 403–447.
67
Displaced morphology in Dutch: Variation in non-finite verb
clusters
Cora Pots (KU Leuven)
[email protected]
Variation in te-placement in Dutch The morphosyntactic variation in Dutch
finite verb clusters has been studied extensively (Barbiers et al. 2005, 2008;
Wurmbrand 2015), but their non-finite counterparts have received much less
attention (though see Vanacker (1969) for an early descriptive account). This
paper presents new data on the placement of the infinitival marker te ‘to’ in
three-verb clusters in Dutch (1). Furthermore, it shows that te placement
happens post-syntactically and that regional differences can be accounted for
by different PF mechanisms.
(1) a. . . . om
dat te hebben1 kunnen2 kopen3
in.order that to have.inf can.inf buy.inf
b. . . . om
dat hebben1 te kunnen2 kopen3
in.order that have.inf to can.inf buy.inf
c. . . . om
dat hebben1 kunnen2 te kopen3
in.order that have.inf can.inf to buy.inf
‘. . . in order to have been able to buy that.’
(ok northern Dutch,
ok
southern Dutch)
(*northern Dutch,
ok
southern Dutch)
(*northern Dutch,
ok
southern Dutch)
In (1), the complementizer om selects a te-infinitive: VP1 . In (1a) te shows up on
V1 as expected. In (1b) and (1c), however, te appears on V2 and V3 respectively
instead of on V1 . Northern varieties of Dutch only allow the structure in (1a),
whereas southern varieties accept (1a)–(1c).
Displcaed zu in German The pattern in (1) is very similar to displaced zu
in German (Salzmann 2013, 2016). German shows displaced morphology in
clusters that are not strictly descending (2):
(2) a. . . . ohne das Buch lesen3 gekonnt2 zu haben1
321 order
without the book read.inf can.ptcp to have.inf
b. . . . ohne das Buch haben1 lesen3 zu können2
132 order
without the book have.inf read.inf to can.inf
‘. . . without having been able to read the book.’ (Salzmann 2016: 406)
68
Speaker Abstracts
In (2), ohne selects a zu-infintitive. In a strictly descending order, zu appears on
the hierarchically highest verb haben (2a). In (2b) however, zu does not occur on
V1 , but on V2 . These data show that zu placement depends on linear adjacency
rather than on hierarchical structure. Salzmann (2013, 2016) therefore argues
that zu is attached to the verb post-syntactically, by Local Dislocation (Embick
& Noyer 2001). Local Dislocation takes place when the hierarchical structure is
linearized: the infinitival marker is attached to the linearly most adjacent verb
and is inverted with it. Salzmann (2016) assumes a head-final structure for verb
clusters in German, meaning that zu takes its verbal complement to the left.
Linearization is bottom-up (Embick & Noyer 2001): first the verb cluster is
linearized and then zu is placed. Zu placement in (2a) and (2b) is given in (3a)
and (3b):
(3)
a.
b.
3[21] zu → 3[2 zu 1] ‘lesen gekonnt zu haben’
1[32] zu → 1[3 zu 2] ‘haben lesen zu können’
Prerequisites for the analysis Salzmann (2016) argues that in Dutch, the
infintival marker te is attached to the verb by Lowering. Lowering of a functional
head applies directly after the syntactic structure is sent to PF: the infinitival
marker thus attaches to the hierarchically highest verb. In (1a), te is lowered
and attached to V1 hebben. Then, the structure is linearized into a 123 order,
resulting in the structure ‘te hebben kunnen kopen’. Salzmann’s (2016) analysis
cannot explain the position of te in (1b) and (1c) however. I therefore propose
a different analysis: in northern varieties of Dutch, te is indeed attached
to the verb by Lowering, but in southern varieties, te is attached by Local
Dislocation. Furthermore, I do not take linearization in Dutch to be head-final
but head-initial, meaning that te is linearized to the left of the verb cluster.
The analysis The new analysis thus consists of two claims: i) linearization
in Dutch is head-initial, and ii) in northern varieties of Dutch te is attached
to the verb by Lowering, but in southern varieties by Local Dislocation. In
northern varieties, only the structure in (1a) can be derived. Te is lowered
onto V1 hebben before linearization takes place, and therefore cannot occur in
any other position than the one in (1a). In southern varieties however, te is
attached to the verb after linearization of the verb cluster. The structure in (1a)
is thus derived in a different way in southern Dutch: the cluster is linearized
and then te is attached to the linearly adjacent verb hebben. Te placement in (1a)
in southern varieties is given in (4a). The structure in (1b) is derived by Local
69
Cora Pots
Dislocation: te attaches to the complex head [12] of the cluster [12]3. Then
Local Dislocation takes place, and te is attached to and inverted with hebben. Te
placement in structure (1b) is given in (4b).
(4)
a.
b.
te 123 → te123
‘te hebben kunnen kopen’
te [12]3 → [1 te 2]3 ‘hebben te kunnen kopen’
The two claims of this analysis lead to two extra structures that should occur: i)
a structure in which V1 and V2 are inverted by Local Dislocation leading to
a te[21]3 order, and ii) a structure in which V2 and V3 are inverted by Local
Dislocation, leading to a te1[32] order. These structures are indeed grammatical
in southern varieties of Dutch, given in (5a) and (5b) respectively.
(5)
a.
b.
. . . om
dat te kunnen2 hebben1 kopen3 1
in.order that to can.inf have.inf buy.inf
Dutch)
(southern
. . . om
dat te hebben1 kunnen2 kopen3 (southern Dutch)
in.order that to have.inf can.inf buy.inf
‘. . . in order to have been able to buy that.’
The structure in (1c) ‘hebben kunnen te kopen’ seems to be a problem for
the present analysis, because Local Dislocation only attaches and inverts the
infinitival marker with the linearly most adjacent verbal element, meaning that
te should not be able to occur on V3 . However, southern varieties of Dutch also
allow te-doubling in these types of clusters, as shown in (6).
(6)
. . . om
dat te hebben1 te kunnen2 kopen3
in.order that to have.inf to can.inf buy.inf
‘. . . in order to have to be able to buy that.’
(southern Dutch)
I therefore propose, in line with Zwart (1993) for similar clusters, that this
structure is derived from one in which V1 and V2 are both te-infinitives: teV1 -te-V2 -V3 . The structure in (1c) is then derived by Local Dislocation of the
second te and V3 , followed by deletion of the highest te. Te placement in the
structure in (6) is given in (7):
1
Note that it is controlled for a reverse scope reading of V1 hebben and V2 kunnen by the
context sentence given before the test sentence: Heb je het huis gezien dat hij gekocht heeft?
‘Have you seen the house he has bought?’, forcing a epistemic reading.
70
(7)
Speaker Abstracts
te 1 te [23] → te 1[2 te 3]
‘hebben kunnen te kopen’
The claim that the sentence in (1c) is derived from a te-V1 -te-V2 -V3 structure
makes another prediction. That is, the structure te1te[32], in which both te’s
occur and in which V2 and V3 are inverted by Local Dislocation, should also
be grammatical. This structure is indeed allowed:
(8)
. . . om
dat te hebben1 te kopen3 kunnen2
in.order that to have.inf to buy.inf can.inf
‘. . . in order to have been able to buy that.’
(southern Dutch)
Conclusion and outlook This study reveals new data concerning te placement
in Dutch non-finite clusters. I propose a new analysis in which te placement
happens post-syntactically: by Lowering in northern varieties and by Local
Dislocation in southern varieties. Time permitting, I will show how the present
account can also be applied to other displacement phenomena in Dutch, such
as displacement in present participle constructions in Dutch, in which the
present participle morphology of V1 appears on V2 (Hoeksema 1993; Den
Dikken 2004).
71
The de re reading and the universal quantificational phrase in
Mandarin
Rong Yin (University of Massachussetts Amherst)
[email protected]
Synopsis Examining the De Re reading with respect to the universal quantificational phrase (i.e., mei ge xuesheng ‘every student’) in Mandarin, I argue that
data from Mandarin do not support the QR analysis or Keshet (2011)’s Split
Intensionality Theory, but can be explained by a system incorporating World
Pronouns.
Data In Mandarin, when a universal quantificational phrase originates in
object position in a simple sentence, it can scramble to pre-verbal position. This
is shown in example (1). The syntactic and semantic properties of dou ‘all/each’
do not affect the topic at all, so I leave aside the issues of dou throughout the
discussion.
(1)
wo mei-bu dianyingi dou hen xihuan ti
1.sg every-cl movie dou very like
‘I like every movie very much.’
In Mandarin, the verb renwei ‘to believe’ and juede ‘to think’ can both take a
clausal complement, which is shown in examples (2)–(3). In (2), the universal
quantificational phrase scrambles to the pre-verbal position in the embedded clause. In (3), the universal quantificational phrase is the subject of the
embedded clause. A De Re reading is available in both (2) and (3).
(2)
Bucky renwei [β Steven mei-bu zhengzai shangying de
Bucky believe Steven every-cl prog
show
de
jilupiani
dou kan le ti ]
documentary.film dou watch asp
‘Bucky believes that Steven has watched every documentary film that is
on.’
(3)
Steven juede [γ mei-bu zhengzai shangying de jilupian
Steven think every-cl prog
show
de documentary.film
dou hen xiaren
]
dou very frightening
72
Speaker Abstracts
‘Steven thinks that every documentary film that is on is very frightening.’
However, only the universal quantificational phrase in (3) but not (2) can
scramble to the pre-verbal position in the matrix clause, as shown in (4) and
(5).
(4)
Steven mei-bu zhengzai shangying de jilupiani
dou juede
Steven every-cl prog
show
de documentary.film dou think
[γ ti hen xiaren
]
very frightening
‘Steven thinks that every documentary film that is on is very frightening.’
(5)
Bucky mei-bu zhengzai shangying de jilupiani
dou
Bucky every-cl prog show
de documentary.film dou
renwei [β Steven t′i kan le ti ]
believe Steven watch asp
‘Bucky believes that Steven has watched every documentary film that is
on.’
QR Analysis It is beyond the scope of the discussion here what exactly the
syntactic properties of the clause β in example (5) and γ in example (4) are (e.g.,
whether β, γ are a CP or a TP, whether β, γ are finite or infinitival, etc.). However,
regardless of β and γ’s syntactic properties, I propose that it is highly possible
that the clause β in (5) is an island preventing the universal quantificational
phrase from scrambling out of the embedded clause; while the clause γ in (4) is
not an island and the universal quantificational phrase can scramble out of it to
the matrix clause. Assuming that at LF, β is still an island that quantificational
phrases cannot escape, a QR analysis cannot explain why a De Re reading
is available in both (2) and (3). Under a QR analysis, in order to get the De
Re reading in (2), the universal quantificational phrase has to move to the
pre-verbal position in the matrix clause (i.e., a position that precedes the main
verb renwei ‘to believe’). However, as shown in (5), QR cannot escape the clause
β, and thus it is impossible for the universal quantificational phrase to QR to a
position that precedes/scopes over the verb renwei ‘to believe’ in the matrix
clause that possesses the intensional operator. In this sense, the QR analysis
falsely predicts that (2) cannot have the De Re reading.
Rong Yin
73
More Data When the intensional verb is embedded in an if-clause, as shown
in (6), the universal quantificational phrase can still be evaluated in the real
world (i.e., De Re reading).
(6)
Context: Bill is a professor.
ruguo [TP Mary renwei [β mei-bu jiaoshou dou shi xuesheng ]]],
if
Mary believe every-cl professor dou be student
ta hui renwei Bill shi xuesheng
3.sg would believe Bill be student
‘If Mary thought that every professor was a student, she would think that
Bill is a student.’
Keshet (2011)’s Split Intensionality Theory Under Keshet (2011)’s theory, at LF, the universal quantificational phrase must move out of
clause β and take scope over the intensional operator introduced by
if. However, since β is an island for QR at LF, the universal quantificational phrase cannot move out of β. In this sense, Keshet (2011)’s
theory cannot explain why the universal quantificational phrase in (6)
can be evaluated in the real world without violating the syntactic rules.
A system incorporating World Pronouns Under the system incorporating
World Pronouns, sentence (6) can be interpreted as having the De Re reading
without violating any syntactic rules. In the left structure, the NP jiaoshou
‘professor’ takes as an argument the world pronoun variable that is bound by the
74
Speaker Abstracts
operator w1. In this sense, the property of being a professor can be evaluated
in the real world and enables the De Re reading in (6). The De Re reading in
sentence (2) can also be explained using World Pronouns: the NP zhengzai
shangying de jilupian ‘documentary film that is on’ takes an argument the world
pronoun variable that is bound by the highest operator, which makes it possible
to interpret the property of “documentary film that is on” in the real world.
Potential Problems In Mandarin, the universal quantificational phrase can
also occur in pre-subject position, which is shown in (7). If this means that the
universal quantificational phrase can scramble to a pre-subject position, both
QR analysis and Keshet (2011) can explain the De Re reading in (2) and (6).
(7)
mei-bu zhengzai shangying de jilupiani
Bucky dou
every-cl prog show
de documentary.film Bucky dou
renwei [β Steven t′i kan le ti ]
believe Steven watch asp
‘Bucky thinks that Steven has watched every documentary film that is
on.’
However, I propose that it is very unlikely that the universal quantificational
phrase can scramble to the pre-subject position from the post-verbal object
position: In both (2) and (3), the universal quantificational phrases can occur
in pre-subject position in the matrix clause and do not seem to be sensitive
to the clausal boundaries at all. In other words, it is possible that universal
quantificational phrase in pre-subject position is base-generated and probably
binds a variable in the object position in the embedded clause, instead of being
derived by movement.
75
A stratal analysis of truncation in Spanish: Morphological and
phonological evidence
Javier Sanz (University of Trier)
[email protected]
The most common truncation process in Spanish consists in the shortening of a
prosodic word into a disyllabic trochee. This happens irrespectively of both the
length and the stress configuration of the base word; e.g., amplificadór → ámpli
‘amplifier’, compañéro → cómpa ‘classmate’, Concepción → Cónce ‘FEM name’,
Gertrúdis → Gértru ‘FEM name’ (Casado 1984, Prieto 1992). Hypocoristic
truncation can be further subdivided into two different processes, one of which
preserves the two leftmost syllables of the base name while the other preserves
both the stressed and final syllables (Prieto 1992, Piñeros 2000):
(1)
Name
Gender
Ignácio
Jeús
Dolóres
masc
masc
fem
Left-anchored
truncate
Igna
Jésus
Dólo
Stress-anchored
truncate
Nácho
Chus~Chúso
Lóles~Lóla
The two patterns differ in (a) their productivity, (b) their degree of segmental
faithfulness to the base name, and (c) the possibility to modify the ending of the
truncate. Left-anchored forms are by far the most productive of the two types
(Prieto 1992). They are also predominantly faithful to the segmental makeup of
their respective base forms (Prieto 1992, Piñeros 2000), as well less likely to
change their endings (Roca and Felíu 2003). Stress-anchored variants generally
only occur as proper name truncates and, even then, they are less productive
than left-anchored hypocoristics (Prieto 1992). As shown in (1), these type of
hypocoristics tend to undergo a series of phonological processes including
palatalization, plosivization, coda deletion and reduplication. Because of these
processes, Stress-anchored forms have long being associated to child speech
(Boyd-Bowman 1955).
Previous analyses couched within Output-to-Output Correspondence approaches to Optimality Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1995, Benua 1997) have
accounted for both types of truncation as the result of different Emergence of
the Unmarked effects (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004, McCarthy and Prince
1994). E.g., Piñeros (2000) assumes that, whereas Stress-anchored truncation
76
Speaker Abstracts
would be caused by the domination of certain prosodic as well as certain
melodic constraints over Faithfulness, in the case of Left-anchored truncates
only prosodic constraints would be higher ranked. Indeed, the unmarked
pattern of Stress-anchored hypocoristics is consistent with the cross-linguistic
tendency observed in younger children to preserve the phonetically prominent
syllables of adult words (Kehoe 2000, Demuth 2001). However, Left-anchored
forms such as Jesús → Jésus, Rubén → Rúben or Miguél → Míguel show that the
fully productive process that takes place in the adult grammar need not result
neither in a less marked prosodic structure (the previous hypocoristics are more
marked than their corresponding base names regarding the Weight-to-Stress
principle) nor need they be truncates in the proper sense.
A more fitting account of productive truncation must hence posit the
existence of a fixed template consisting in a disyllabic trochee that maximally
copies the leftmost segments of an already existing word while complying
with the phonotactics of the language. Therefore, and contrary to the view of
non-lexicalist frameworks such as Distributed Morphology (Marantz 2001),
fully productive truncation cannot occur at the root level. Otherwise, we could
not account for the different morphological behaviour observed in the two
types of hypocoristics.
On the one hand, Stress-anchored hypocoristics whose endings do not agree
with the biological gender of their base names usually exhibit variant forms
with the default gender marker (-o for masculine names; -a for feminine ones).
They can obtain this marker either by transforming the ending of the truncate
into the default vowel or by simply adding the marker (see e.g. Chus~Chúso,
Lóles~Lóla in (1) above). This contrasts with Left-anchored truncates, which are
much less likely to undergo such additions/changes (ØÍgno, ØJéso and ØDóla
are not documented in the literature). This is indicative of the fact that, when
truncation takes place on line, gender marker affixation has already taken place.
On the other hand, since Stress-anchored forms are presumably stored in our
lexicon as adult representations of child speech, they have the possibility to
undergo the phonological changes required to comply to the default pattern.
A further piece of evidence often ignored is the existence of templatic
truncates made out of expressions consisting in one or more clitics attached to
either a noun or a verb. Obviously, this type of forms cannot result from a
process taking place neither at the root nor at the stem level.
77
Javier Sanz
(2)
Expression
por favor
for favour
‘please’
Truncate
pórfa
Expression
sí le tengo
yes it.dat (I) have
‘I’ve got it’
Truncate
síle
fin de semana
end of week
‘weekend’
fínde
no le tengo
no it.dat (I) have
‘I haven’t got it’
nóle
Nevertheless, the previous data can be explained if we adopt the architecture
proposed by Stratal Optimality Theory (Bermúdez-Otero 2012, Kiparsky 2015).
According to most versions of this framework, there are three hierarchically
ordered strata: stems, words, and phrases. It is generally agreed that the Spanish
lexicon stores stems with gender markers and other types of thematic vowels
(Bermúdez-Otero 2013) and that fully productive morphological processes take
place at the higher levels, which is precisely where cliticization is thought to
happen (Bermúdez-Otero 2006). The particularities of Spanish truncates, and
perhaps of truncation in general, can thus be better understood in light of
some of the proposals made by Stratal Optimality Theory.
References
Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: phonological relations between
words. Doctoral Diss, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2006. The phonology of cliticization in Stratal
Optimality Theory. Handout of paper presented at Annual Meeting of the
Linguistics Association of Great Britain, Newcastle upon Tyne, 31 August
2006. Available at www.bermudez-otero.com/clitics.pdf
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division
of labour in exponence. In The morphology and phonology of exponence, ed.
by Jochen Trommer, 8–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2013. The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme
vowels, not roots with inflectional class features. Probus 25: 3–103.
Boyd-Bowman, Peter. 1955. Cómo obra la fonética infantil en la formación de
los hipocorísticos. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 9: 337–366.
Casado Velarde, Manuel. 1984. Acortamientos léxicos en el español actual.
Iberoromania 20: 1–8.
Demuth, Katherine. 2001. Prosodic constraints and morphological development. In Phonological, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early
78
Speaker Abstracts
language acquisition, ed. by Jürgen Weissenborn and Barbara Höhle, 3–21.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kehoe, Margaret M. 2000. Truncation without shape constraints: the latter
stages of prosodic acquisition. Language Acquisition 8: 23–67.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2015. Stratal OT: a synopsis and FAQs. In Capturing phonological
shades within and across languages, ed. by Yuchau E. Hsiao and Lian-Hee
Wee, 2–44. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Marantz, A. 2001. Words. WCCFL XX Handout, USC, February 2001.
McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked:
optimality in prosodic morphology. In Proceedings of the North East
Linguistic Society 24, ed. by Mercè González, 333–379. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity.
In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18, ed. by Jill N. Beckman,
Laura Walsh Dickey and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 249–384. Amherst, MA:
GLSA.
Piñeros, Carlos-Eduardo. 2000. Prosodic and segmental unmarkedness in
Spanish truncation. Linguistics 38: 63–98.
Prieto, Pilar. 1992. Truncation processes in Spanish. Studies in the Linguistic
Sciences 22: 143–158.
Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: constraint
interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Roca, Iggy and Elena Felíu. 2003. Morphology in truncation: the role of the
Spanish desinence. In Yearbook of Morphology 2002, ed. by Geert Booij and
Jaap van Marle, 187–243. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
79
Some mathematical phonology – an extension of ‘delete-and-unify’
Ollie Sayeed (Christ’s College, Cambridge)
[email protected]
This is an attempt to formalize one implementation of (linear) Rule-Based
Phonology based on set theory – the theory being formalized is an extension of
Bale, Papillon and Reiss (2014; ‘BPR’) within Substance-Free Phonology to
rules mapping whole strings to strings, needed to model insertion, deletion,
metathesis, and other rules that don’t just involve mapping a single segment to
a single other segment.
To have a formal theory of phonology, we want to be able to define as much
as possible from some collection of primitive objects using well-defined (in this
case set-theoretic) operations. For phonology, our primitives are a set of feature
values V – these are the usual [+voice], [−voice], [+high], [−high], etc. – and a
set of timing slots I. Everything else can be built out of V and I by the normal
operations of subsethood, intersection, union, complementation, power set.
A segment is a subset (or ‘bundle’) of the set of feature values V ; a feature is
an equivalence class of feature values from V ; a string is a function from I to
the power set P(V ), assigning a segment to each timing slot; a rule is a set of
ordered pairs of strings, mapping the first string to the second string; a feature
geometry is a set of subsets of features, defining which sets of features can
and can’t play a role in the rule component. The goal is that everything in the
world of phonology should be expressible as a set of some kind, as has been
successful in model-theoretic semantics (so this is ‘set-theoretic’ phonology). If
we achieve this, we have a completely explicit picture of a phonological system
as a formal object.
I define a rule R in intension as an ordered triple (T, E, C): a structural
description T (a string), an environment E (an ordered pair of strings), and
a structural change C (another ordered pair of strings). The interpretation
is that any string that ‘matches’ the string in the target T and is flanked by
the pair of strings E changes in a way given by the strings in C. Like the BPR
model, the idea of a string ‘matching’ a target is done by defining a relation
of subsumption; but the limitation of the BPR model is that subsumption is
only defined between pairs of segments, so rules can only map one segment to
another. This can’t express insertion (where the number of segments needs to
decrease), deletion (where it needs to decrease), or metathesis (where multiple
80
Speaker Abstracts
segments are involved in the target). To fix this, I define an idea of subsumption
between strings, rather than just segments: we say a string W1 subsumes a string
W2 iff W1 can be mapped onto a subpart of W2 in an order-preserving way
such that each segment in W1 is compatible with its corresponding segment of
W2 . For a rule with structural description T to apply to a string W, T has to
subsume W.
The environment E is an ordered pair (E L , E R ): the other condition we
require for a rule with environment (E L , E R ) to apply to a string is that E L (the
‘left environment’) subsumes the section of W2 immediately to the left of L(W1 ),
and that E L (the ‘right environment’) subsumes the section of W2 immediately
to the right of L(W1 ). In total, for a string W to be input to a rule R whose left
environment, structural description, and right environment concatenate to a
string Q, a necessary and sufficient condition is that Q subsumes W.
Again following BPR, I take it that the application of a rule is a two-step
‘delete-and-unify’ process; first a subtraction of some features of segments of
the target string, then a unification of those segments with some new features
defined by the rule. So a structural change C = (C1 , C2 ) is defined by two
strings: the material C1 to be deleted from the target string, and then the
material C2 to be unified with it. We require that C1 can be mapped onto W in a
way satisfying the second and third points under the definition of subsumption
above. If a rule applies to a target string of length 3 and deletes [−voice] from
the first segment, deletes [+high] and [−back] from the second one, and deletes
the entire third segment, its C1 would look like this:
C1 = {(i1 , {[−voice]}), (i2 , {[+high], [−back]}), (i3 , ∅)}
The deletion part of the rule will map i1 , i2 , and i3 onto the target string in a way
that preserves the ordering under < on I, and then deletes [−voice] from the
segment at the image of i1 , [+high] and [−back] from the segment at the image of
i2 , and then the whole timing slot at the image of i3 . In sum, given a target string
{( j1 ,S1 ),( j2 ,S2 ),( j3 ,S3 )}, deleting {(i1 ,{[−voice]}),(i2 ,{[+high],[−back]}),(i3 ,∅)}
gives a new string:
{( j1 , S1 − {[−voice]}), ( j2 , S2 − {[+high], [−back]}), (∅, S3 )}
The second part of the rule involves ‘unifying’ the string C2 with the target
string W, once the material from C1 has all been deleted. As with the mapping
from C1 to W, we map the timing slots of C2 by some function U onto the
Ollie Sayeed
81
timing slots of the new W - and at each timing slot, we take the union of each
set of feature values at each i in C2 with its corresponding set at each U(i) in
W. If a rule unifies takes a string of length three and unifies {[−ATR]} with the
first slot, nothing with the second, and {[−voice],[+ATR]} with the third, its C2
looks like this:
C2 = {(i1 , {[−ATR]}), (i2 , ∅}), (i3 , {[−voice], [+ATR]})}
If we unified this with a string {( j1 ,S1 ),( j2 ,S2 ),( j3 ,S3 )}, the output of the rule
would be the string:
{( j1 , S1 ∪ {[−ATR]}), ( j2 , S2 ), ( j3 , S3 ∪ {[−voice], [+ATR]})}
I believe this is the simplest and most mathematically natural extension to the
BPR ‘delete-and-unify’ model of rule semantics that also accounts for the rules
the BPR model currently can’t handle.
After presenting this model, I’ll discuss the theoretical motivation behind
inferring a particular model of phonology from a set of attested languages.
It might seem that the model isn’t restrictive enough, in that it generates
languages that aren’t attested; I’ll argue that concepts like ‘restrictiveness’
and ‘generative power’ shouldn’t play a role in reasoning about phonology.
Unattested rule patterns predicted to be computable by a particular grammar
are more sensibly treated as unattested for diachronic reasons, rather than facts
about the synchronic grammar (adopting the perspective argued by Blevins,
2004). On the other hand, it would also be wrong for our null hypothesis to
be that phonology can generate any computable pattern; this would require
proposing extra machinery not evidence by attested languages, like the tape of
a Turing machine. I argue that a model like this one hits a middle level, by
being general enough to avoid being stipulatively restrictive while also not
proposing more complex machinery than we know phonology has access to.
References
Bale, Alan, Maxime Papillon, and Charles Reiss. 2014. Targeting underspecified
segments: A formal analysis of feature changing and feature filling rules.
Lingua 148: 240–253.
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The emergence of sound patterns.
Cambridge University Press.
Hale, Mark, and Charles Reiss. 2008. The phonological enterprise. Oxford
University Press, USA.
82
Speaker Abstracts
Johnson, C. Douglas. 1972. Formal Aspects of Phonological Description. Mouton.
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Martin Kay. 1994. Regular models of phonological rule
systems. Computational Linguistics 20(3): 331–378.
83
The syntax of U/AX right dislocation
Ui-Jong Shin & Sunjoo Choi (Dongguk University)
[email protected]
Merchant (2004), Griffiths and Lipták (2014), and Ko (2014), among many
others, unanimously assume that in the question-answer pairs, the ‘short’
answer sentences below in English, Hungarian, and Korean are an instance of
(contrastive) fragment.
(1) Q: Does Abby speak GREEK fluently?
A: No, ALBANIAN.
– English
Merchant (2004: 688)
(2) Q: Mari BÉLÁT hívta meg mágahoz enni?
– Hungarian
Mari Béla.A invited PV herself.TO eat.INF
‘Did Mari invite BÉLA to eat?’
A: Nem, vacsorára mindig PÉTERT.
no dinner.FOR always Péter.A
‘No, for dinner she always invited PETER.’
Griffiths and Lipták (2014)
(3) Q: Mary-ka motwu ta an manna-ss-ni?
Mary-Nom all
not meet-Past-Q
(lit.) ‘Didn’t Mary meet all/any of them?’
A: Ung, motwu ta.
Yes, all
(of them).
(lit.) ‘Yes, Mary did not meet all of them.’
– Korean
(all≫Neg, Neg≫all)
(all≫Neg, *Neg≫all)
Ko (2014: 293)
In this paper we argue that these sentences are not such an instance, but that
they are instead derived from right dislocation (RD).
We begin to establish that the sentences like (3A) in Korean composed of the
polarity answer particle (PAP) such as ung ‘yes’ or ani ‘no’, followed by one XP
remnant (alias U/AX) involve RD, by showing that not just the PAP but also
the immediately following covert structure ‘reconstructed’ from the preceding
question clause is indispensible to licensing the following XP remnant, as in (4)
and (5):
(4)
Q:
chelswu-ka mek-ess-ni?
Chelswu-nom eat-pst-q
84
Speaker Abstracts
‘Did Chelswu eat?’
A: Ani, amwu-kes-to.
no, anything
′
A : *Ung, amwu-kes-to.
yes, anything
(5)
Q:
chelswu-ka mek-ci anh-ass-ni?
Chelswu-nom eat-nm not-pst-q
‘Did Chelswu eat?’
A: Ung, amwu-kes-to.
yes, anything
′
A : *Ani, amwu-kes-to.
no, anything
In (4A) and (4A′ ), the negative polarity item (NPI) remnant occurs after the
PAP. The negative PAP is a licensor of the following NPI remnant. However,
the situation is opposite in (5A) and (5A′ ) as answers to the preceding negative
question, where not the negative but the positive PAP is an NPI licensor. This
points to the fact that not only the overt PAP but also the postulated covert TP
immediately following it is essential in licensing the NPI remnant. We suggest
à la Kramer and Rawlins (2009) and Holmberg (2015) that the PAP is also
a remnant derived by elision of the TP. For example, (4A) has the following
underlying structures prior to such an elision:
(6)
A:
Ani [TP chelswu-ka [e] mek-ess-e], amwu-kes-to.
No
Chelswu-nom
eat-pst-decl anything
In this structure, the right-edge remnant (including the RDed NPI) is linked to
and may or may not be licensed in the preceding host clause, exactly in the
same way as the RDed elements in the canonical RD construction.
Another point can be made supporting the RD analysis of the XP remnant
at issue. Ross (1986: 260) notes that the RDed element is associated with the
possessive pronoun as in (7). This is also the case with the English counterpart
of UAX as in (8). However, the run-of-the-mill fragment cannot be realized as
a bare DP as in (9):
85
Ui-Jong Shin & Sunjoo Choi
(7)
I noticed his car in the driveway last night, your friend from Keokuk.
(Ross 1986: 260)
(8)
Q: Did you notice his car in the driveway?
A: Yeah, your friend from Keokuk
(9)
Q: Whose car did you notice in the driveway?
A: Your friend*(’s)
This conception of UAX as involving RD is adopted to resolve a controversy
concerning the asymmetry between Sluicing and UAX-RD in light of the island
sensitivity of contrastively focused remnants as in (10) and (11):
(10)
*Abby wants to hire someone who speaks GREEK, but I don’t remember
what OTHER languages she wants to hire someone who speaks.
Merchant (2008: 148)
(11)
Q: Did you hear they hired someone who speaks BULGARIAN fluently?
A: (*)No, SERBO-CROATIAN.
* in Griffiths and Lipták (2014); OK in Barros et al. (2014)
Since RD is subject to the Right Roof Constraint (RRC) (Ross 1967), UAX-RD
in (11) applies successfully in juxtaposition not with the whole sentence, but
with the relative clause. The contrastive focused wh-element in (10), however,
undergoes leftward movement, inducing island effects.
However, if such a juxtaposition is not available because an intervening
clause, UAX-RD fails to meet the RRC, ruling out examples like (12):
(12)
Q: Is the book that RINGO wrote on sale?
A: *No, Lennon.
In addition to UAX-RD with a single remnant, there is UAX-RD with multiple
remnants, as in (13). One restriction on multiple UAX-RD is that their RDed
elements need to be derived from the same clause, regardless of whether they
receive informational or contrastive focus.
(13)
Q: JOHN talked to MARY.
A: No, BILL to SUSAN.
(14)
A: Did someone hear that Mary talked about some issue in syntax at
the conference last week?
B: *Yeah, JOHN, about LABELING.
(15)
A: Did the MOTHER say that Mary was on a date with JOHN at the
86
Speaker Abstracts
mall?
B: *No, the FATHER, with BILL.
This clause-mate requirement on RDed elements in multiple UAX-RD naturally
follows from the RRC that regulates RD. Since two RDed elements in (14) and
(15) are derived from the two different clauses, one of them is bound to violate
the RRC.
Selected References
Barros et al. 2014. There is no island repairs. Ms.
Griffiths and Lipták (2014) Contrast and island sensitivity in clausal ellipsis,
Syntax 17(3).
Holmberg. 2015. The Syntax of Yes and No.
Ko. 2014. Right dislocation as specificational focus. Ms.
Kramer and Rawlins. 2009. Polarity particles: An ellipsis account, NELS 39.
Merchant 2004. Fragments and ellipsis; L&P 27(6).
Ross. 1986. Infinite Syntax!
87
Syntax of Finnish numerical constructions
Philip Shushurin (New York University)
[email protected]
Data This paper proposes an account of case-marking and number-marking
in Finnish constructions with numerals. The problems that I address in this
paper is why agreement pattern in numerical constructions where the numeral
is marked nominative (henceforth direct constructions) is different from
those where the head is marked with any other case (henceforth indirect
constructions) and why numerals and all nominals following them (henceforth
postnumerical nominals) are marked singular despite semantic plurality. In
direct constructions all nominals following the numeral are marked singular
partitive (1), while in indirect constructions all postnumerical nominals are
also marked singular but agree with the numeral in case:
(1)
kaksi
iso-a
talo-a
two.nom.sg big-part.sg house-part.sg
‘two big houses’
(2)
kahde-ssa
iso-ssa
talo-ssa
two-sg.iness big-sg.iness house-sg.iness
‘in two big houses’
Account In this paper I develop the idea proposed in Danon (2012) that
numerals are merged as heads in some cases and as modifiers in others. More
specifically, I assume that all Finnish numerals (except for yksi, ‘one’; this
numeral never appears with partitive nominals) can occupy a specifier position
or the position of the head of QP. In direct constructions, such as (1), the
numeral occupies the position of the QP head, in which case the QP assigns its
complement partitive case. If the noun in the complement is further modified,
for instance by adjectives, the modifier exhibits concord with it in case and
number (Fig. 1). In indirect constructions, such as (2), the Q head is empty and
doesn’t assign partitive case. (By assumption, only overt Q heads can assign
partitive case). In this case the Q head is empty and it does not assign the
partitive case to its complement. Numerals in this case occupy the specifier of
QP and demonstrate the modifier behavior: they agree with the noun both in
case and in number (Fig. 2). Since the modifier option and the head option are
88
Speaker Abstracts
QP
Q
kaksi
QP
NP
[PART]
Adj
NP
[PART]
iso-a
talo-a
Figure 1
kahde-ssa
Q′
NP
[INESS]
Adj
NP
[INESS]
isso-ssa
talo-ssa
Figure 2
in strict complementary distribution one may wonder what conditions which
option is selected in each particular case. I assume that (a) the head option is
the default option (i.e. if the numeral can be both a head and a modifier the
head option is chosen), the modifier option is chosen when the head option is
blocked. The case where the head option is blocked is indirect constructions. I
want to propose that (a) in all indirect constructions there is a local assigner of
case: a PP, in the case of locative cases, or a DP, in the case of genitive DPs, and
(b) that the numeral cannot occupy the head position in such cases because its
complement, to which the Q assigns the partitive case, would be unable to
agree in its case feature because it is already case-marked (by QP). In other
words, I propose that no nominal in Finnish can get be case-marked more
than once. (In direct constructions, nouns are marked nominative; since the
morphological realization of nominative case is always null, no such violation
may occur). I avoid look-ahead problem by suggesting that the modifier and
head options are independent and the impossibility of one option results only
in that the other becoming the only option. Thus, in indirect constructions
the only remaining option is the modifier option. In this case the head of
Q is empty, the noun remains unmarked in case until it is case-marked by a
functional projection: A PP in the case of locative cases and a DP in the case of
genitive.
Number marking Another important aspect is the number marking. Postnumerical nominals in both head position and modifier position are always
Philip Shushurin
89
marked singular. In contrast, in prenumerical position all agreeing nominals
are obligatorily plural-marked:
(3)
ne mukava-*(t) kaksi
pien-tä
talo-a
these nice-nom.pl two.nom.sg little-part.sg house-part.sg
‘these two nice little houses’
(When no numeral is present semantically plural nominals always get plural
morphology). I assume that plurality in Finnish is encoded by a privative [+pl]
feature which is usually (see the discussion of pluralia tantum nouns below for
exceptions) contained on a NumP, a functional projection above QP. While
all DP-internal elements usually must agree in this feature, this agreement is
blocked when a QP is present. I hypothesize that the blocking effect is due to
phasehood. I propose that the Q projection is a phase and thus the agreement
between the Num’ bearing the [+pl] feature and its potential goal inside an NP
is failed (Preminger 2011). I further hypothesize that although Num probe
fails to probe down, it establishes an Agree relation with the phase head (or its
Spec, when it is a modifier). This operation results in ‘unlocking’ the phase,
now other probes can probe down into the NP. The case probe, once the PP or
DP is merged, is able to establish the agree relation with the nominal in the
NP. When there is no PP or DP case-assigner, but there is an overt Q head, its
complement gets partitive case as usual (Fig. 3).
This idea, with minor further developments, can also account for another
complicating type of numerical constructions, namely, numerical constructions
involving pluralia tantum nouns. In such constructions the noun, all its
modifiers and the numeral are marked plural.
(4)
ne kahde-t/*kaksi
piene-t/*pieni
these two-nom.pl/two.sg.nom small-nom.pl/small.nom.sg
hää-t
wedding-nom.pl
‘two weddings’
Since the noun is marked nominative and not partitive I assume that the
numeral here occupies the modifier position. The head option must be blocked
in this case because a Q head must select for a singular complement. (This
option is unavailable since pluralia tantum nouns are always plural). Adopting
an idea proposed in Kramer (2016) for Amharic data, I assume that pluralia
90
Speaker Abstracts
tantum nouns contain a [+pl] feature on n. This feature triggers QP-internal
plural agreement according to general concord rules. QP-external plural
agreement is due to a different [+pl] feature contained on a NumP. Strictly
speaking, blocking occurs in this case as well, however, a QP has an internal
source of plurality. Unlike accounts proposed earlier, such as (Brattico 2011)
this account does not stipulate two kinds of case features, viz. strong and weak.
DP
[+PL]
NumP
[+PL]
D
ne
Adj
Num′
[+PL]
QP
mukava-t
Q
kaksi
NP
[PART]
Adj
NP
[PART]
pien-tä
talo-a
Figure 3
References
Brattico, P. 2011. Case assignment, case concord, and the quantificational case
construction. Lingua 121, 1042–1066.
Danon, G. (2012). Two structures for numeral-noun constructions. Lingua
122(12), 1282–1307.
Preminger, O. (2011). Agreement as a fallible operation. Doctoral dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kramer, R. A split analysis of plurality: Number in Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry
47, 527–559.
91
The atoms of person: Limitations on concept formation
Jolijn Sonnaert (KU Leuven Brussels)
[email protected]
Claim I argue that inclusive person is the sum of the person atoms {sp} and
{hr}, and show that the unlexicalisability of other sums of atoms is predicted by
the concept formation constraint (cfc) in the kite framework (Seuren &
Jaspers 2014).
The atoms of Person Semantically, inclusive refers to a group including
speaker and hearer. Morphologically, inclusive is most often independent from
first (speaker) and second person (hearer) (1). Otherwise, it is not infrequently
related to 1st person (2) and sometimes also to 2nd (3) (Daniel 2005).
(1) Tümpisa Shoshone
SG
PL
incl
ta-mmü
1
nü
nü-mmü
2
ü
mü-mmü
3
(dem) (demonstr)
(3) Tok Pisin
SG
incl
1
mi
2
yu
3
em
(2) Quechua
SG
incl
1
nuxa
2
xam
3
pay
PL
nuxa-ñči(k)
nuxa:-guna
xam-guna
pay-guna
PL
yu-mi(-pela)
mi-pela
yu-pela
ol
Based on these considerations, I consider inclusive to be the sum of the atoms
for first and second person. The Hasse diagram below shows how atoms
(represented by bitstrings) can combine into different sums (Smessaert 2009):
every 1-bit represents exactly one atom (Fig. 1). Level 1 in Fig. 2 shows the
atoms for 1st {sp}, 2nd {hr} and 3rd person {non-part}. Level 2 on the left in
Fig. 2 shows the sum of speaker and hearer: inclusive {sp, hr}. I argue that
the other two sets ({sp, non-part} and {hr, non-part}) are never lexicalised
92
Speaker Abstracts
as a person morpheme. Fig. 3 shows how the person paradigm of Tümpisa
Shoshone in (1) is mapped onto the Hasse-diagram for person.
Figure 1: 3-atom Hasse diagram
Figure 2: Person Hasse diagram
Figure 3: Tümpisa Shoshone
The Concept Formation Constraint The kite framework studies (mereo)logical relations between concepts and lexical items in closed lexical fields
(e.g. the quantifiers) using geometrical figures to represent these relations
(Jaspers 2012, Seuren & Jaspers 2014). The logical hexagon by Jacoby, Sesmat
and Blanché (a.o. Blanche 1952) in Fig. 4 shows the relations between the lexical
items with arrows for entailment, full lines for contradiction, and dotted and
dashed lines for (sub)contrariety. Fig. 5 exemplifies this for the quantifiers.
Figure 4: The hexagon
Figure 5: The hexagon: Quantifiers
93
Jolijn Sonnaert
The hexagon shows the following restriction for lexicalisation in closed lexical
fields:
(4)
concept formation constraint (Seuren & Jaspers 2014, p. 621–626):
Both the O- and U-corner never receive a simplex lexicalisation.
This turns the hexagon into a kite of lexicalised concepts, shown in Figs. 4 and
5 with the bold lines.
Mereologies The hexagon and cfc can be applied to logical (e.g. quantifiers
above) and mereological lexical fields (e.g. colour, Jaspers 2012). Person is a
case of the latter.
Mereologies deal with parthood relations rather than the logical entailments.
Note that these relations show a clear isomorphism (Smessaert 2009, Jaspers
2012). Both entailment (ϕ → ψ) and proper parthood (ϕ ⊂ ψ) between the
bitstrings representing the corners can be calculated with the same formula
(see (7) and (8) for an illustration):
(5)
a.
ϕ∧ψ = ϕ
b.
ϕ∨ψ =ψ
An important difference between the logical and the mereological hexagon is
the nature of the I-O-U corners. Rather than a disjunction of their adjacent
corners as for the quantifiers (6a), in mereologies they designate a new element
based on the mereological sum of these (6b) (Jaspers 2012).
(6)
a.
b.
Logical kite: I = A ∨ Y (e.g. ‘some’ = ‘all or some’)
Mereological kite: I = A ⊕ Y (e.g. incl {sp, hr} = speaker and hearer)
The Person Kite The hexagon and kite below portray exactly the relations we
expect to find between the attested person distinctions. Both {sp} and {hr} are
proper parts of inclusive: {sp, hr}:
(7)
a.
b.
100 {sp} ∧ 110 {sp, hr} = 100 {sp}
100 {sp} ∨ 110 {sp, hr} = 110 {sp, hr}
(8)
a.
b.
010 {hr} ∧ 110 {sp, hr} = 010 {hr}
010 {hr} ∨ 110 {sp, hr} = 110 {sp, hr}
Also, the other mereological sums of person atoms as seen in the Hasse diagram
in Fig. 2, reside in the unlexicalised corners U and O. No language has a person
94
Speaker Abstracts
morpheme to express a non-speaker, i.e. {hr, non-part}, or a non-hearer, {sp,
non-part} (as exemplified in Fig. 8). This is confirmed by the 39 languages of
my sample and the typological literature studied (a.o. Daniel 2005, Cysouw
2009, Forchheimer 1953, Harbour 2016, Ackema & Neeleman 2016).
Figure 6: Person hexagon
Figure 7: Person kite
Figure 8: Tümpisa Shoshone
References
Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman. 2016. Features of person. To Appear.
Blanché, Robert. 1952. Quantity, modality and other kindred systems of
categories. Mind 61(243), 369–375.
Cysouw, Michael. 2009. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Daniel, Michael. 2005. Understanding inclusives, 3–48. John Benjamins
Publishing Co.
Forchheimer, Paul. 1953. The category of person in language. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter & Co 2014th edn.
Harbour, Daniel. 2016. Impossible persons. To Appear.
Jaspers, Dany. 2012. Logic and colour. Logica Universalis 6, 227–248.
Jolijn Sonnaert
95
Seuren, Pieter A. M. & Dany Jaspers. 2014. Logico-cognitive structure in the
lexicon. Language 90(3), 607–643.
Smessaert, Hans. 2009. On the 3D visualisation of logical relations. Logica
Universalis 3, 303–332.
96
Epenthesize a mora, but pronounce a vowel – The Serbo-Croatian
language game of Šatrovački
Jelena Stojković (University of Leipzig)
[email protected]
Introduction I discuss novel data from a Serbo-Croatian (SC, henceforth)
syllable reversal ludling, Šatrovački. Previous analysis (Rizzolo 2004) has failed
to explain the existence of a schwa vowel in the ludling, since it is not present
in the host language. Following Itô et al. (1996 on zuuja-go) that ludlings in
principle do not violate OO-correspondence in terms of segments, I presuppose
that Šatrovački exhibits epenthesis of a maximally underspecified element,
specified only with a mora and feature [−cons] (McCarthy 1988, Zimmermann
2016). The schwa vowel on the surface is observed as a phonetic implementation
of such nucleus (Polgárdi 1996).
Background Šatrovački is a SC syllable reversal ludling, comparable to verlan
in French or zuuja-go in Japanese. The basic principle of these ludlings can be
captured by a single constraint CrossAnchor, which observes a PWd as two
sections whose order must be reversed (Itô et al. 1996: 37). I focus here on
outputs based on CVC monosyllabic source forms (SF), which are created by
moving the consonantal material to the front of the PWd. The output forms
(OF) are adapted to conform to the phonology of the host language, either
via sonorant syllabification or epenthesis. Some analyses of syllable reversal
games (Friesner 2005 for verlan, Rizzolo 2004 for Šatrovački) assume vowel
epenthesis and thus fail to account for the vowel quality, different than the host
language’s default vowel (/a/ in SC, according to Simonović 2015). Furthermore,
schwa is not a licit vowel in SC. Data based on recorded conversations with 20
speakers of Šatrovački and supplemented with examples from Rizzolo (2004)
reveal that there are two ‘dialects’ of Šatrovački. In the variety illustrated in (1) a
schwa is added even when it is not phonotactically necessary (1-a) (Rizzolo
2004). Additionally, all consonantal material is moved (1-e), and the syllable
headed by schwa is always accented.
(1)
Outputs from one variety of Šatrovački
a. ‘muž’ [muZ] ↦ ["Z@mu] ‘husband’
b. ‘dop’ [dop] ↦ ["p@do] ‘dope’
c. ‘smor’ [smor] ↦ ["rsmo] ‘boredom’
"
97
Jelena Stojković
d.
e.
‘dlan’ [dlan] ↦ ["n@dla] ‘palm’
‘bend’ [bend] ↦ [n."[email protected]] ‘band’
"
Proposal Following Itô et al. (1996) and extending the empirical scope of
their analysis, I offer an OT account of Šatrovački, showing that epenthesis is
the result of minimal violation of prosodic faithfulness, but not of segmental
correspondence. Therefore, I argue that this epenthesis involves an interplay of
constraints regulating foot structure and accent assignment, resulting in two
kinds of implementation: syllabification (when the segment is syllabifiable) and
schwa formation (phonetic implementation of a segmentless mora and the
feature [−cons]), as a result of the undominated Empty Category Principle
(Polgárdi 1996).
/muZ/
a. ["Zmu] *!
+ b. ["Zµ .mu]
c. ["Za.mu]
*!
* *
*
(3)
FtBin
Dep-IO
SylMarg
Licemse-µ
Dep-µ
(2)
FtBin
Dep-IO
SylMarg
License-µ
Dep-µ
Analysis The reversal of phonological material is driven by the CrossAnchor constraint (not included here). The repair strategy for cross-anchoring
monosyllabic forms is epenthesis of a mora, which is a result of ranking FtBin
≫ Dep-IO ≫ Dep-µ. Insertion of a mora is used in two ways when otherwise
Dep-IO and SylMarg (onset clusters may not be of descending sonority, Zec
2002a: 251) would be violated: (i) by assigning a syllabic role to /r/ as the only
syllabic non-vowel in SC, and (ii) by leaving a vowelless mora behind, which
surfaces as a schwa. This is ensured by the constraint Government Licensing
/ GL and the Empty Category Principle (Polgárdi 1996) that phonetically realizes
segmentless nuclei. The mora is assumed to carry a [−cons] feature that is
normally assigned to sonorants when they become syllabic.
/dop/
a. ["pdo] *!
*
+ b. ["pµ .do]
c. ["pa.do]
*!
*
*
The FtBin constraint makes sure the mora is always inserted, even though the
rank of SylMarg would predict epenthesis in (3), but not in (2), because /Zm/
is an allowed onset, but /pd/ is not. Since the accent can only be assigned to
the leftmost element (NonFinality; not included here) of the binary foot
(FtBin), the vowelless mora is accented and pronounced as a schwa. In attested
98
Speaker Abstracts
*!
* *
*
*!
*
*!
Son-ϕ[−cons]
(5)
Dep-IO
SylMarg
License-µ
Dep-µ
/smor/
a. ["rsmo]
+ b. ["r.smo]
"
c. ["ra.smo]
d. ["rµ .smo]
Dep-IO
SylMarg
License-µ
*P-/r/
Dep-µ
(4)
Son-ϕ[−cons]
cases SylMarg dominates *P-/r/, which prohibits syllabic /r/, and Dep-µ,
but it is dominated by other faithfulness constraints, namely Dep-IO, w.r.t.
to Son-ϕ[−cons]. Tableau (4) shows the evaluation of word-initial /r/ in a
Šatrovački form. Since /r/ can be syllabified and accented, the epenthesized
mora is adjoined with the sonorant (4). Candidate d. (with an empty nucleus)
is penalized by License-µ.
/dlan/
a. ["ndla]
*!
b. ["n.dla] *!
"
+ c. ["nµ .dla]
* *
d. ["na.dla]
*!
Max-IO
SylMarg
License-µ
Dep-µ
Son-ϕ[−cons]
FtBin
(6)
*Coda-WdFin
The difference between (4) and (5) lies in the quality of the initial segment. As
argued by Zec (2002b: 127–128), the syllable and the foot can be associated
with different sonority thresholds – Son-ϕ[−cons] requires that the head of
the foot be vocalic, which, together with the assumption that /r/ is a [−cons]
segment (Zec 2002b: 127) means that only vowels and /r/ can be accented. Since
a syllabic /n/ as a head of a foot violates Son-ϕ[−cons], the mora in ["nµ .dla]
(5) is not adjoined with a segment, but only with [−cons] feature.
/bend/
a. ["dµ .ben] *!
* *
b. ["ndbe]
*!
*
c. ["dµ .be]
*!
* *
µ
d. ["n.d .be]
*!
* *
"
+ e. [n."dµ .be]
* **
"
f. [nµ ."dµ .be]
**! **
Tableau (6) shows the effects of Son-ϕ[−cons] in accent assignment: /n/ or /d/
Jelena Stojković
99
are not acceptable as accent-bearing segments, so two moras are inserted and
the second one is accented. Compared to (5), the tableau (6) assumes that a low
ranked License-µ that chooses candidate e. as optimal by not allowing two
empty nuclei.
If we follow Friesner’s (2005) claim that the epenthetic segment must be present
in the grammar of the host language (and, by extension, must follow from the
same ranking), we have to conclude that schwa is a licit (though least marked)
vowel of Serbo-Croatian. Its absence in the lexicon of Serbo-Croatian would
have to be an accidental gap. Since this is not the case, observed as a phonetic
realization of an accented segmentless mora, the schwa in Šatrovački follows
from the Empty Category Principle.
References
Friesner, M. 2005. A unified account of the French language game Verlan.
Ito, J. et al. 1995. Prosodic faithfulness and correspondence: Evidence from a
Japanese argot.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology.
Polgárdi, K. 1996. Constraint ranking, Government Licensing and the fate of
final empty nuclei.
Rizzolo, O. 2004. Šatrovački: la construction et l’exploitation d’un corpus de
verlan serbo-croate.
Simonović, M. 2015. Lexicon immigration service: Prolegomena to a theory of
loanwords .
Zec, D. 2002a. The role of prosody in morphologically governed phonotactic
regulatities .
Zec, D. 2002b. Prosodic Weight.
100
The resultative passive is agentive: A response to Embick (2004)
Michael Wilson (University of Massachusetts Amherst)
[email protected]
Introduction It is generally accepted that there are at least two kinds of
passive structures in English, a verbal passive and an adjectival passive (see
Wasow 1977). Embick (2004) argues that the adjectival passive should be
bifurcated into a resultative passive and a stative passive, making three total
passives (including the verbal passive, which he refers to as the “eventive”
passive). An example of the distinction is in (1):
(1)
The door is closed.
a. ‘Someone closes the door (habitually)’
b. ‘The door is in a state of having become closed’
c. ‘The door is in a state of closed-ness’
(= eventive)
(= resultative)
(= stative)
Embick (2004) argues each reading corresponds to a distinct structure: the
eventive passive is encoded by an aspectual head taking a vP complement
headed by vAGENT , the resultative passive is encoded by an aspectual head
taking a vP complement headed by vFIENT (see below for details), and the
stative occurs with an aspectual head, but no v 0 .
I argue that the structure Embick (2004) proposes for the resultative passive
is incorrect. In particular, Embick (2004) claims that the resultative passive is
non-agentive: it occurs with vFIENT , but not vAGENT . I argue that the resultative
passive is agentive, and must contain a vAGENT in its structure. I tentatively
propose a structure and semantics that can properly capture the resultative
passive reading, while noting issues for my analysis.
Detils of Embick (2004)’s Account Embick motivates a distinction between
two types of adjectival passives based on the fact that the resultative passive can
occur with adverbial modifiers whereas the stative cannot (2), and the fact that
the resultative passive cannot occur following a verb of creation whereas the
stative can (3).
(2)
The carefully closed package. . .
a. ‘The package that is in a state of having been carefully closed. . . ’
(= resultative)
Michael Wilson
101
b. *‘The package that is in a state of closed-ness carefully. . . ’
(= stative)
(3)
This door was built closed.
a. *‘This door was built in a state of having become closed.’
(= resultative)
b. ‘This door was built in a state of closed-ness’
(= stative)
The difference in (2) is explained by the resultative passive encoding an event,
which is amenable to adverbial modifiers; the stative passive does not encode
an event, and so cannot be modified by adverbials. The difference in (3) is
explained by the fact that the verb build requires that the door did not undergo
a prior closing event, whereas the resultative reading would require that it did
undergo a prior closing event, leading to a contradiction.
Embick (2004) cashes out this difference in terms of the following structure
for the resultative passive (I omit his structures for the eventive and stative
passives for reasons of space):
AspP
Asp
vP
DP
v′
vFIENT Root
Embick arrives at a structure that eschews vAGENT because of the fact that the
resultative passive does not license a by-phrase denoting an agent, as the clearly
agentive eventive passive does, as in (4).
(4)
The metal is hammered by John.
a. *‘The metal is in a state of having been hammered by John.’
(= resultative)
b. ‘John hammers the metal (habitually).’
(= stative)
Embick defines vFIENT as taking a root as an argument, and describing an event
of becoming the state described by the root. The aspectual head predicates the
result state of this event of the DP.
102
Speaker Abstracts
The Resultative is Agentive I argue against Embick: the resultative passive
obligatorily encodes agentivity. For one thing, the sole specific diagnostic he
gives for agentivity is not a solid diagnostic for agentivity. Consider (5) (from
den Dikken 1995:119):
(5)
To John was given a car.
There is no place in this sentence that a by-phrase can be inserted without
resulting in ungrammaticality. But the unavailability of a by-phrase does not
mean the sentence is non-agentive. For another thing, resultative passive
readings are not available for not-agentive predicates, even in cases where such
an event should be salient, as in (6):
(6)
(I work in a cookie factory, and have to verify that all the cookies coming
down the line have the proper fresh-baked smell. Before I clock out for the
day, I cannot say:)
*The cookies are smelled.
Yet a minimally different sentence containing an agentive predicate is licit in
this context:
(7)
(Following the context in (6)): The cookies are sniffed.
Examples involving similar “perceptual” predicates show the same contrast.
Furthermore, Embick’s proposal seemingly predicts that unaccusative verbs
should be able to license resultative passives, since vFIENT requires an internal
argument, but does not require vAGENT . But unaccusatives do not license
resultative passives:
(8)
*Eliza is appeared.
(= ‘Eliza is in a state of having appeared.’)
(Embick also proposes a structure for resultative secondary predicates, which
creates an incorrect prediction that resultative secondary predicates should
entail resultative passives. I omit the details here for reasons of space.)
Toward the Structure and Interpretation of the Resultative Passive I propose the following tentative structure for the resultative passive, assuming it is
agentive:
Michael Wilson
103
AspP
Asp
vP
(resultative) vAGENT
VP
V DP
I reduce the unavailability of a by-phrase to the semantics of the resultative
head, which existentially closes the agent argument introduced by vAGENT (P is
the proposition designated by vP):
J (resultative) K = λP<e,st> .λes .∃xe :∃ss :P(x)(e) ∧ result-state(e, s)
Putting this together with vP, we have the following for the resultative of
“hammer the metal”:
λes .∃xe :∃ss :agent(e, x) ∧ hammer(e) ∧ patient(e, the metal)
∧ result-state(e, s)
This seems to predict that the end-state may hold of any participant in an event,
which is prima facie incorrect. However, I explore some tentative steps showing
that this is possibly a correct prediction due to a related construction (the (all)
V-ed out construction). I also discuss other possible solutions. Work remains,
but evidence shows the resultative passive is agentive—we must model it as
such.
104
The syntax and semantics of event measurement in Mandarin
Anqi Zhang (University of Chicago)
[email protected]
Introduction The telicity of an incremental change verb depends on the
referential properties of its internal arguments (Krifka 1989, 1992; Tenny 1994;
Ramchand 1997; Piñon 2005 among others). However, the compositional semantics of various subtypes, such as consumption verbs, and degree achievements,
have been mostly analyzed differently. For a unified account, Kennedy (2012)
proposes to extend the scalar analysis of degree achievements to incremental
consumption verbs, such that the direct object denotes a measure of change
function, which is unexpected for the semantics of noun phrases. To validate
Kennedy’s analysis, it is crucial to show that the incremental theme NP is
associated with an event variable. In this paper, I argue that the incremental
theme direct object in Mandarin can indeed have an event type of meaning,
because it can be directly modified by a duration phrase or a frequency phrase
syntactically.
Semantics-Syntax Mismatch In Mandarin, a duration phrase (DrP) or a
frequency phrase (FP) can occur after the verb and before the direct object
in the form of ‘V + DrP/FP + DP’. As (1) and (2) show, both the duration
phrase san xiaoshi ‘three hour’ and the frequency phrase san ci ‘three times’ can
precede the direct object book ‘shu’, occupying a position that other adverbs
cannot. Additionally, unlike the frequency phrase, the duration phrase can
be optionally marked with the modifier head ‘head’, which indicates that the
duration phrase is modifying the following noun (Huang 2009).
(1)
Ta du le san xiaoshi (de) shu
S/he read prf three hour (mod) book
‘S/he read books for three hours’
(2)
Ta du le san ci
(de*) shu
S/he read prf three times (mod) book
‘S/he read books three times’
Both the DrP and FP have been argued to form a single constituent with
the direct object for the following reasons (Sybesma 1999, Liao 2014): (1) a
possessive/modifier marker de can intervene between the DrP and the direct
Anqi Zhang
105
object, (2) the DrP or the FP with the following direct object pattern like
massifiers and classifiers respectively (Sybesma 1999), and (3) evidence from
tonal sandhi also suggests the DrP or the FP forms a constituent with the
following direct object.
However, this single-constituent analysis raises a problem of semanticssyntax mismatch: a DrP or an FP semantically should modify a verb, and
yet syntactically modifies the direct object (Huang et al. 2009). To resolve
this mismatch, Huang et al. (2009) proposes that in the deep structure the
DrP or the FP still modifies the verb and through movements they end up
appearing to form a constituent with the following direct object. In this paper,
I offer new evidence from constituency tests and parallelism with different
measure phrases, and further propose an explicit syntactic structure for the
single-constituent analysis
Constituency Tests ‘DrP DO’ pass tests such as topicalization in (3) and
cleft in (4) that a double-object construction, a constituent dervied from verb
movemen(cf. Huang et al. 2009), does not. This provides ample evidence that
the duration phrase is base-generated in front of the direct object.
(3)
a.
san-xiaoshi shu wo kan-le.
three-hour book I watch-prf.
‘I read books for three hours.’
b. *Yuehan hua wo gei-le.
John flower I give-prf.
Intended: ‘I gave flowers to John.’
(4)
a.
b.
wo kan le de shi san-xiaoshi shu.
I watch prf rel cop three-hour book.
‘What I did was reading books for three hours.’
wo gei-le de shi Yuehan hua.
I give-prf rel cop John flower.
Intended: ‘What I did was giving John flowers.’
Parallel to Different Measure Phrases Jiang(2009) shows that the modifier
head de is optional for a monotonic measure phrase (cf. Schwarchild 2007) and
infelicitous for a classifier construction in Mandarin. The distribution of de
between the DrP/FP and the direct object is exactly parallel.These parallels are
easily explainable if the DO is interpreted with an event type meaning. The
106
Speaker Abstracts
DrP measures the size of an event and the FP counts the number of occurences
of an event.
(5) a. san bang (de) yingtao
three pound (mod) cherry
‘three pounds of cherries’
b. san ge (de*) yingtao
three CL (mod) cherry
‘three herries’
Analysis I propose that the direct object can be type-shifted to an event type
of meaning in this construction. In the syntax, when assigned a [+Theme]
feature, the direct object is type-shifted to an event type meaning. This explains
the syntactic and semantics mismatch without incurring any movement. A
noun with a [+Theme] feature can select for a DrP as a monotonic measure
phrase or an FP as a numeral classifier at its specifier as in (6) and (7). The
[+Theme] feature also restricts the occurrence of DrP/FP as a nominal specifier
to the direct object.
(6)
(7)
NP[+Theme]
MP[+Mon]
Num M[+Mon]
three
N[+Theme]
NP[+Theme]
N[+Theme]
CLP
book
Num
hour
book
CL
three times
The ‘DrP + de’ is simply a ModP, like other adjectives, such as in (8), but
because de semantically requires a concrete measure phrase as its complement,
‘Num+Classifier’ is infelicitous with de.
(8)
(9) *
N[+Theme]
N[+Theme]
ModP
MP[+Mon]
Num M[+Mon]
three
hour
N[+Theme]
Mod
de
book
N[+Theme]
ModP
Mod
CLP
Num
CL
three times
de
book
Anqi Zhang
107
With an event type of meaning, the duration phrase and frequency phrase
can directly modifies the direct object. My proposal not only explains the
syntactic-semantic mismatch straightforwardly, but also directly supports
Kennedy(2012)’s analysis by showing that the direct object can be associated
with an event variable. Different from Kennedy’s analysis for English, however,
the event measurement is encoded in the DrP or the FP instead in Mandarin,
because if the noun phrase encodes a specific measure function, the DrP or the
FP would not be able to modify the noun phrase.
(10) Jbook[+theme] K = λe∃x[Theme′ (e)(x) ∧ book(x)]
Jthree-hourK = λe[Duration′ (e) = 3-hour]
Jthree-timesK = λe[Count′ (e) = 3]
Conclusion My paper argues that in Mandarin the incremental theme argument can have an event type of semantics, directly supporting Kennedy(2012)’s
proposal by providing syntactic evidence that the direct object can be syntactically modified by event measurement phrases, such as a durational phrase
or a frequency phrase. Specifically, I offer new evidence to prove that the
duration phrase and the frequency phrase can form a single constituent with
the following direct object and develop a concrete syntax-semantic interface for
this construction. This paper has further crosslinguistic implications that the
event measurement function may be located in slightly different places.
108
The at-issue status of appositive relative clauses: Evidence for a
discourse-based approach
Ema Živković (University of Niš)
[email protected]
Background Utterances in discourse convey contents which may differ in
whether they express the speaker’s main point or not. At-issue content expresses
the speaker’s central message, whereas content which is secondary with respect
to the main point of the utterance is standardly labeled as not-at-issue. The
focus of this paper is on a particular class of expressions typically considered to
be not-at-issue – appositive relative clauses (henceforth ARCs).
The at-issue status of ARCs has been a subject of recent debate mainly due
to an observation that sentence-final ARCs, unlike sentence-medial ARCs,
can be directly rejected (AnderBois et al., 2010; Syrett & Koev, 2015). This
means that final ARCs can sometimes be at-issue, if it is assumed that only
at-issue content is susceptible to direct rejections. A discourse-based approach
developed by Jasinskaja (2016) accounts for this observation by making use of
general discourse mechanisms such as the Right Frontier Constraint (Polanyi,
1988) and Question Under Discussion (QUD) memory stack model (Grosz &
Sidner, 1986). According to this approach, the interpretation of the at-issue
status of final ARCs depends on rhetorical relations by which they connect with
their main clauses. Rhetorical relations can be coordinating and subordinating.
Discourse units connected by coordinating relations, such as Narration and
Contrast, are considered to be equal, which allows the discourse to progress in
a left-to-right manner. On the other hand, subordinating relations, such as
Explanation and Elaboration, lead to hierarchical structures and they do not
“push the discourse forward”. This kind of analysis is applied to final ARCs to
account for their at-issue status. When a final ARC is attached to the main
clause by a subordinating relation, as in (1), its QUD will be on top of the
memory stack, which means that the ARC content can be at-issue. However,
due to the subordinating relation, there is also an option of popping this QUD
off the stack, which would leave the main clause QUD on top of the stack,
making the main clause content at-issue. This means that either the main
clause or the final subordinate ARC can be at-issue by the end of processing the
sentence.
Ema Živković
(1)
109
The managers assigned the project to Mark, who was the only
experienced engineer at the meeting.
On the other hand, when a final ARC is attached to the main clause by a
coordinating relation, as in (2), the main clause QUD needs to be resolved and
popped of the stack before introducing the QUD corresponding to the ARC.
The main clause QUD cannot be pushed on top of the stack any more, which
means that only the ARC content can be at-issue by the end of processing the
sentence.
(2)
The managers assigned the project to Mark, who finalized it three
months later.
An important prediction that follows from the analysis above is that in an
experimental setting final discourse-structurally coordinate ARCs should
express more at-issue behavior than final discourse-structurally subordinate
ARCs. The main purpose of the experiment conducted in the present paper
was to test this prediction.
Experiment The experimental stimuli involved sets of sentences which
consisted of a main clause and a sentence-final ARC. A direct rejection test
(Tonhauser, 2012) was used to measure at-issueness in isolated sentences. A
forced choice task was designed where the participants had to choose between
a rejection of the main clause and a rejection of the ARC, as in (3) below.
(3)
Officer James Wilson arrested Lisa, who broke out of jail two days later.
a. No, he didn’t. (target: main clause)
b. No, she didn’t. (target: ARC)
The test sentences were generated by manipulating the rhetorical relations
between main clauses and ARCs. Each sentence underwent four modifications
for the purpose of manipulating four types of rhetorical relations: two coordinating ones (Narration and Contrast) and two subordinating ones (Explanation
and Elaboration). In each of these modifications the main clause remained the
same, while the relative clause changed depending on the type of rhetorical
relation by which it was connected with the main clause. An example set is
given in table 1. 64 test items in total were distributed among four lists following
a 4 × 4 Latin square design. The test items were presented to the participants
together with 18 fillers in pseudorandomized order, which means there were 34
110
Speaker Abstracts
items per participant. The experiment was administered in the form of an
online survey. 59 native speakers of English took part in the experiment.
Table 1: Example of a set of test items
Type of relation Sentence with the relative clause underlined
1. Narration
The managers assigned the project to Mark, who
finalized it three months later.
2. Contrast
The managers assigned the project to Mark, who,
however, failed to finish it before the deadline.
3. Explanation The managers assigned the project to Mark, who was
the only experienced engineer at the meeting.
4. Elaboration The managers assigned the project to Mark, who joined
the team in March.
Results The dependent measure in the statistical analysis was the percentage
of ‘No’ responses targeting the main clause or the ARC. The results indicated that
when the relative clause was connected to the main clause via a coordinating
relation, the participants chose to reject the ARC in most cases (73.1% for the
ARC v. 26.9% for the main clause). On the other hand, when the relation was
subordinating, the participants opted for the ARC rejection approximately half
of the time (47.5% for the ARC v. 52.5% for the main clause). A chi-square
test showed that there was a significant association between the participants’
responses and the type of relation between the main clause and the ARC. This
means that whether the participants chose to reject the main clause or the ARC
depended on whether the relation between the two clauses was coordinating
or subordinating. Furthermore, no significant difference was found in the
distribution of the participants’ responses between the two groups of coordinate
ARCs, as well as between the two groups of subordinate ARCs
Discussion The results of the conducted experiment confirmed the prediction
that final coordinate ARCs should express more at-issue behavior than final
subordinate ARCs, provided that being a target of a direct rejection is a
diagnostic for being at-issue. It can further be noticed that coordinate ARCs
were clearly the preferred targets of direct rejections when compared to main
clauses. However, given that final coordinate ARCs are always predicted to be
at-issue by the end of the sentence, the number of rejections corresponding to
Ema Živković
111
them should have been even higher. The paper addresses this issue by looking
at two particular test items which had a low percentage of ARC rejections.
Conclusion The paper examines whether sentence-final ARCs follow a
uniform pattern with respect to their at-issue status. The results of the conducted
experiment provide empirical support for the discourse-based approach to
the at-issue status of ARCs and at the same time pose a problem for other
approaches to ARCs, such as the one developed by AnderBois et al. (2010), as
well as the syntactic approach assumed by Syrett and Koev (2015).
References
AnderBois, S., Brasoveanu, A., & Henderson, R. (2010). Crossing the appositiveat-issue meaning boundary. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 20, 328–346.
Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of
discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.
Jasinskaja, K. (2016). Not at issue any more. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Polanyi, L. (1988). A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of
Pragmatics, 12, 601–638.
Tonhauser, J. (2012). Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. Semantics of UnderRepresented Languages of the Americas, 6, 239–254.
Syrett, K., & Koev, T. (2015). Experimental evidence for the truth conditional
contribution and shifting information status of appositives. Journal of
Semantics, 32(3), 525–577.
Poster Abstracts
115
How causal modal particles influence the mental representation of
discourses – experimental evidence
Beate Bergmann (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
[email protected]
Causality is crucial to establish coherence in discourse. (Fletcher 1986; Trabasso
& van den Broek 1985). Previous studies have shown that propositions connected
via a causal relation, e.g., by the means of the causal discourse marker ‘because’,
are better integrated into the mental representation (Caron et al. 1984, Trabasso
& Van den Boreak 1985) as well as easier to process (Millis & Just 1994, Sanders
& Noordman 2000) than propositions in a non-causal relation (e.g., additive
relation ‘and’) or propositions without overt marking (Sanders & Noordman
2000). Myers et al. (1987) found evidence that best recall performances can be
achieved for sentences with a moderate degree of causality, compared to high
and low degrees of causality.
German modal particles (MPs) are also described as linguistic devices that
establish coherence relations between two propositions p and q (e.g., Döring
2016). The present study investigates the meaning and function of two particular
German modal particles, which have been argued to mark causal relations,
namely eben (‘obviously’) and auch (lit. ‘too’). Eben denotes obviousness of the
state-of-affairs characterized by the proposition eben scopes over (= peben )
(e.g., Weydt 1969), and is in a causal relation with a preceding proposition q
(Thurmair 1989, Karagjosova 2004). Auch marks q as expected/known, with
pauch giving a reason for the expectedness of q (Thurmair 1989), whereas q
and pauch being causally related (Karagjosova 2003).
Experiment In a delayed recall experiment (N = 28), 32 discourses consisting
of two sentences q and p standing in a weak causal relation (norming study,
N = 25) were manipulated by different discourse markers such that p contained
the causal conjunction denn (‘because’), or the MP eben, or auch, or it was
presented with no overt discourse marker (control) (1). Items were presented
auditorily due to the high frequency of auch as focus particle (homophone). 16
fillers were added. Discourses were presented in 4 blocks of 12 items followed
by a recall phase after each block: participants read q and recalled p as literally
as possible in spoken form.
Data were coded for correct ‘literal’ (lit) and ‘semantically equivalent’ (sem)
recall of each of the 5 lexical constituents in p (subj/verb/adv/obj1/obj2; score
116
Poster Abstracts
0–5). Statistical analysis (LMM) revealed that both lit and sem recall were
better if p contained eben compared to control: participants recalled more
constituents (lit: t = 2.04, p < .05; sem: t = 2.36, p < .05). Recall was
marginally better with denn than without (lit: t = 1.89, p = .06; sem: t = 1.76,
p = 0.07). Auch did not differ from control (lit: t = 0.07, p = 0.95; sem
t = 0.06, p = 0.95). The results suggest that eben and denn as clear markers of
causal relations impact the mental discourse representation such that they
facilitate cued recall, whereas auch does not. The findings are in line with the
proposed semantics of eben and auch such that eben is the clearer marker of
causality. (e.g., Karagjosova 2004) Further support comes from a post-hoc
analysis, in which discourse markers in responses were annotated. Dennresponses contained significantly more often the target marker denn than the
other responses contained their target discourse marker. More interestingly, in
eben-responses, a non-target, but causal discourse marker (e.g., denn, weil)
occurred significantly more often than in other responses.
The current experimental findings combine the descriptive work of previous
research on a semantic and/or pragmatic level with experimental methods and
results from a psycholinguistic point of view, which is to my knowledge a novel
approach to the research field of modal particles. Thus, the findings shed new
insights into the function and meaning of (causal) MPs.
(1)
Stefan hat sich schon wieder eine Erkältung eingefangen.
‘Stefan has caught a cold again.’
control
Er ernährt sich täglich durch Fertiggerichte vom Supermarkt.
denn
Denn er ernährt sich täglich durch Fertiggerichte vom Supermarkt.
eben
Er ernährt sich eben täglich durch Fertiggerichte vom Supermarkt.
auch
Er ernährt sich auch täglich durch Fertiggerichte vom Supermarkt.
‘He eats convenience food from the supermarket every day (, that’s why!).’
Beate Bergmann
117
Figure 1: Mean number of recalled constituents with 95% CI (lit = literally
correct, sem = semantically correct).
Figure 2: Total number of responses with (non-)target discourse marker.
Selected References
Caron, J., Micko, H. C. & Thüring, M. (1988). Conjunctions and the recall of
composite sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 309–323.
Karagjosova, E. (2004). The Meaning and Function of German Modal Particles.
Doctoral dissertation. Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken.
Myers, J. L., Shinjo M. & Duffy, S. A. (1987). Degree of causal relatedness and
memory. Journal of Memory and Language 26.
Thurmair, M. (1989). Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Trabasso, T. & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation
of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language 24, 612–630.
118
What is PO doing? Spatial distribution and group forming in
Serbian
Ana Bosnić (University of Groningen and University of Nantes)
[email protected]
A series of truth-value judgment experiments were conducted to investigate two
competing characterizations of the Serbian distributive marker PO: Does PO
distribute over spatial/temporal units via being associated with a distributive
operator (Balusu 2006), or are distributive readings obtained because of event
plurality (sum of events)? (Knežević 2015). The latter view then claims PO is
just a plurality marker and not a universal quantifier.
Exhaustivity is a requirement for universal quantification (Zimmermann
2002). This means that the distributive Key (in Choe’s 1987 terminology), be
it an overt NP or an event argument, has to be exhaustively distributed over
by the distributive Share (an argument that is being distributed). We thus
tested the competing claims of the nature of PO by checking whether event
arguments must be exhausted. If PO is a universal quantifier, then it will require
exhaustivity. If, however, it simply marks event pluralization, exhausting event
arguments (spatial units) is not required.
We used variations of sentences like (1) with four different scenarios (pictures).
We contextually and visually made cages/caves as relevant spatial temporal
units (the restrictor) over which the jumping-monkeys had to be distributed:
(1)
Skače
PO jedan
majmun.
jump-3sg dist one-nom.m monkey-nom.m
‘One monkey jumps at different locations/times.’
The results suggest arguments are required to be exhausted on two crucial
conditions (which had about 85% rejection from the speakers) (see Fig. 1 below).
What is more, Korean results revealed the same pattern. We believe the results
are generalizable to other cases of distributive markers (e.g., Japanese, Korean,
Peruvian Quechua) and we expect the analyses of those markers will be relevant
for our own.
Ana Bosnić
119
Figure 1: Conditions in which two groups of monkeys are not jumping.
The rejection of the given scenarios indicates the exhaustivity is required over
the relevant groups of participants (monkeys) and not over the spatial units
(cages). The generalization of PO is then as follows: “For every relevant group of
participants (monkeys), one participant (monkey) has to jump. This holds when
the contextual method of division is not salient enough or it is not explicitly given”.
We therefore arrived at a group reading of PO, which is something that has
been discussed for Korean (McKercher and Kim 1999). However, the claim that
PO is simply a group-making device would not hold for PO because PO forces
distributive readings and unmarked sentences force collective (Knežević 2015).
Thus, group readings are just a special variant of readings that a distributive PO
has. This was observed for the distributive marker -nka in Quechua and we at
this point adopt the suggested analysis (Faller 2001). In our talk we will discuss
further theoretical implications and possible analyses, as well as experimental
methods for other instances with PO.
References
Balusu, R. (2006). Distributive reduplication in Telugu. Proceedings of NELS 36,
39–53.
Choe, J.-W. (1987). Anti-Quantifiers and a Theory of Distributivity. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Faller, M. (2001). The problem of Quechua -nka-distributivity vs. group
forming. Proceedings of SULA, 38–46.
Knežević, N. (2015). Numerals and Distributivity in Serbian: at the syntaxsemantics-acquisition interface. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nantes.
McKercher, D. & Kim, Y. (1999). What does ssik in Korean really mean.
Japanese/Korean Linguistics 9, 239–252.
Zimmermann, M. (2002). Boys Buying Two Sausages Each: On the Syntax and
Semantics of Distance-Distributivity. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
120
Mechanics of variation – A case study: Prenominal genitives and
derived possessives in the West Bohemian dialect of Czech
Anya Chalupová (Palacký University Olomouc)
[email protected]
This paper explores Parrott and Nevins’s (2010) approach to intra-individual
variation in the case of West Bohemian possessive nouns, as italicized in 4. In
the authors’ formalized theory of intra-individual variation, the variant forms
are phonological exponents of underspecified Vocabulary items which are
inserted into syntactic nodes with impoverished feature specifications.
In Czech, there are three constructions expressing possession within the
boundaries of a noun phrase, according to prescriptive grammar:
(1) Derived possessives
a. Jan-in
dům
Jana-poss.fem house.nom
‘Jana’s house’
b. Petr-ův
dům
Petr-poss.masc house.nom
‘Peter’s house’
(2) Genitive case (postposed)
a. dům
Jany
house.nom Jana.gen
‘the house of Jana’
(3) Possessive pronouns
můj
dům
my.nom house.nom
‘my house’
The derived possessive endings -ův, -in are consided to be a special sort of
adjectival ending in traditional treatements, even though the endings are
morphologically distinct, and not found elsewhere in the language’s grammar.
The West Bohemian dialect (WB) offers yet another construction, the
prenominal genitive, which is not as widespread as the previous ones. It is
considered ungrammatical by Czech native speakers outside of this dialect.
(4) Genitive case (preposed)
b. Jardovo babičky
kůň
a. sestry
dům
Jarda.poss grandma.gen horse.nom
sister.gen house.nom
‘the grandma of Jarda’s horse’
‘my sister’s house’
c. mojí sestry
manžel
d. táty
kamarád
my.gen sister.gen husband.nom
dad.gen friend.nom
‘my sister’s husband’
‘my dad’s friend’
Anya Chalupová
121
The WB prenominal genitive shows mixed characteristics of all the other
possessive elements. In the paper, I argue that the prenominal possessive
noun and prenominal genitive are in the state of intra-individual variation
in terms of Nevins and Parrott (2010), i.e. within an I-language grammar
of a WB speaker who uses both these constructions. The appearance of
underspecified forms is problematic since the phi-feature deletion occurs
variably instead of categorically through the application of Impoverishment
rules. The impoverished object is the WB Prenominal genitive. Intra-individual
variation arises from the properties of objects and operations in the postsyntactic morphological component.
(5) Characteristics of the base nominal for possessive elements
Construction Prenominal Prenominal Postnominal Prenominal
Characteris- possessive genitive
genitive
possessive
tics
pronouns (WB only)
pronoun
Gender/
+FEM/+MASC; +ANIM +/−FEM/+/−MASC;
Animacy
+/−ANIM
Number
+SG
+/−SG
Word/phrase WORD
WORD/
PHRASE
PHRASE
Supporting arguments for intra-individual variation of prenominal genitives
and derived possessives in West Bohemian are summarized in the following
points:
(i) With the speakers who have both constructions, these constructions can
be coordinated.
(ii) Both constructions exhibit the same type of restrictions with the exception of the possibility “light (non-lexical) premodifier” in the case of
derived possessive.
(iii) They are linearized in the same way, i.e. they are in surface prenominal
position.
The Impoverishment of the syntactic terminal allows insertion of a less specific
vocabulary item into it. This means that the items which are in competition
must share some features. In case of the derived possessive, it has been argued
122
Poster Abstracts
that it moves from postnominal genitive (Veselovská 1998; Kozánková 2015).
The featural representation based on this hypothesis is the following:
(6) a. Derived possessive: [+SG, +ANIM, +FEM/+MASC, +GEN, +POSS]
b. Prenominal genitive: [+SG, +ANIM, +FEM/+MASC, +GEN]
The +POSS feature is the reason of idiosyncratic behaviour of the element in
Czech, i.e. the impossibility of any modification. The presence of the feature
+POSS blocks +GEN agreement. There is a salient cross-linguistic argument
supporting the hypothesis that there is an underlying genitive in the derived
possessive, or in other words that the derived possessive bears +GEN. In Upper
Sorbian, the derived possessive can be premodified. Otherwise it exhibits the
same restrictions as the derived possessive in Czech. Any element premodifying
the derived possessive always comes as genitive no matter what case is on
the head noun of the whole phrase. The mechanism of intra-variation of
prenominal genitives and derived possessives in West Bohemian is then the
following:
(i) The syntactic terminal gets Variably Impoverish for the feature [+POSS].
(ii) In case the Impoverishment takes place, the inserted element is the
prenominal genitive, in other cases it is the derived possessive.
(iii) This variation is not dependent on extra-linguistic context, e. g. situation.
References
Embick, David. 2007. Variation and morphosyntactic theory: Competition
fractionated. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(1): 59–78.
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface. In: The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces,
edited by G. Ramchand and C. Reiss, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Honeybone, Patrick. 2011. Variation and linguistic theory. In: Analysing
variation in English, edited by W. Maguire and A. McMahon. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 151-177.
Kozánková, Anna. 2015. Slavic prenominal possessive structure in a crosslinguistic perspective. In: Proceedings of the 5th Central European Conference
in Linguistics for Postgraduate Students, edited by M. Janebová and L.
Veselovská.
Anya Chalupová
123
Křen, M., Cvrček, V., Čapka, T., Čermáková, A., Hnátková, M., Chlumská, L.,
Jelínek, T., Kováříková, D., Petkevič, V., Procházka, P., Skoumalová, H.,
Škrabal, M., Truneček, P., Vondřička, P., & Zasina, A.: SYN2015: reprezentativní korpus psané češtiny. Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK,
Praha 2015. Dostupný z WWW: http://www.korpus.cz
Nevins, Andrew & Parrott, Jeffrey K. 2010. Variable rules meet Impoverishment
theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties, Lingua 120(5):
1135–1159.
Veselovská, Ludmila. 1998. Possessive Movement in the Czech Nominal Phrase.
Journal of Slavic Linguistics 6(2): 255–300.
124
Superiority, economy, and information structure
Patrick D. Elliot (University College London)
[email protected]
We assess accounts of superiority effects in terms of economy, originally
proposed by Golan (1993) and Reinhart (1998), and recently revived by Fox
(2012). We find that economy-based accounts are faced with insurmountable
obstacles, and instead argue for an account of superiority effects in terms of
Information Structure, building on ideas developed in Kitagawa, Roehrs &
Tomioka (2003).
Superiority Multiple questions give rise to superiority effects (Chomsky 1973)
((1a) vs. (1b)). The standard intuition is best captured in Kuno & Robinson’s
(1972: 474) generalization (2).
(1) a. I know whoi ti bought whatj .
b. *I know whatj whoi bought tj .
(2) Wh crossing constraint: A wh
word cannot be preposed over
another wh.
Economy Reinhart (1998: 46) (citing Lasnik & Saito 1992) notes that the
contrast between (3) and (4) is problematic for any narrowly syntactic account
of superiority; in both examples, movement of whj violates the generalization
in (2).
(3) *I know whatj whoi bought tj . (4) Whoh th knows whatj whoi bought tj ?
Building on Golan (1993), Reinhart (1998) argues that, in order to understand this contrast, one should compare the superiority-obeying question (4)
(repeated in (6)) to the minimally-distinct superiority-obeying question in (5).
(5)
Whoh th knows whoi ti bought whatj ?
– Mary knows who bought caviar
(6)
Whoh th knows whatj whoi bought tj ?
– Mary knows what John bought.
As indicated by the focusation of the answers (Krifka 2004, a.o.), (5) and
(6) ask different questions. Reinhart couches her analysis in terms of global
Patrick D. Elliot
125
interface economy – the derivations underlying (5) and (6) only compete if they
express the same global meaning. (1b) is unacceptable, because its minimallydiffering superiority-obeying competitor (1a) expresses the same meaning. (6)
is acceptable because its minimally-differing superiority-obeying competitor
(5) expresses a different global meaning.
Pair-list vs. single-pair It has been know since at least Kuno (1982) that the
presuppositions of multiple questions differ, depending on which wh overtly
moves. Relevantly, multiple questions can have two readings: Pair-List (PL)
and Single-Pair (PL) (Dayal 1996, 2002; Nicolae 2013; Kotek 2014). (5) and (6)
are examples of the SP reading. (7) and (8) exemplify the PL reading.
(7)
Which waiterh th served which tablei ?
– Jeff served table A,
Troy served table B,
and Abed served table C.
(8)
Which tablei did which waiterh serve ti ?
– table A was served by Jeff,
table B was served by Troy,
and table C was served by Abed.
The answers in (7) are sorted according to the waiters, and the answers in (8)
are sorted according to the tables. This intuition is formalized by Dayal (1996,
2002) as two distinct presuppositions carried by multiple questions under the
PL reading.
(9)
Domain exhaustivity: every
member of the set quantified
over by the overtly moved wh
is paired with a member of the
set quantified over by the insitu wh.
(10)
Pointwise uniqueness (functionhood): every member of
the set quantified over by the
overtly moved wh is paired
with a unique of the set quantified over by the in-situ wh.
Semantically sensitive shortest move Fox (2012) explores the predictions of
Reinhart’s global interface economy account in light of this more fine-grained
understanding of the semantics of questions: Prediction: Superiority-violating
multiple questions should be acceptable, but only under the PL reading. This is
because Dayal’s presuppositions only affect the PL reading. Fox argues that
126
Poster Abstracts
this is correct on the basis of examples like the following (adapted from Kotek
2014):
(11)
Context: scientists have discovered a new planetary system consisting
of just two stars.
a. Whichh th revolves around whichi ?
superiority obeying
b. *Whichi does whichh revolve around ti ?
superiority violating
A PL reading of (11) is ruled out, since both whs have the same domain of
quantification: {star1 , star2 }, and the revolve around relation is non-reflexive
and antisymmetric. It follows that the presuppositions of the PL reading can
never be satisfied. Global interface economy makes the right prediction here –
superiority may not be violated, since the SP reading is the only one available.
Response: we show that global interface economy cannot be what is responsible
here.
(12)
Context: there are three linguists at the party – Ad, Hans, and Klaus.
a. Whichh th admires whichi ?
superiority obeying
b. *Whichi does whichh admire ti ?
superiority violating
Global Interface Economy predicts (12b) to be acceptable under the PL reading.
This is because (12b) should presuppose that for each linguist, there is a unique
linguist who admires them, whereas (12a) presupposes that for each linguist,
there is a unique linguist they admire.
In both examples, the domains of quantification of the two whs were the
same. Global interface economy predicts that if the domains of quantification are distinct, but the superiority-obeying and -violating interrogatives
express equivalent question meanings, superiority-violations should lead to
unacceptability.
(13)
Context: you attend a social event for married couples only, and
encounter a group consisting of three men and three women.
a. Which of these three menh th is married to which of these three
womeni ?
sup. obeying
b. Which of these three womeni is which of these three menh married
to ti ?
sup. violating
Patrick D. Elliot
127
Since the married to relation is symmetric and nonreflexive, and
∣the three men∣ = ∣the three women∣, there is no situation in which the
presuppositions of one question could be satisfied, where the other isn’t –
the interrogatives express equivalent questions. It is still possible to violate
superiority in (13b).
Analysis We reject global interface economy, and propose that constraints
on superiority-violations should be accounted for in terms of an informationstructural asymmetry between the whs. Our generalization is as follows:
(14)
In a superiority-violating multiple question, whh and whi must have
distinct domains of quantification.
Building on Kitagawa, Roehrs & Tamioka (2003), we argue that when superiority
is violated, the overtly moved wh is interpreted in a dedicated Contrastive
Topic position (Constant 2014), and this imposes an information-structural
asymmetry between the two whs, not present when superiority is obeyed.
References
Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH Quantification. Studies in Linguistics and
Philosophy.
Fox, Danny. 2012. The semantics of questions. Class notes, MIT seminar.
Kuno, Susumo. 1982. The focus of the question and the focus of the answer.
Papers from the parasession on nondeclarative sentences, Chicago Linguistics
Society.
Kuno, Susumo and Robinson, Jane J. 1972. Multiple wh questions. Linguistic
Inquiry.
Reinhart, Tanya. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program. 1998.
Natural Language Semantics.
128
The multifunctional morpheme /l´/ in Awing: A wh-focus
consipracy
e
Henry Zamchang Fominyam (Universität Potsdam)
[email protected]
An overwhelming assumption in the generative framework is that wh-words
and focalized elements share a common feature – [+focus]. Awing, like most
Grassfields Bantu languages spoken in the North and Western regions of
Cameroon have a morpheme that often shows up with wh-words and focalized
elements. In these languages, such a morpheme is commonly labelled F(ocus)
M(arker) FM (e.g., Biloa 2014, Fominyam 2012, among others). However, very
little is known about the types of foci (i.e., new, contrastive or exhaustive).
Moreover, the exact role of this morpheme that optionally occurs with wh-words
is still unclear. The /l´/ morpheme (glossed here as LE) in Awing, in particular,
functions as: a copula, an exhaustive focus marker, a conjunction (opposing the
predication of two clauses) and a wh-‘operator’. The aim of this paper is to use
the Awing language, in particular, and set the pace for a rethinking of focus
marking in Grassfields Bantu, in general. First, it will be shown that the LE
morpheme is used with wh-words only if there is a presupposition of other
explicit elements. Although such contrast militates for a focus oriented analysis,
the syntax of embedded questions in Awing, will reveal, however, that the LE
morpheme can best be equated to a morphological wh-operator, in parallel
to a wh- EPP/edge feature responsible for wh-movement in languages like
English. The paper conclude with an analysis of preposed materials in Awing
by showing that such materials can be best accounted for in a biclausal (cleft)
structure. Using the different negation morphemes in Awing, among other
diagnoses, I will show that the LE morpheme in sentence-initial position is a
copula and as such, it bears no focus feature.
e
129
Parametrizing intralinguistic variation: Case assignment strategies
in Russian event nominalizations
Anastasia Gerasimova (Lomonosov MSU, MSPU)
[email protected]
The idea of parameter is foundational in linguistics. Since the Theory of
Principles and Parameters it has been common to see the differences between
languages as the result of parameter realization (Chomsky & Lasnik 1993;
Pesetsky 2003). This approach was preserved through the Minimalist framework,
where formal features of lexical and functional heads serve as parameters
predetermining the outcome of the derivation. Consequently, cross-linguistic
morphosyntactic variety results from language-specific values of general
parameters.
However, variation commonly exists inside a single language and falls into
two options of variance: either grammatical variants of one language are
distributed among the speakers, or they coexist within the grammatical scope of
one individual. The first type of variation prevails within speech communities
and is dictated by a number of factors such as area, social class, gender, genre
etc., e.g. was/were variation across English dialects and sociolects (Anderwald
2001). Another type occurs in the speech of one individual and is caused by the
presence of several variants for one linguistic configuration.
This talk addresses the issue of intralingual variation in the context of
Russian event nominalizations (Alexiadou 2001; Grimshaw 1990). Russian
event nominalizations belong to ergative-possessive type (Koptjevskaja-Tamm
2002). This means that the arguments of intransitives and internal arguments of
transitive stems are marked with possessive case GEN, while external arguments
of transitives are assigned INSTR.
(1)
a.
b.
c.
padenie kursa
rublja
fall
course.gen rouble.gen
‘fall of rouble course (weakening of rouble)’
vorchanie sosedei
grumbling neighbors.gen
‘neighbors’ grumbling’
ispolnenie arii
Shaljapinyim
performance aria.gen Chaliapin.instr
‘performance of aria by Chaliapin’
130
Poster Abstracts
Nevertheless, the corpus data shows that instrumental case marking is not
limited to prototypical transitive stems (contra Engelhardt & Trugman 1998;
Rappaport 2002). The external argument of transitive nominalizations with
lexically governed internal argument can be marked both GEN and INSTR. Two
alternatives are possible, which means that external argument demonstrates
differential case marking.
(2)
torgovlja evreev skotom
trading Jews.gen cattle.instr
‘trading in cattle by Jews’ (Russian National Corpus)
(3)
torgovlja tserkov’yu nebesnoi blagodat’yu
trading church.instr grace of God.instr
‘trading in grace of God by church’ (Russian National Corpus)
As previously was shown in (Gerasimova, Lyutikova & Pereltsvaig 2016), the
two existing case theories make distinct predictions about case marking for
nominalizations whose internal argument is lexically governed. Inherent case
theory (Woolford 2006) expects the external argument to be marked with
INSTR, an inherent case, which is assigned independently from internal argument and which is associated with Agent θ-role. On the contrary, Dependent
Case Theory (Marantz 2000) predicts that external argument is assigned GEN,
an unmarked adnominal case, which appears under the lack of another caseless
DP within a case competition domain.
Hence we see that each theory can justify only one alternative. Consequently,
it is essential to find out, which model of intralingual variation is represented
in the case of Russian event nominalizations. If the ability to mark the external
argument with INSTR is individual, then the two modalities of case assignment
are distributed among speakers. Alternatively, if both strategies are equally
available to any speaker, we should account for how the two case configurations
can coexist in one individual grammar. In other words, the case assignment
mechanisms have to allow the choice between GEN and INSTR. The problem
is in particular interesting in the context of recent discussion of whether the
coexistence of two modalities of case assignment is possible within one language
(Baker & Vinokurova 2010; Levin & Preminger 2015).
In this talk I will present new data that expands the knowledge about case
assignment strategies in Russian event nominalizations. I conducted two
linguistic experiments focusing on what cases speakers choose in the process
Anastasia Gerasimova
131
of speech production and how they estimate grammaticality of cases when
reading sentences. In survey A data was collected from 120 participants, who
were asked to generate arguments of nominalizations assigning cases that
sounded most natural to them. Then 78 respondents from the first experiment
took part in survey B: they were asked to evaluate the grammaticality of event
nominal constructions with external argument marked GEN or INSTR using
the Likert scale (Likert 1932).
Relying on the experimental data we can conclude that within the experiment
A Russian native speakers are inconsistent in using INSTR. In accordance
with the usage speakers can be grouped into two clusters depending on how
frequently they used INSTR during the survey A. However, speakers’ evaluation
of the INSTR acceptability is not consistent with the grouping based on actual
usage in speech. Thus, the testee who constantly assign INSTR to external
arguments of action nominal constructions may estimate sentences with INSTR
much less preferable than with GEN and vice versa.
The findings might prove that two strategies of case assignment to arguments
of nominalization coexist within case grammar of one speaker. So the hypothesis
that predicts in Russian two modalities of case assignment distributed among the
speakers must be rejected. Therefore, the experimental study shows that there
is a need for a new model that would take into account an eventual coexistence
of two alternatives for case marking and explain speakers’ preferences when
choosing the case of external argument.
References
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization
and Ergativity. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Publishing.
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2001. Was/were-variation in non-standard British
English today. English World-Wide 22.1: 1–21.
Baker, Mark C. and Nadya Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28.3:
593–642.
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and
parameters. Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research 1:
506–569.
Engelhardt, Miriam and Helen Trugman. 1998. D as a source of adnominal
genitive in Russian. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Workshop on formal
approaches to Slavic linguistics. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic publications.
132
Poster Abstracts
Gerasimova, Anastasia, Ekaterina Lyutikova and Asya Pereltsvaig. 2016. Case
Marking in Russian Eventive Nominalizations: Inherent vs. Dependent
Case Theory. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 25, 14 May, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2002. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.
Levin, Theodore and Omer Preminger. 2015. Case in Sakha: are two modalities
really necessary? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33.1: 231–250.
Likert, Rensis. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of
Psychology 140: 1–55.
Marantz, Alec. 2000. Case and licensing. Arguments and case: Explaining
Burzio’s generalization: 11–30.
Pesetsky, David. 2003. Principles & Parameters Theory. Oxford International
Encyclopedia of Linguistics.
Rappaport, Gilbert C. 2002. Numeral phrases in Russian: A minimalist
approach. Journal of Slavic linguistics 10: 327–340.
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure.
Linguistic Inquiry 37.1:2 111–130.
133
Labeling and two types of null operators in English
Ryosuke Hattori (University of Connecticut)
[email protected]
Introduction Stowell (1986) shows (also noted by Chomsky 1973, Stowell 1987,
Browning 1987, Cinque 1990; among others) that the null operator (Op) movement in tough constructions is clause-bounded (movement from subject/object
position of an embedded finite clause is degraded) as in (1).
(1) a. *Betsy is easy [ Opi [ PRO to expect [ ti fixed the car ]]]
b. *John is easy [ Opi [ PRO to believe [ ti kissed Mary ]]]
c. ??This car is hard [ Opi [ PRO to claim [ Betsy fixed ti ]]]
d. ??That language is impossible [ Opi [ PRO to say [ Greg will learn ti ]]]
(Stowell 1986:477)
However, in other structures where Op movement involves, e.g. comparative/temporal clauses, the extraction of Op from the embedded finite clause is
possible (Bresnan 1975, Larson 1990):
(2) a. Mary read more books [ PP than [ CP Opi everyone thinks [ CP ti Tom
believes [ CP ti that it is said [ ti that John read ti ]]]]]
b. I saw Mary in New York [ PP before [ CP Opi she claimed [ CP ti that she
would arrive ti ]]] (Interpretation: “prior to the time t that she alleged
would be the time of her arrival”)
The clause-bounded effect in (1) is explained in the previous works based on
the Empty Category Principle under the proper binding relation (e.g. Chomsky
1981); however, this effect has not been discussed in the recent years. This
paper, under the labeling theory (Chomsky 2013), explains the above difference
between (1) and (2) by assuming that a Complex Null Operator is involved in
English tough sentences, following Hicks (2009).
Labeling and Freezing Chomsky (2013) claims that the algorithm for Labeling is basically stated in the following way: when a head and a phrase merge,
the head projects as in (3a); when two phrases are merged, a shared feature of
the two phrases is projected as in (3b) or if one of the phrases is a trace it gets
ignored and the other phrase is projected as in (3c).
134
Poster Abstracts
(3) a.
X
X YP
b.
f
XP[f] YP[f]
c.
YP
t YP
Now, based on the labeling algorithm (Chomsky 2013), successive cyclic
movement of a wh-phrase is forced since in an intermediate position where a
whP and a CP are merged, creating {α whP, CP}, the syntactic object α cannot
be labeled unless whP raises up further, its trace being ignored so that α is
labeled as CP based on (3c). In some cases, a whP shares a feature with a CP
and thus stops raising. For instance, this happens in an indirect question where
a wh-phrase moves to merge with a CP in the complement position of a verb
like wonder.
(4) they wondered [α in which Texas city [β C [ JFK was assassinated ]]]
(Chomsky 2013:45)
Here, the α is of the form {α whP, CP}, but whP does not raise. Based on the
algorithm in (3b), the most prominent feature of whP and of CP, namely the
interrogative feature Q (Cable 2007, 2010; Narita, 2011), being shared, it projects
as the label of α. Thus, the Freezing effect (Rizzi 2006, 2007) is now interpreted
based on the labeling theory, i.e. an element undergoing A′ -movement gets
frozen for further movement when it participates in feature-sharing for labeling.
Explanation : I claim that Op-movement involved in tough constructions is
an XP in terms of labeling operation as in (3b). Hicks (2009) claims that a null
operator in tough constructions is a wh-phrase with more complex internal
structure than is typically assumed, i.e. a complex DP with the internal DP as
the tough subject as shown below.
DP1 [iφ, uCase, iQ, uWH]
(5)
D
NP
N DP2 [iφ, uCase]
Op John
Based on this complex null operator (henceforth, CNO) analysis, when the
CNO merges with the V as an object, the patient θ-role is assigned to the whole
Ryosuke Hattori
135
complex DP1, and after the CNO merges with a CP, the inner DP2 is smuggled
(Collins 2005a, b) into the matrix subject position without being assigned an
accusative Case.
(6)
TP
DP2j
John
Q
DP1[Q]
i
. . . tj . . .
CP[Q]
. . . ti . . .
What is important here, which Hicks does not discuss, is that assuming this
CNO analysis, the CNO (=DP1) shares the Q feature with a CP when it is
internally merged with it in (6). Thus, A′ -movement of the CNO gets frozen
when it is merged with a finite clause and shared feature projects as the label,
just as the case of indirect question. The ungrammaticality of the sentences in
(1), therefore, can be explained based on the labeling theory in Chomsky (2013).
Consequences Since there is no freezing effect in Op-movement in comparatives or temporal clauses as in (2), the above analysis of Op involved
in tough constructions has the consequence that there is no feature-sharing
in Op movement in comparative or temporal clauses. This paper pursues
the possibility of the Op to be a head (=X) and thus projects as a label after
movement as in (3a). Cecchetto and Donati (2015) argue that there are cases
in which overt operators can project as a label after they move as a head to
internally merge with a CP, e.g. in the free relative construction as shown below.
(7) I read [ DP [ D what ] [ CP you read twhat . ]] (Cecchetto & Donati 2015:1)
Here, the wh-word moves as a D head and provides a label when it merges with
a CP, so that resulting structure what you read becomes a DP. Looking at null
operators in this regard, the Op in comparative/temporal clause seems to project
as a label in the same way, since crucially we get the same DP interpretation of
a clause in such cases (e.g. “the amount in which John read books.” or “time of
136
Poster Abstracts
Mary’s arrival”). In fact, a number of authors have claimed that comparative
clauses should be analyzed as a kind of free relatives (e.g. Donati 1997).
Selected References
Bresnan, J. 1975. Comparative Deletion and Constraints on Transformations.
Linguistic Analysis 1, 25–74.
Cecchetto, C. & C. Donati. 2015. On (re)labelling. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, Mass : The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 33–49.
Collins, C. 2005a. A smuggling approach to raising in English. Linguistic
Inquiry 36, 289–298.
Donati, C. 1997. Comparative Clauses as Free Relatives: a Raising Analisis.
Probus 9, 145–166.
Hicks, G. 2009. Tough-Constructions and their Derivation. Linguistic Inquiry
40, 535–566.
Larson, R. 1990. Extraction and Multiple Selection in PP. The Linguistic Review
7, 169–182.
Rizzi, L. 2006. On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. in L.
Cheng, N. Corver, eds, Wh Movement: Moving on. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 97–134.
Stowell, T. 1986. Null antecedents and proper government. Proceedings of NELS
16, 476-493.
137
Complementizer agreement in Busan Korean
Hyunjung Lee (Sogang University)
[email protected]
Nutshell I investigate the phenomenon of complementizer agreement in
Busan Korean (BK) interrogatives under the feature-checking system. Unlike
Seoul Korean, various interrogative complementizers such as -ka, -ko, -na,
and -no are observed. The four distinctive forms depends on (i) the categorial
feature of the predicate and (ii) the type of question (polar vs. content). Overall,
it is shown that the complementizer agreement of BK interrogatives is analyzed
by general computational properties such as probe-goal Agree.
Background BK, a dialect of Korean spoken in the southern tip of the Korean
peninsula, has an unusual case of allomorphy on its interrogative complementizers. The complementizer encodes, among other things, whether the
predicate is nominal or verbal. I have found only two other cases of allomorphy
conditioned by lexical category in the literature before (Rezac, 2004, Wilson,
2014), thus the current study adds a vital typological component to agreement
possibilities in the world’s languages.
Data The basic paradigm for complementizer allomorphy in questions is
described in (1) (So, 1984). (The complementizers are shown in boldface.)
(1)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Ni-ka
chayk-ul ilk-n-a
you-nom book-acc read-Kv -Vq
‘Are you reading a book?’
Ni-ka
mwe-lul ilk-n-o
you-nom what-acc read-Kv -Vwh
‘What are you reading?’
Ce salam-i Swumin-i-k-a
that man-nom Swumin-cop-Kn -Vq
‘Is that woman Swumin?’
Ce salam-i nwu-Ø-k-o
that man-nom who-cop-Kn -Vwh
‘Who is that woman?’
Observe that the consonant (hereafter K) varies with respect to the categorial
feature of the predicate (Kv versus Kn ), and that the vowel (V) differ with respect
138
Poster Abstracts
to the kind of question (polarity, Vq vs. content, Vwh). I thus propose that
the complementizer is actually a sequence of two morphemes, K-V. Consider
the following data, however, where unexpected forms are observed. In the
first example Kv is found on a copular construction (rather than the expected
Kn ). In the second example Kn is found on a verbal predicate (rather than the
expected Kv ).
(2)
a.
b.
Ce salam-i Swumin-i-yess-n-a
(*k-a)
that man-nom Swumin-pst-cop-Kv -Vq (Kn -Vq)
‘Was the woman Swumin?’
Ni-ka
chayk-ul ill-ul-ke-k-a
(*n-a)
you-nom book-acc read-irr-nmz-cop-Kn -Vq (Kv -Vq)
‘Will you read a book?’
Note that the future forms are built with the copula plus a nominalized form of
the verbal predicate. Consider the following future form of the verbal predicate
in (2b).
(1)
eat-irr-nmz-cop-Kn -Vq
irr – irrealis; nmz – nominalizer
Discussion The observation above is that the BK interrogative complementizer is a bimorphemic complex. The consonant (hereafter K) encodes interrogative Force and co-varies with the lexical category of the predicate (with
the exceptions noted above) and the vowel (hereafter V) co-varies with the
type of question: polarity versus content. The puzzling case of allomorphy is
that found on the consonant. Given the cyclic nature of vocabulary insertion,
higher morphemes should not be morphologically conditioned by morphemes
lower on the tree. Thus, when lexical insertion takes place, K should not be able
to see the categorial features on the predicate underneath it. This forces that
conclusion that an Agree relation holds between K and the categorial feature
of the predicate (See Rezac, 2004, for a similar phenomenon in Breton). K
and V are present only in questions, and V indicates the kind of question (I
capture this with the following lexical entries and the following Vocabulary
Items (δ = categorial feature). Recall that K appears in questions only, so must
be specified as [iQ]. V also appears in questions only, so is also specified [iQ].
V preferentially agrees with a wh-feature. However, if no wh-feature is found,
Agree fails (in the sense of Preminger, 2014), and [uwh] is deleted.
139
Hyunjung Lee
(2)
K [iQ, uδ:]
/k/ ↔ [Q, δ:n]
/n/ ↔ [Q, δ:v]
V [iQ, uwh]
/a/ ↔ [Q, wh]
/o/ ↔ [Q]
I assume that K and V are distinct probes in the C layer on Int and Force,
respectively (Rizzi, 1997, 2001), although the precise location is not vital. In
the core cases K probes for the closest lexical category and finds either n or v,
giving rise to the forms above. Here are the derivations for (1a, c), respectively.
I assume the DP inside the copular construction contains the full range of
DP-internal functional material, including nP. The [uwh] Probe on Force,
failing to enter into an Agree relation, is simply deleted. Crucially, [uwh] is
deleted before Spell-Out, while [uδ:n/v] survives at PF for Vocabulary Insertion.
(3)
a.
[ForceP [IntP [TP [DP you ]i [vP ti [VP rice [V eat ]] v ] T ] Int[iQ,uδ:v]
] Force[iQ,uwh] ]
b.
[ForceP [IntP [TP [DP that man ]i
[RP ti [DP Mincwu ] [R COP ]] T ] Int[iQ,uδ:n] ] Force[iQ,uwh] ]
Unexpected Cases Recall that predicate noun constructions in the past tense
give rise to verbal agreement on the complementizer. I argue that overt tense
marking requires a (phonologically null), active v for T to be licensed. It well
known in the traditional literature on Korean grammar that putting past tense
on a non-active verb gives rise to active properties (Yeon & Brown, 2011).
Thus, I assume an active (but non-agentive) v appears in past tense copular
constructions. (See Harley, 2013 on the separation of the external argument
introducing property from v.) Now, when K probes for a categorial feature, it
finds v and selects the /n/ allomorph. Here is the derivation for (2a).
(4)
[ForceP [IntP [TP [DP that woman ]i [vP [RP ti [DP Swumin ] [R COP ] ]
v ] TPST ] Int[iQ,uδ:v] ] Force[iQ,uwh] ]
When K probes for a categorial feature it find the nominalizer ke (a reduced
form of the noun kes ‘thing’). Thus, both unexpected cases fall out from general
properties of Korean grammar—namely, that past tense requires an active v
and that the future is constructed from a nominalized form of the verb.
140
Poster Abstracts
Conclusion I have investigated BK interrogative complementizers which
displays a typologically interesting and theoretically challenging form of
agreement where allomorphy is based on categorial feature. I have proposed
that it is derived by an Agree relation with the closest categorial feature.
Selected References
Harley, H. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125:34–57.
Preminger, O. 2014. Agreement and Its Failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rezac, M. 2004. The EPP in Breton: An Unvalued Categorial Feature. In
Triggers, eds. A. Breitbarth and H. Van Riemsdijk, 451–492. Berlin, New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rizzi, L. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Elements of Grammar:
A handbook in generative syntax, ed. L. Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
141
The question system of Dagbani
Samuel Alhassan Issah (Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main)
[email protected]
Introduction This paper examines the grammar of question phrases in Dagbani, a relatively little researched Gur language spoken in Northern Ghana.
I focus on the inventory of the question phrase system, their internal structure, and grammatical features such as the semantic distinction between
human/nonhuman question phrases, specification for number value and lexical
ambiguity.
Description Though Olawsky (1999) discusses Dagbani question phrases,
there are some shortcomings such as inexhaustive list of the semantic domains of
question phrases, failure to distinguish between simplex and complex question
phrases and the lack of discussion on their grammatical properties. Contrary to
Olawsky, I propose that the inventory of the question phrases of Dagbani is as
given in table 1. I further argue that question phrases are independent elements
in that they do not need to be bounded to any other syntactic category within
the sentence. The proposal is made that the question phrases are independent
syntactic elements chosen within the numeration.
Table 1: Dagbani question phrases
question phrases
Semantic category Gloss
bò
díní
yà
wúlà
ŋúní
álá
ŋún+NP
NP+álá
sáhá díní/bóǹdálí
bòzùyú/wúlàzùyú
nonhuman
thing
location
manner/instrument
human
cost
possession
quantity
time
reason
what
which
where
how
who
how much
whose
how many
when
why
I pursue an analysis according to which there is a distinction in the question
142
Poster Abstracts
phrases of Dagbani based on the semantic features of the referents. Whereas
ŋúní ‘who/whom’ substitutes for human referents, bò ‘what’ substitutes for
non-human referent. This semantic distinction based on human/nonhuman
referents is exemplified in (1).
(1)
a.
b.
ŋúní/*bò ń dá-Ø
yílí máá?
who/what foc buy.perf house def
‘WHO has bought the house?’
bò/*ŋúní ká bí-hí máá sá dá-rá?
what/who foc child.pl def trm buy.imperf
‘WHAT were the children buying yesterday?’
Though ambiguities in question phrases have been argued to be typologically
rare as articulated in Cysouw (2005), I argue that it is a property of the question
phrase system Dagbani in the sense that wúlà ‘how’ has multiple interpretation
as either a manner adverb or an instrument as explicated in (2).
(2)
a.
b.
c.
Q: Wúlài ká á dí-Ø
bìndírígù máá ti ?
how foc 2sg eat.perf food
def
‘HOW did you eat the food?’
A: Dírígù ká ń záŋ dí-Ø
bìndírígù máá. [Instrument]
spoon foc 1sg use eat.perf food
def
‘A SPOON, I have used to eat the food.’
A: Bíεlábíεlá ká ń dí-Ø
bìndírígù máá. [Manner]
slowly
foc 1sg eat.perf food
def
‘SLOWLy, I ate the food.’
The question phrase wúlà ‘how’ in (3a) is ambiguous in the sense that it could
be substituting for the instrument of the action as in dírígù ‘spoon’ (3b) or for a
manner non-argument element, which is an adverb-like expression, bíεlab´εla
‘slowly’ as in (3c).
Number marking is also identified as a grammatical property of question
phrases in Dagbani. I postulate that number marking is a morphological
phenomenon considering the fact that it is coded using the inflectional suffix
-nímá, a plural marker in Dagbani. However, not all the question phrases inflect
for number.
Analysis In addition to the typological description of the Dagbani question system, I provide a theoretical analysis couched within Minimalism
Samuel Alhassan Issah
143
(Chomsky 1995 et seq.). I therefore show that the question phrases that are
specified for [+human], [−human] and [+thing] are sensitive to number, given
that they alternate for plurality (ŋúní∼bánímá (who.sg∼who-pl), bò∼bònímá
(what.sg∼what-pl), díní∼dínnímá (what.sg.thing∼what.thing-pl). I propose
that these question phrases carry an uninterpretable number feature that
undergoes feature checking with an interpretable number head also part of
the question phrase. Of particular interest is the alternation of suppletion
observable in ŋúní∼bánímá, which seems to represent a case of genuine root
suppletion.
Conclusion This paper gives a systematic analysis of an aspect of Dagbani
grammar has not received any systematic linguistic attention. It therefore,
adds to our knowledge of grammar of questions phrases in African languages,
especially on an otherwise under described one.
Selected References
Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge. MIT Press.
Cysouw, Michael. (2005). The typology of content interrogatives. Presentation
at 6th meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology 24 July 2005,
Padang, Indonesia.
Olawsky, Knut J. (1999). Aspects of Dagbani grammar, with special emphasis
on phonology and morphology. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Munich:
Lincom.
144
The presupposition of exclamatives at the syntax-semantics
interface: Evidence from German and Japanese
Katsumasa Ito (University of Tokyo, JSPS Research Fellow)
[email protected]
This paper proposes a mechanism of how presupposition occurs in German
exclamatives with a complementizer (German dass-exclamatives) like (1a),
which can also explain the nature of Japanese exclamatives with a nominalizer
(Japanese koto-exclamatives) like (1b).
German dass-exclamatives show interesting behavior regarding presupposition. Von Fintel’s (2004) wait-a-minute-test suggests that so schön ‘so beautiful’
in (1a) is not a part of presupposition (2). Following Zanuttini & Portner
(2003), I assume that the presupposition trigger of exclamatives is a FACT-Op
(factivity-operator). This operator also exists in clauses embedded by factive
predicates. Haegeman (2014) suggests that the FACT-Op is base-generated at
IP-field and moves to CP-field. Reinterpreting her idea under the framework of
Pesetsky & Torrego (2007), I assume that the FACT-Op at IP-field has uFCT[val]
(uninterpretable valued fact-feature), which agrees with iFCT[ ] (interpretable
unvalued fact-feature) at C. After the Agree-operation, the uF[val] of FACT-Op
is deleted and iF[ ] at C is valued. Note that iF[ ] at C is a probe and uF[val] of
FACT-Op is the goal.
Following Corver (1990) and Rett (2008), I further assume that the degree
predicate so schön ‘so beautiful’ in (1a) constitutes DegP (degree phrase). The
wh-phrase and adjective of exclamatives like (3) also constitute DegP, which
agrees with C and moves to Spec-CP. In analogy with (3), we can assume that
the DegP so schön also agrees with C in (1a), though there is no movement. The
DegP has iDEG[val] (interpretable valued degree-feature) and the exclamative
C has uDEG[ ] (uninterpretable unvalued degree-feature). In (1a), the DegP so
schön is in-situ since the uDEG[ ] at C does not have EPP-property.
In order to implement compositional semantics under the syntactic framework of Pesetsky & Torrego (2007), I propose following rules:
(i) After Agree-operation between iF[ ] at X and uF[val] at Y, the meaning
of Y is interpreted at X.
(ii) After Agree-operation between uF[ ] at Head-XP and iF[val] at Y, the
Katsumasa Ito
145
meaning of Y is interpreted at Spec-XP and Y leaves a trace in its original
position.
The rule (ii) is applied regardless of EPP-property. This rule enables to hold the
LF-movement analysis by Heim & Kratzer (1998), which allows traces to be
various types. In order to simplify the discussion, however, I ignore traces in
this abstract.
The denotation of FACT-Op is (4). (5) illustrates a simplified version of
the denotation of the DegP so schön in (1a). The degree argument is type d
and introduced by the context (cf. Rett 2008). Under these assumptions, the
derivation of (1a) proceeds like in (6) and its semantic composition is (7).
The result correctly predicts that so schön ‘so beautiful’ in (1a) is not a part of
presupposition.
Our theory also provides an account for intriguing nature of Japanese kotoexclamatives. Japanese koto-exclamatives (1b) become ungrammatical when
the predicate is not an adjective (8), while German dass-exclamatives have
no such restriction. When koto-exclamatives are embedded, the restriction
on predicates disappears and the subject is marked (not as genitive but) as
nominative (9). According to Miyagawa (2011), the genitive subjects in Japanese
are due to the absence of C and its feature inheritance. The obligatory genitive
subject in (1b) suggests that there is no C in Japanese koto-exclamatives. Without
C, the FACT-Op cannot agree with iFCT[ ] and its uFCT[val] remains until
the end of the derivation. This is the reason why (8) is ungrammatical. In
(1b), on the other hand, there is no FACT-Op and the derivation converges.
The wait-a-minute-test (10) indicates the absence of the FACT-Op in kotoexclamatives. In (10), only the existence of the subject referent is presupposed.
This presupposition is triggered by the definite description sono ‘the’ and the
effect of FACT-Op is not observed, which suggests that there is no FACT-Op.
But why is the numeration for (8) without Fact-Op impossible? The answer may
be because the pragmatics requires non-gradable predicates to be presupposed
in order to interpret a clause as exclamative. It will be shown in this talk that
this generalization seems to be valid cross-linguistically.
(1)
a.
b.
Dass die so schön
getanzt hat!
that she so beautifully danced has
Sono keshiki-no/*-ga
kireidatta
koto!
the scenery-gen/-nom beautiful.past nmlz
146
Poster Abstracts
(2)
Dass die so schön getanzt hat!
a. —Hey, wait a minute. She didn’t dance.
b. —#Hey, wait a minute. It was not so beautiful.
(3)
[ DegP How tall ] i he is ti !
(4)
J FACT-Op K = λf<s,t> : f ∈ CG.f
(5)
(6)
(7)
J DegP K = J so schön K = λf<s,t> .λdd .λws .beautifully(f)(d) in w
J FACT-Op K (J IP K) = λws :she danced ∈ CG.she danced in w
J CP K = J DegP K {J FACT-Op K (J IP K)}
λdd .λws :she danced ∈ CG.beautifully(she danced)(d) in w
(8)
*Lisa-no (kireini) odotta koto!
Lisa-gen beautifully danced nmlz
(9)
Ken-wa [ Lisa-ga/*-no kireini
odotta ] koto-ni
Ken-top Lisa-nom/-gen beautifully danced nmlz-dat
odoroita.
was.surprised
‘Ken was surprised that Lisa danced beautifully.’
(10)
Sono Furansuoohi-no
kireidatta
koto!
the queen.of.France-gen beautiful.past nmlz
a. —Hey, wait a minute. The queen of France doesn’t exist.
b. —#Hey, wait a minute. She was not beautiful.
Selected References
Corver, N. (1990). The Syntax of Left Branch Extractions. Doctoral dissertation,
Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.
von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back!
Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. In: Reimer, M. & Bezuidenhout,
A. (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond, 269–296. Oxford University Press.
Haegeman, L. (2014). Locality and the distribution of main clause phenomena.
In: Aboh, E. O., Guasti, M. T. & Roberts, I. (eds.), Locality, 186–222. Oxford
University Press.
Katsumasa Ito
147
Heim, I. & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell.
Miyagawa, S. (2011). Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase.
Lingua 121(7), 1265–1282.
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability
of features. In: Karimi, S., Samiian, V. & Wilkins, W. K. (eds.), Phrasal
and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 262–294.
Benjamins.
Rett, J. (2008). A degree account of exclamatives. Proceedings of SALT, 18,
601–618.
Zanuttini, R. & Portner, P. (2003). Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics
interface. Language 79(1), 39–81.
148
Pied-piping of adjuncts in Hungarian
Júlia Keresztes (Pázmány Péter Catholic University)
[email protected]
In this paper I present the findings of a series of experiments studying piedpiping in Hungarian prenominal adjuncts. According to Horváth (2000)
pied-piping is not acceptable in wh-movement and relativization in prenominal
adjuncts while it is unrestricted in focus-movement. I suggest contra Horváth,
that Hungarian pied-piping can violate the constraint on the position of the
pied-piper inside the phrase in both wh- and focus-movement.
Theoretical background on pied-piping It has been observed crosslinguistically that certain movement operations may move a large constituent.
Ross (1967) coined the term pied-piping to refer to constructions in which
a constituent properly contained in a bigger phrase is moved (as in (1b,c)) –
the element targeted by the transformation rule is embedded inside a bigger
phrase.
(1)
a.
b.
c.
reports [which] the government prescribes the height of the lettering on. . .
reports [the covers of which] the government prescribes the height
of the lettering on. . .
reports [the lettering on the covers of which] the government
prescribes the height of. . .
Pied-piping can be observed in questions (in (2)), relative clauses (in (3)) in
English.
(2)
[Whose picture] did you buy
yesterday?
(3)
This is the actress [whose picture] I bought
yesterday.
There are two main constraints on pied-piping that apply in most languages.
These restrictions concern the position of the pied-piper (that is the element
that triggers the movement) inside the phrase. Webelhuth (1992) claims that an
element that is situated in the specifier or the head position can trigger the
movement of the phrase, while complements and adjuncts cannot. Heck (2008)
observes that the element that moves the phrase must be on the (left) edge of
the phrase.
Júlia Keresztes
149
Hungarian pied-piping and its problems For Hungarian, Horváth (2000,
2010) obverves that in prenominal adjuncts pied-piping is unrestricted in
focus-movement, but it is ruled out in prenominal adjuncts in relativisation
and wh-movement. This contrast is illustrated in (4), (5), and (6). First, in (4),
the whole adjunct [BARACKPÁLINKÁT követelő vendégek] is moved. The
pied-piper in this case is the focused accusative noun barackpálinkát ‘apricot
brandy’.
As (5) and (6) show pied-piping is not available in relativization and whmovement.
(4)
[BARACKPÁLINKÁT követelő vendégektől] fél
a
apricot.brandy.acc
demanding guests
fear.3sg the
pincér
waiter.nom
‘It is [ customers demanding APRICOT BRANDY ] that the waiter is
afraid of.’
(5)
*az ital, [amit
követelő vendégektől] fél
a
the drink which.acc demanding guests
fear.3sg the
pincér
waiter.nom
intended: ‘the drink [ customers demanding which ] the waiter is afraid
of. . . ’
(6)
*[mit
követelő vendégektől] fél
a pincér?
what.acc demanding guests
fear.3sg the waiter.nom
‘[ Customers demanding what ] is the waiter afraid of? ’
(Horváth 2000)
Horváth (2000 et seq.) accounts for this difference by proposing that an operator
attaches to the focused phrase and that it is responsible for the acceptability of
pied-piping. Horváth claims that there is no syntactic feature involved in focusmovement. She suggest that the exhaustive identification operator adjoined to
the focused phrase triggers movement. She claims that wh-movement and
relativization both involve strong syntactic features and that is the reason
why wh-elements and relative pronouns cannot pied-pipe the phrase they are
contained in.
150
Poster Abstracts
New data and proposal New data, however, shows that Horváth’s generalizations and analysis do not capture the Hungarian data correctly. The data come
from close to 100 native speakers of Hungarian who were asked to rate sentences
involving focus-movement in (7), relativization in (8), and wh-movement in
(9). The results show that pied-piping is as acceptable in embedded questions
as it is in focus-movement contrary to the predictions of Horváth’s approach.
(7)
Péter furcsállta, hogy [pont
a BORSODBÓL származó
Peter surprised that precisely the Borsod.from originating
gyerekeket] fogadják örökbe leggyakrabban.
children
adopt VM most.often
‘Peter was surprised that it is [precisely the children coming from Borsod]
that people adopt most frequently.’
(8)
Ede elmondta, hogy melyik az a megye, [ahonnan származó
Ed said
that which the the county where.from originating
gyerekeket] szívesen örökbefogadnak.
children
gladly adopt
‘Ed told me which is the county [children coming from where] people
like to adopt .’
(9)
Laci megkérdezte, hogy [melyik országból származó gyerekeket]
Leslie asked
that which country originating children
fogadják örökbe leggyakrabban.
adopt VM most.often
‘Leslie asked [children coming from which country] people adopt
most frequently.’
To account for these data, I propose an analysis bulding on Cable’s (2010). He
suggests that a Q-operator attaches to the phrase containing the wh-element,
which triggers the movement of the phrase. Cable’s analysis cannot derive the
Hungarian pattern completely either. My proposal relies on the insight that
pied-pipers in Hungarian do not need to Agree with the operator adjoined to
the larger phrase containing the pied-piper. This means that the wh-feature
bearing element does not need to Agree with the Q operator in Hungarian. Such
an analysis conforms to the judgments collected in the surveys I conducted. The
constraint on the position of the pied-piper inside the phrase can be violated in
Hungarian in wh-movement and focus-movement.
Júlia Keresztes
151
References
Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heck, Fabian 2008. On pied-piping – Wh-movement and beyond. Berlin, Boston:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Horvath, Júlia 2000. Interfaces vs. the Computational System in the Syntax of
Focus. In: Hans Bennis, Martin Everaert, and Eric Reuland (eds.) Interface
Strategies, 183–206. Amsterdam: Holland Academic Graphics.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation MIT.
Webelhuth, Gert 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
152
Feature inheritance and the syntax of lexical VV compounds
Ryoichiro Kobayashi (Sophia University/JSPS)
[email protected]
The main aim of this paper is to point out the correlation between productive
lexical VV compounds and the lack of object φ-agreement in comparative
perspectives. Japanese abounds in lexical VV compounds, in which neither
heads are functional or auxiliarized, unlike syntactic compounds (Kageyama
1993). Lexical VV compounding is highly productive (Fukushima 2005) in (1).
(1)
a.
tobi-orir
jump-drop
‘jump off ’
b.
d.
tataki-tubus
e.
strike-smash
‘knock to pieces’
nomi-aruk
drink-walk
‘go bar-hopping’
c.
naguri-koros
hit-kill
‘beat to death’
tabe-kuraber
eat-compare
‘compare the taste’
I focus on such lexical VV, as defined in (2), assuming that they are formed in
Syntax (Nishiyama 2008).
(2)
Lexical VV: Endocentric VV that satisfy the non-interruptibility principle
of lexical integrity, which behave as indivisible X0 units in the phrasal
syntax. (Kageyama 2016:278)
Although they have sparked numerous studies in Japanese syntax/semantics, it
has not been an-swered why some languages allow productive VV while others
do not. The aim here is twofold: Observing 10 languages, I first demonstrate
that a language can form productive VV if it lacks ob-ject-verb φ-agreement.
Next, I propose a formal account of the syntax of lexical VV.
Data Let us first observe languages with productive VV: Korean like Japanese
has VV (3) with a phono-logical linker. In the same vein, Mongolian (4)
(Khurelbat 1992), and Malayalam (5) (Krishnamurti 2003) have a wide variety
of lexical VV compounds. What these languages have in common is that they
lack overt subject/object φ-feature agreement altogether (Siewierska & Bakker
1996 a.o.).
153
Ryoichiro Kobayashi
(3)
a.
ttwi-e-nem
jump-go.over
‘jump over’
b.
kwulm-e-cwuk
starve-die
‘starve to death’
(4)
a.
dza:j-ögöx
teach-give
‘show’
b.
avc-irex
take-bring
‘bring’
(5)
pookuwaan-anuwadicc
go-permit
‘permit to leave’
Next, languages with both overt subject/object φ-agreement: In Welsh (5),
Estonian (6) and Swahili (7), the overt φ-morphemes appear on the verbs that
undergo agreement with the arguments. As expected, these languages lack
endocentric productive VV compounds (cf. Veldi 2010), as in (9–11).
(6)
Mae
Steffan yn-dy-garu
di.
be-pres.3sg Steffan prog-2sg-love.inf 2sg.you
‘Steffan loves you.’
(Borsley et al. 2007)
(7)
Arvasin
mehed vanemad olevat.
thought.1sg man.3pl older.3pl to.be
‘I thought that the men were older.’
(8)
Ume
vi-ona vi-tabu?
2sg.subj 3pl-see 3pl-book
‘Have you seen the books?’
(9)
Welsh
*diod-gyrru
drink-drive
(10)
Estonian
(11)
*hüppama-sõitma
jump-ride
(Ertlt 1999)
Swahili
*pig-ua
hit-kill
In order to further refine the observation, some languages with only subject
φ-agreement are in order: Turkish (12), Bangla (13) and Igbo. If the lack of
object φ-agreement correlates with productive VV compounds, then these
languages should allow such VV. Indeed, the prediction is borne out that they
are rich in endocentric lexical VV, as in (14) (Turkish: Kuribayashi 2006), (15)
(Bangla: Soma 2003), and (16) (Igbo: Ihionu 1992). From these observations,
we can draw a descriptive generalization (17).
154
Poster Abstracts
(12)
Ben bu makale-yi yavaş-yavaş oku-yacağ-ım
1sg this article-acc slowly-slowly read-fut-1sg
‘I will read the article slowly.’
(Şener & Takahashi 2010)
(13)
Ami æk-ţa boi-ke
por-l-am
˙
1sg one-cl book-acc read.past.1sg
‘I have seen two books.’
a. gelince-şaşır
b. ağlayarak-gel
come-surprise
cry-come
‘come to surprise’
‘walk crying’
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
a.
kheTe-mor
work.hard-die
‘work to death’
kú-wá
˙
hit-break
‘break by hitting’
b.
(David 2015)
ghumiye-poR
sleep-fall
‘fall asleep’
Generalization: If the object and verb undergo φ-agreement, productive
lexical VV is blocked.
The crucial observation for my argument comes from Chicheŵa (Bresnan &
Mchombo 1987), in which object φ-agreement is completely optional. The
sentences (18) are both grammatical, but those in (19) with VV become ungrammatical only when the object and verb agree (Sam Mchombo p.c.). This naturally
derives if object φ-agreement somehow blocks the endocentric productive
VV, as in (17). The next question is, how we can analyze this correlation most
naturally on the syntactic basis.
(18)
a.
b.
(19)
a.
b.
Njûchi zi-ná-lúm-a alenje
bees 3pl.su-bit hunters
Njûchi zi-na-wá-lúm-a alenje (wá ‘3.pl’ obj-agree marker)
‘The bees bit the hunters.’
Ndi(*-wa)-ka-pemp-a pamanga
1sg(-3pl)-go-beg-asp maize.3pl
‘I go beg maize.’
Kati madzi banu (*ndi-)dza-man-e-ni
ine
if water your (1sg-)come-refuse-asp-imp 1sg
‘If it is your water, come to refuse me.’
155
Ryoichiro Kobayashi
Analysis In order to capture the descriptive generalization in (17), I assume
Chomsky’s (2008) v-to-V Feature Inheritance (FI): φ-features on non-phasal V
are inherited from the phasal v in (20), which occurs obligatory, not optionally
unlike C-to-T (Chomsky 2008:149). I follow Nishiyama and Ogawa (2014) for
the structure of lexical VV compounds, in which√they are √
base-generated via
the set-merge. VV compounds are formed when V1 and V2 merge, which
is immediately dominated by v in (21).
(20)
Obligatory v-V Inheritance:
v[uφ]
(21)
a.
√
V[uφ] IA[vφ]
√ √
Merge(
√ √V1 , V2 )
={ V1 , V2 }
b.
Introduce v (order irrelevant)
v
√
V1
√
√
√
V2
V1
V2
Why is productive VV compounding blocked in languages with object agreement? I argue that FI is a one-to-one relation since it’s a prerequisite
√ for the
Agree,
which is generally the one-to-one relation. After merging
V1 and
√
√
V2 , FI of [uφ] from v becomes ambiguous since there√are two Vs. It makes
Minimal Search unable to unambiguously relate v to V, failing in FI; hence
the derivation cannot proceed and the structure is deemed ungrammatical.
Even if FI occurs, [uφ] becomes unable to probe into
on the IA in (22),
√ [vφ]√
since IA is no longer in the search domain (Note, V1 or V2 is the probe,
not v). Such problem does not arise in languages without object φ-agreement,
since there is no FI (23).
(22)
*NG: φ on v
(23)
OK: NO φ on v
v[uφ]
v
IA[vφ]
IA
No φ/No Inheritance
*Inheritance
√
√
V2
V1
√
V1
√
V2
156
Poster Abstracts
As for v without [uφ] in object-agreeing languages, I argue that v still has φwith
default values;
hence FI occurs. Such FI also fails to be one-to-one, since there
√
are two Vs for only one v.
To sum up, the FI and the mechanism in (22) correctly capture the descriptive
generalization in (17).
Abstract Case checking as a reflex of φ-agreement One may wonder why
English does not allow productive VV, though it does not show any overt
evidence on v for object agreement. Lieber (1992:80) has shown that NN, NA,
AA, AN are productive in English, whereas root compounds containing V as
one or both members are frozen expressions (e.g. stir-fry, sleep-walk) and
barely productive (Lieber 2005:378). I argue that in English, objects undergo
covert φ-agreement, along the lines of Chomsky (2000, 2008), who argues
that v licenses accusative Case, entering into Agree with the IA. An object’s
Case is checked only when it values a φ-complete set of checking features
on v. Although there is no overt evidence on the verbs, DPs in English have
φ-features; hence any Agree relation with it has to involve φ-features. Thus, I
conclude that the accusative Case is checked as a reflex of object φ-feature
agreement in English; hence the blocking mechanism in (22) correctly precludes
productive lexical VV compounds.
So far, I have assumed implicitly that Turkish, Bangla, and Igbo lack object
agreement. If English has covert φ-agreement, what are the arguments that
Japanese, Korean, Turkish, Bangla, etc. DO NOT have covert φ-agreement?
My answer is that they employ a different mechanism for Case licensing from
English. Note that these languages have a rich system of overt Case particles.
Kuroda (1988) and Fukui & Takano (1998) argue that the existence of such a rich
system correlates with the absence of Case-feature checking via φ-agreement.
Specifically, I assume Fukui & Takano’s (1998:58) KP-analysis, which follows
Kuroda’s (1988) that nominals can be licensed either by abstract Case (via
φ-agreement) or by morphological case (case particles) as in (24). In this line of
argument, I propose that languages like Turkish, Bangla, Japanese, Korean (case
particles), and Igbo (tones) utilize the morpho(phono)logical case system for
accusative licensing. Therefore, they make no recourse to object φ-agreement
unlike English.
(24)
Arguments must be licensed by Case (abstract) or case (morphological).
(Kuroda 1988:40)
Ryoichiro Kobayashi
157
Consequence The proposal is compatible with the fact that Germanic languages like English, German and Dutch (Booji 1992) allow productive root
compounds of other categories such as NN (Roeper et al. 2002). Verbs induce
φ-agreement and the blocking mechanism in (22) precludes productive VV
compounds. On the other hand, NN, NA, AA, or AN are not restricted in
such a way; hence productive root compounding of these categories correctly
receives a natural analysis as the syntactic merger of heads.
In languages like German, expressions such as kennen lernen ‘get to know’,
spazieren gehen ‘take a walk’ exist (Neef 2009), which seem to be VV compounds. They are separable verbs and indeed separated due to the verb-second
phenomenon in (25), which violates the non-interrptibility principle of lexical
integrity in the definition of the endocentric lexical VV compounds in (2).
(25)
a.
b.
Ich lerne keinen Mann kennen
I learn no
man know
Ich (*kennen-)lerne keinen Mann
‘I get to know nobody.’
Conclusion The overall discussions pointed out the correlation between
productive lexical VV compounds and the lack of object-verb agreement: VV
can be formed in syntax if a language lacks objectverb agreement. The current
study supports the Chomsky-Borer conjecture: Cross-linguistic variation is
limited to differences in the properties of certain functional elements in the
Lexicon (Fukui 2006).
Selected References
Fukui, N. & Y Takano. 1998. Symmetry in syntax: Merge and demerge. JEAL 7,
27–86.
Lieber, R. 2005. English word-formation processes. In Handbook of Wordformation. 375–427.
Nishiyama, K. & Y Ogawa. 2014. Auxiliation, atransitivity, and transitivity
harmony in Japanese VV compounds. IIS 20, 71–101.
158
Verbal aspect: Scale or continuum?
Elizaveta Kuzmenko (NRU Higher School of Economics, Mosco)
[email protected]
Introduction The thesis explores the grammatical category of aspect in the
Russian language. Aspect can be described as “different ways of viewing the
internal temporal constituency of a situation” (Comrie 1976:3). Historically,
there are two aspectual values: imperfective and perfective. Imperfective aspect
typically denotes states or activities that cannot, or have not yet been, completed,
whereas perfective aspect implies that the state or action has been completed.
This is a very complicated category and it is not very comprehensible for the
speakers of languages that do not have aspect.
There have been no attempts to describe the category of aspect as a continuum
with two poles and a variety of cases between them. Additionally, there are few
works that describe morphological properties from a statistical point of view
(Kuznetsova 2013, Janda & Lyashevskaya 2011). In my research I focus on the
integrity and continuity of this category. In other words, my research objective
is to establish whether verbal aspect is a scalar or continuous value. There
have been many works dedicated to irregularities in the Russian aspectual
system, and comparisons with other Slavic languages such as Czech, where
aspect is expressed optionally, show that verbal aspect is not a strict or discrete
system; nevertheless, the distinction of two aspectual values is still generally
recognized.
Methods In my research I want to apply statistical and computational methods to the description of aspect in Russian. I work with a disambiguated part of
the Russian National Corpus. This subcorpus consists of 5.4 million words. The
analysis is performed on the basis of 7952 verb pairs. 1981 of them are prefixal
pairs: in these pairs the base verb is imperfective, and perfectives are formed
with the help of prefixes. These verb pairs are taken from the database of the
“Exploring emptiness project”1 . An example of a verb from this list is the pair
fotografirovat’ <i> – sfotografirovat’ <p> ‘take a photo’. Another 5971 pairs are
extracted from the Zaliznyak’s Grammatical Dictionary of Russian, and in
these pairs the simplex verb is perfective, and imperfectives are formed via
suffixation. An example of such pair is ocharovat’ <p> – ocharovyvat’ <i> ‘to
1
http://emptyprefixes.uit.no
159
Elizaveta Kuzmenko
Table 1: Sample grammatical profiles.
lemma
aspect mode nonpast past inf
imper gerund
bormotat’ ipf
‘mutter’
abs
rel
39
0.203
108 11
0
0.563 0.057 0
32
0.167
vypolnit’ pf
‘complete’
abs
rel
46
0.148
73
91
4
4
0.235 0.293 0.013 0.013
be charming’. Also this verb list contains pairs that are formed through stem
alternation, like javlyat’ <i> – javit’ <p> ‘present, show’.
From the corpus data there were extracted 549 513 occurrences of verbs
from the two lists with their grammatical characteristics: tense (past, nonpast),
form (finite verb, infinitive, gerund, participle), mood (imperative, treated as a
separate from), voice (active, passive, only for participles). The further analysis
is performed using this matrix.
Analysis I set out to further explore the interdependencies that can be found
in the interaction of tense and aspect. My goal is to find out which grammatical
forms are most characteristic not for perfectives and imperfectives in general,
but for smaller groups of verbs as well as for individual verbs. I extracted from
the corpus 549 513 verb occurrences with all their grammatical characteristics.
After that, I calculated how many occurrences of each grammatical form were
found for each verb – these figures constitute grammatical profiles of these
verbs. Both relative and absolute figures were estimated. Absolute figures in
grammatical profiles are just raw numbers reflecting how many times each
form of a verb was found in the corpus. Relative figures show what percentage
each grammatical form constitutes with regard to all usage cases of a verb.
Examples of grammatical profiles for two verbs with absolute and relative
figures are presented in Table 1. As I have a matrix with all grammatical profiles,
which can also serve as a 9-dimensional space characterizing the distributions
of verbs, it would be appropriate to sort the verbs out according to their aspect,
and analyze the position of each verb in the constructed space. I project the
matrix with relative grammatical profiles into the two-dimensional space using
the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The resulting plot can be seen on
Figure 1.
160
Poster Abstracts
Figure 1: PCA on grammatical profiles.
Conclusion There is indeed a notable distinction between perfective and
imperfective verbs that was widely discussed in the literature. It can be seen
visually and proven by the means of statistics. However, not all the verbs with
the same aspectual value are alike. They can differ more or less from the verbs
with the other aspect. This is reflected on the plot by their position: some verbs
are put close to the verbs with another aspect, or even overlap with that aspect.
Some other verbs can be found far away not only from the verbs from the
opposite aspectual class, but also from other verbs with the same aspect.
This gives us insights into the nature of the category of aspect: it is not a
binary value with strict division, but a continuous category, and verbs manifest
their aspectual affiliation in different ways. Also there is an overlap between
perfective and imperfective verbs with regard to their grammatical profiles:
some verbs have different aspectual values but similar distributions. Almost all
biaspectual verbs fall in this category for obvious reasons – as they are used
in both aspects, their grammatical profiles are not prototypical neither for
imperfective verbs nor for perfective verbs. Verbs that are not biaspectual can
also be found in the overlap area. These verbs are obsolete or they have some
discourse peculiarities that motivate their appearance in the overlap area.
Elizaveta Kuzmenko
161
Also there are some outliers whose distributions are very different from
other verbs within that aspect. Mostly such verbs have some predominant
grammatical form that is used in the majority of verb occurrences. For example,
there are verbs that are used mostly as imperatives. There are also some verbs
that are used as participles only.
References
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect
and related problems, vol. 2. Cambridge University Press.
Janda, Laura A. & Olga Lyashevskaya. 2011. Aspectual pairs in the Russian
national Corpus. Scando-Slavica 57, 201–215.
Kuznetsova, Julia. 2013. Linguistic profiles: Correlations between form and
meaning. Tromsø: Universitetet i Tromsø, PhD thesis.
162
Embedded polar responses: the case of English so
A. Marlijn Meijer (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
[email protected]
This study investigates the use of so in English embedded constructions like
(1B). In this use, so competes with that-clauses and propositional anaphors it or
that. Native speakers report that in embedded responses to questions such as
(1A) the use of so or a that-clause is fine. In response to assertions such as (2A),
the use of so is degraded. In line with these intuitions, Needham’s (2012) corpus
study shows that antecedents of so mostly are questions.
(1)
A: Is John coming tonight?
B: I believe {so ∣ he is ∣ ? it ∣ ? that }.
(2)
A: John is coming tonight.
B: I believe {? so ∣ he is}.
The distribution of so seems to be restricted in other ways too. It cannot
combine with certain clause taking predicates (e.g. regret or resent), whereas
other anaphors, such as it, do not have that restriction; see (3).
(3)
We should listen to him sometime. We wouldn’t regret {it ∣ * so}.
In other respects, the distribution of so seems to be wider than that of it: so can
occur in conditional clauses (see (4)) or together with sentential adverbs (see
(5)), whereas it cannot.
(4)
A: Is John coming to the party? B: If {* it ∣ so}, he would have a great
time.
(5)
Would we have felt the same if this had been our first stay? Likely {so ∣
*it}.
This paper only focuses on so and provides an explanation for its preferred use
in response to questions and its distribution.
Kiparsky & Kiparsky (1971) have suggested that so can only occur with
non-factive predicates, due to their syntax. Cushing (1972) argued that so can
only combine with predicates that indicate that the speaker does not take a
definite stance (e.g. think, but not claim). Cornish (1992) proposed that so is
‘intensional’ and does not presuppose that the referent is true. More recently,
Needham (2012) suggested that so denotes the proposition corresponding to
A. Marlijn Meijer
163
the current polar question under discussion (QUD). She furthermore argues
that the subject of the so-utterance is not committed to this QUD. However,
Bhatt’s (2010) finding, that so can occur with know in certain contexts, e.g. in
(6)–(7), is problematic for these theories. Furthermore, Moulton has shown
that so can also occur with predicates like claim (as shown in (8)) or admit.
Examples (6)–(8) show that the subject associated with the so-utterance can in
fact use so to refer to a proposition that s/he takes to be true and that s/he is
committed to. Note that so can also combine with tell in I told you so responses,
in which the speaker clearly commits to the referent of so.
(6)
It will rain tomorrow. I know so, because I checked the weather report.
(7)
Rooney knew he was special from a young age. And those who nurtured
a talent that comes along rarely in any sport knew so, too.1
(8)
A: Is he in the market for a bride?
B: He claims so.
I argue that so presupposes that its referent is still under discussion, i.e. ‘on
the Table’ in Farkas and Bruce (2009), and thus is not part of the common
ground (CG), at the time of the occurrence of the eventuality of the predicate
that so combines with. For it, I follow Moulton (2015) in assuming that it refers
to salient propositional content, crucially, without speculating on whether
the associated proposition is part of the CG or not. Now, with Maximize
Presupposition, it follows that so is preferred when its antecedent is not CG.
This explains two properties of so mentioned above: (i) its context-sensitive
distribution and, (ii) its preferred used in response to questions. Let’s look at (ii)
first. Following Farkas & Bruce (2009:24), I assume that propositions denoting
polar questions are not part of the CG until the ‘asker’ (implicitly) signals
agreement with the answer (whereas assertions can be accepted ‘unsignalled’).
Therefore, at the moment of answering a question, the answer nor the question
is CG. (Note that we predict an I know so-response to be out here, since
an affirmative response with high certainty can also be expressed by using
yes.) Now, let’s look at (i): the context-sensitive distribution of so. On the
present account, so can combine with verbs that are contextually fitting in the
so-utterance and that, in the specific context and discourse, do not presuppose
the acceptance of the referent into the CG. In (6), on this account, know can
combine with so, because the previous assertion was not accepted into the
1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-389647/Walking-miracle.html, 2006, from Bhatt
2010
164
Poster Abstracts
CG yet. If another speaker would affirm the previous assertion before the
continuation, the know so-response becomes degraded, as the account predicts.
This account makes one further major prediction: a so-utterance and its
antecedent discourse move never both entail the referent of so, such that the
referent is never CG at the utterance time of the so-utterance. A small corpus
study, focusing on think so, was conducted to investigate this prediction. The
results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Corpus study (search: [think] so . ) – Corpus for Contemporary
American English
Antecedents
questions (n = 70) assertions (n = 27)
embedded prop.
prop. below neg/modal
7/70
8 (+1?)/70
11/27
5 (+1?)/27
so-utterances
involving negation
involving modality
39/70
3/70
18/27
5/27
The corpus study shows that so is mostly used to respond to questions. When it
is used to respond to assertions, most of its antecedents (16/27) were introduced
below a propositional attitude verb (e.g. believe or think) or a modal item
indicating possibility (e.g. might or maybe/perhaps) or negation. Furthermore,
the responses to assertions, mostly (222 /27) contained such a modal item or a
negation itself. The four remaining so-responses to assertions, without a hedge
or negation, all involved a quantified subject, such as at least some students or
even some of the most vocal and long time critics. This shows that – as predicted
– in this small set of data the so-utterance and the antecedent assertion or
question never both lead to the acceptance of the proposition referred to into
the CG.
Note that the definition above explicitly states that the CG-status of the
proposition that so refers to, should be evaluated at the time corresponding to the
thinking or believing event (depending on the predicate in question). Therefore,
this account can explain I told you so-responses as well as occurrences with
past tense like in (9).
2
One so-response involved negation and modality. Thus, a total of 22 so-responses involved
negation and/or a modal.
165
A. Marlijn Meijer
(9)
A: Do you want coffee?
B: Yes.
A: I thought so.
At the time of A’s response in (9), the referent of so is CG. However, at time of A’s
thinking about B wanting coffee it was not. At that time, B was not committed
to the proposition expressing that s/he wants coffee. This study thus suggests
that past tense can take us back to the past CG of a discourse, giving us insight
in commitments of the interlocutors of the discourse in question at that past
time. In order to make this work, this account must assume that interlocutors
keep track of the CG and the commitments speakers made or, crucially, did not
make (yet) (cf. Krifka 2012, Stalnaker 2014).
This study proposed a novel analysis for the use of English so in embedded
responses and presented a corpus study that confirms the prediction made by
the analysis. Therefore, it makes an important contribution to the literature on
propositional anaphora and propositional attitudes.
References
Cornish, F. (1992). So Be It: The Discourse-Semantic Roles of So and It. Journal
of Semantics 9(2), 163–178.
Cushing, S. (1972). The semantics of sentence pronominalization. Foundations
of Language, 186–208.
Farkas, D. F. & Bruce, K. B. (2009). On reacting to assertions and polar questions.
Journal of semantics, ffp010.
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. (1971). Fact. Linguistics Club, Indiana University.
Moulton, K. (2015). CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry.
Needham, S. M. (2012). Propositional Anaphora in English: The relationship
between so and discourse (Doctoral dissertation, Carleton University
Ottawa)
166
Hill Mari verbal constructions on ˆl’ˆ / ˆlˆn: Discontinuous past and
beyond
ee e e
Daria Mordashova (Moscow State University)
[email protected]
This research deals with a “frozen” form ˆl’ˆ / ˆlˆn (3sg.pst / 3sg.pf forms of
the verb ‘to be’) in combination with conjugated verbal forms in Hill Mari
(Uralic). The data was collected mainly by elicitation during a field trip to the
Gornomari district of Mari El, Russia in 2016.
Hill Mari tense system includes no formal distinction between present and
future (further on marked as .npst), but at the same time contains two synthetic
past tense forms. One of them is marked as simple past (.pst), and the other
one gets the label of perfect (.pf), although its semantics is much broader. The
difference between the two past forms lies in the temporal distance: both of
them equally function as (non-)hodiernal past markers, but only the perfect
form can indicate remote past.
The marker ˆl’ˆ / ˆlˆn combines with verbs in both present and past tense
(only in perfect), which follow the rules of agreement in person and number
with the subject. The grammar of Mari (Alhoniemi 1993) considers these forms
as periphrastic Imperfect and periphrastic Perfect respectively, but does not
pay much attention to their grammatical semantics. In typological papers
(Plungian & van der Auwera 2006, Sitchinava 2013) devoted to similar verbal
constructions (and including some Mari data) combinations ‘verb-pf + to
be-3sg.pst’ are described as Pluperfect forms which can encode “discontinuous
past” and ‘verb-npst + to be-3sg.pst’ constructions are considered analogous
to Past Progressive.
My research presents new data on what meanings can be expressed by
constructions on ˆl’ˆ / ˆlˆn, contributing to the typology of Pluperfect and its
polysemy, as well as to the sphere of “discontinuous past” (see Plungian & van
der Auwera 2006) and the markers of this grammatical category. Firstly, verbal
constructions on ˆl’ˆ / ˆlˆn cannot be described as prototypical Pluperfect, as
they unwillingly encode taxis relations – perfect forms and non-finite clauses
are the most widespread strategies. In (1) the action ‘to come’ (Event, according
to Reichenbach 1947) happens before another action ‘to sit down’ in the past
(Point of Reference), but the Event here cannot be expressed by the pluperfect.
ee e e
ee e e
ee e e
ee e e
167
Daria Mordashova
(2) provides a possible context for the form on ˆl’ˆ / ˆlˆn, although perfect is
more preferable here:
ee e e
(1)
Pet’a tol-ˆn
(*ˆl’ˆ/*ˆlˆn)
– cilän š¨nz-¨n-nä
Pet’a come-pf.3sg be-3sg.pst/be-3sg.pf all sit.down-pf-1pl
čaj-ˆm jü-äš
tea-acc drink-inf
‘After Pet’a had come, all the people sat down to drink tea.’
(2)
Kˆnam mä tol-ˆn-na, keč¨ uže
š¨nz-¨n
when we come-pf-1pl sun already sit.down-pf.3sg
(OKˆl’ˆ/OKˆlˆn)
be-3sg.pst/be-3sg.pf
‘When we came, the sun had already gone down.’
e
e
e
ee e e
e
e
e
e
e
e
ee
e e
Still ˆl’ˆ / ˆlˆn can be viewed as “discontinuous past” markers, denoting the
non-existence of consequent state or result of an action at the moment of
speech (see also the notions of “cancelled”/“reversed” result (Squartini 1999) or
“anti-resultative” (Plungian 2001)):
ee e e
ˆl’ˆ/ˆlˆn
Van’a š¨rg¨-št¨ jam-ˆn
vara t¨d¨m
Van’a forest-in get.lost-pf.3sg be-3sg.pst/be-3sg.pf then he-acc
mo-n-ˆt
find-pf-3pl
‘Van’a got lost in the forest, but was found then.’
e e
ee e e
e
e
e e
(3)
e
Secondly, ˆl’ˆ / ˆlˆn forms Past Habitual in combination with a verb-PF. This
construction encodes an action frequently repeating in the past but no longer
occurring:
ee e e
Mä š¨nz-en-nä ˆl’ˆ/ˆlˆn
okn’a anzˆlnˆ dä
we sit-pf-1pl be-3sg.pst/be-3sg.pf window in.front.of and
anž-en-nä lˆm-ˆm
look-pf-1pl snow-acc
‘(It often happened that) we sat in front of the window and looked at the
snow. (But we don’t do this anymore.)’
e e
ee e e
e
e
(4)
e
Interestingly, it is possible to form a kind of Past Habitual with the help of
168
Poster Abstracts
‘verb-NPST + ˆl’ˆ / ˆlˆn’ construction, but in this case an action or a state may
still take place:
ee e e
Pet’a izi-ž¨
godˆm každˆj keč¨-n lem-¨m kačk-eš
Pet’a small-poss.3sg during every day-gen soup-acc eat-npst.3sg
ˆl’ˆ/ˆlˆn
be-3sg.pst/be-3sg.pf
‘Pet’a ate soup every day in his childhood (and maybe he still eats soup).’
e
e
e
e
e
(5)
ee e e
However, probably the most challenging is the mirative (see DeLancey 1997)
semantics of constructions on ˆl’ˆ / ˆlˆn. It is an expansion of semantics of a
“discontinuous past” marker, which has not yet got enough attention in typology.
It can appear in both present and past tense:
ee e e
(6)
ˆl’ˆ/ˆlˆn
Pet’a k¨z¨t zabor-ˆm čiält-ä
Pet’a now fence-acc paint-npst.3sg be-3sg.pst/be-3sg.pf
‘Pet’a is painting the fence. (But I thought he should have been in some
other place.)’
(7)
M¨n tengeč¨ omˆn-ˆstˆ kašt-ˆn-am ˆl’ˆ/ˆlˆn
I
yesterday sleep-in walk-pf-1sg be-3sg.pst/be-3sg.pf
‘It turned out that I walked while sleeping yesterday. (But I don’t remember anything.)’
e
ee e e
ee e e
e
e e e
e e
e
e
Thus, my research provides new typological data on the polysemy of “discontinuous past” markers, which develop meanings (habitual and mirative) in the
sphere of present as well. More detailed data from Hill Mari with supporting
typological and theoretical background will be adduced in the talk.
Abbreviations 1, 3 – 1, 3 person, acc – accusative, gen – genitive, in – inessive,
inf – infinitive, npst – non-past tense, pf – perfect, pl – plural, poss – possessive,
pst – simple past, sg – singular
References
Alhoniemi, A. 1993. Grammatik des Tscheremissischen (Mari): mit Texten und
Glossar. Hamburg: Buske.
DeLancey, S. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1.1, 33–52.
Plungian, Vladimir A. 2001. Antirezul’tativ: do i posle rezul’tata [Antiresultative: before and after result]. Plungian, Vladimir A. (ed.), Issle-
Daria Mordashova
169
dovanija po teorii grammatiki. I: Glagol’nye kategorii. Moscow: Russkie
slovari, 50–88.
Plungian, Vladimir A. & van der Auwera, J. 2006. Towards a typology of
discontinuous past marking. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung –
Language typology and universals 59,4: 317–349.
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. N. Y.: McMillan.
Sitchinava, Dmitriy V. 2013. Tipologija plyuskvamperfekta. Slavyanskij pluskvamperfekt. [Typology of Pluperfect. Slavic Pluperfect]. Moscow: AST-PRESS
KNIGA.
Squartini, Mario. 1999. On the semantics of the Pluperfect: Evidence from
Germanic and Romance. Linguistic Typology 3.1, 51–89.
170
Phase, plurality and floating
Takanobu Nakamura (Sophia University, Japan)
[email protected]
Overview This paper tries to unify event-based theories of plurality and
derivation by phase; distributivity is obtained when [plural] feature is at the edge
of D phase, cumulativity is obtained otherwise. Essentially, I follow Kratzer’s
(2008) two pluralization mechanisms: lexical cumulativity and [plural] feature
that is interpreted as *-operator. Her account of plurality directly leads to a
system where element at the phase edge is interpreted at the next phase-level.
This phase-based composition is independently motivated by the fact that event
partitioning quantifiers (EPQs) in Japanese (Nakamura 2016) requires the
semantic composition of argument nominals and verbal predicates to be done
within different domains. An EPQ is exemplified below, being marked by the
wavy line. I refer to a unit of a numeral e.g., san (3), and a classifier e.g., nin
(humanCL ), as a numeral quantifier (NQ) and CL in gloss stands for a classifier.
(1)
San-nin-no
gakusei-ga go-satsu-no hon-o
3-humanCL -gen student-nom 5-bookCL -gen book-acc
hito-ri-ni-satsu
ka-ta.
1-humanCL -2-bookCL buy-past
‘Each of the three students read two of the five books.’
Consequently, the proposed account shed light on how distributivity and
floating quantifiers (FQs) is related: only QPs that can host [plural] feature can
be a FQ.
Analysis Kratzer (2008) argues that lexical predicates are plural in default
(see also Krifka 1998, Landman 1996, 2000 among others), refuting the free
insertion of *-operator, which is a generalized pluralizing operator. Instead
of the free insertion of generalized *-operator, she claims that there are two
[plural] features in a DP (see also Sauerland 2005) and phrasal cumulativity
is obtained by high [plural] feature in plural DPs, pointing out that phrasal
cumulativity arises only when the phrase is a sister of a plural DP (see also
Schwarzschild 1993). Her DP structure is cited below. The low [plural] is for
nouns and the high [plural] is for D. She argues that the higher [plural] appear
even when a DP does not contain any plural NP. The fact that DPs like Spencer
Takanobu Nakamura
171
and Webster can trigger verbal agreement and have distributivity shows that
this is the case. Then, she argues that D’s [plural] feature is, unlike that of
noun, uninterpretable within DPs and thus moves out of its DP. As a result, it
functions as *-operator on the verbal phrase right below its DP. Its coverage is
superior to the prediction of lexical cumulativity alone and the free insertion of
generalized *-operator.
[plural]
D
[plural]
classifier N
However, the reason why DPs allow apparent redundancy: two [plural] feature,
is obscure. Moreover, why one of them is uninterpretable in DP but interpretable
out of DP is in nature stipulative. Lastly, the detail of how [plural] feature
of D moves out of its DP and related with verbal phrase is not explicit. To
solve these shortcomings without spoiling its coverage, I suggest a phase-based
modification: D is a phase head (see Chomsky 2000, 2001 among others) and
the edge of D is interpreted at v phase, not at D phase. In syntactic literature, it
is argued that syntactic structures are cyclically interpreted at each phase, which
is defined by some functional heads (e.g., v, C). When a phase is activated, the
complement of phase head is sent to semantic component and phonological
component. Thus, in this conception, semantic composition is not done all
at once, but cyclically phase-by-phase. In this explanation, we have no need
to stipulate that [plural] feature of D is uninterpretable only within DPs. As
[plural] feature of D is always higher than D, it is always at the edge of D
phase. Thus, it is always interpreted out of the DP. If D’s [plural] feature is not
uninterpretable, we have no need to postulate two distinct [plural] features. So,
[plural] feature is unique and its interpretive distinction is attributed to the
different structural position: above classifier or above D. Thus, this proposal
overcomes the shortcomings of Kratzer’s (2008) account without spoiling its
value. [plural] feature is unique and when it is above D, it is interpreted within
verbal phrase because D is phase head. Three shortcomings are solved in this
way.
172
Poster Abstracts
Now, we can resort to Krazter’s (2008) pluralization mechanism without
positing two distinct [plural] features. This modification allows the proposed
account to explain Gil’s (1995) generalization that distributive universal quantification requires singularities. In the proposed account, distributivity is obtained
when [plural] feature is at the edge of D phase. Since there is one [plural] feature
within a DP, if [plural] feature is at the edge of D phase, no [plural] feature is
interpreted within the DP. On this point, Krazter (2008) denies the existence
of [singular] feature and argues that singularity is semantically specified by
covert classifier in English. Thus, absence of [plural] feature directly leads to
singularity of the DP. Hence, Gil’s (1995) generalization is straightforwardly
predicted from the proposed account.
This architecture is applicable for numeral classifier languages such as
Japanese because she assumes that English has covert classifier (see also Krifka
1995 and Borer 2005). I assume that when there is an NQ, it hosts [plural]
feature. Actually, it is independently claimed that there are multiple positions
for NQ in Japanese DPs, e.g., Nomura (2013) argues that NQs can be either at
the spec of #P or QP and distributivity is obtained by Q head, which is higher
than # head. Here, I assume Japanese has a K head instead of D head at the
top of nominal projection, though I leave it open whether Japanese lacks D
(see Kuroda 1992 and Fukui 1995). K is realized as a case particle and can host
[plural] feature. In this sense, K head corresponds to Q head in Nomura (2013).
Then I assume that K in Japanese functions as a phase head (see Narita 2010
and Bošcović 2014 among others, for discussion that the complement of K is
transfer domain). The notion of phase-based composition is independently
motivated by the observation on EPQs in Japanese, which is illustrated in
Nakamura (2016).
(2)
San-nin-no
gakusei-ga go-satsu-no hon-o
3-humanCL -gen student-nom 5-bookCL -gen book-acc
hito-ri-ni-satsu
yon-da.
1-humanCL -2-bookCL read-past
‘Each of the three students read two of the seven books.’
As Nakamura (2016) discuss, plurality of agent and theme that are associated
with an event is specified by the EPQ; every event has an agent comprising one
human and a theme comprising two books. Importantly, interpretation of
argument nominals is independent of its verb and its thematic predicates. Espe-
Takanobu Nakamura
173
cially, the plurality of the internal argument must be specified independently
of that of theme. I assume that Agent (e, x) is introduced by v head. (4) is a
derivation before v is introduced.
(3)
VP: λe<st> .λy<e> .[*read(e, y) & 2(y)] / IA: λz<e> .[*book(z) & 5(z)]
Here, plural entity z and y must be pluralized in different number specification.
This seemingly strange treatment is, however, necessary to account for the
scopeless reading of IA. Then following Oh (2001), Nakamura (2016) argues
that EPQs are “distributive polarity item”, which must be within the scope of
*-operator in whatever syntactic reason, just like NPIs which must be within
the scope of a negator.
(4)
vP: *λe<st> .λx<e> .[*read(e, y) & 2(y) & Agent(e, x)] /
EA: λx<e> .[*student(x) & 3(x)]
IA is also distant from the scope domain of *-operator on vP. In this way, the
interpretation of EPQs are properly described. What is odd so far is that (i)
plural entity z and y comprise different number of atoms, (ii) IO must not be
within the scope of any *-operator other than that of nominal predicate, which
is pluralized along with lexical cumulativity. However, in the proposed account,
these are not strange at all. (i) is natural because every KP has two distinct
positions for [plural] feature, i.e., NQs, and these positions are independent of
each other. (ii) is also natural because [plural] feature with go-satsu (5 books) is
at the lower [plural] feature position and interpreted within KP, not at vP. For
the detail of this composition, I propose that phase heads in nominal domain,
e.g., D, K, denote a choice function of type <e, e> and every complement of
nominal phase denotes type <e> entity, by the application of existential closure
at the phase level. So, EPQ’s oddity is explained under the proposed theory,
without serious complication.
Consequence It has been observed that floated quantifiers (FQs) allow only
a distributive reading (e.g., Junker 1995, Nakanishi 2007). Nakanishi (2007)
argues that FQs are adverb and quantify over events. However, this account
obscures the reason why distributive reading is also available with non-floated
QPs. My proposal can provide unified account for it: distributivity is obtained
only when [plural] feature is interpreted out of D(or K)P. Thus, we can maintain
the insight that distributivity is attributed to plurality of thematic role and
event and to do this, it is enough that [plural] feature is at the edge of nominal
174
Poster Abstracts
phase. Note that this proposal is compatible both the notion of FQs as adverbs
and FQs as remnants of DP movement. Moreover, this account has potential
for answering why only a specific class of quantifiers, in particular, universal
quantifiers allow floating in English, French and so on. If FQs allow only
a distributive reading, we can obtain a generalization that only distributive
universal quantifiers allow floating. Coupled with an account for Gil’s (1995)
generalization, I suggest that only QPs that can host [plural] feature can be a
FQ. This can support for the claim that FQs are pronounced *-operator.
Selected References
Kratzer, Angelika. 2008. On the plurality of verbs. In Event structures in
linguistic form and interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nakamura, Takanobu. 2016. Events, Distributivity and Numerals: Evidence
from Event Partitioning Quantifiers in Japanese. In Proceedings of the
SICOGG 18th.
Nomura, Junya. 2013. DP-internal Movements and the Semantics of the Floating
Quantifiers in Japanese. In Proceedings of the WAFL 8th.
Bošković, Željko. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability
of phases with extraction and ellipsis. LI 45.
175
Clausal pied-piping in Basque wh-questions and syntactic
optionality
Louise Raynaud (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen)
[email protected]
Introduction Basque embedded wh-questions exhibit apparent optionality
between long-distance extraction of the wh-word and clausal pied-piping. This
paper attempts to account for this pattern of optionality found in Basque in a
way that addresses the issue of syntactic optionality. The central theoretical
claim here is that Cable’s QP-based analysis of pied-piping is compatible with a
Minimalist approach to optionality of the sort pursued in Biberauer & Richards
(2006).
Data There is in Basque an uncommon alternative to long-distance extraction
(1) in wh-questions, namely clausal pied-piping (henceforth CPP) (2).
(1)
Nork
esan du Jonek [ edan duela
ura
]?
who.erg say aux Jon.erg drink aux.comp water.abs
(2)
[ Nork
edan duela
ura
] esan du Jonek?
who.erg drink aux.comp water.abs say aux Jon.erg
‘Who did John say drank water?’
(Duguine & Irurtzun 2014:2)
These constructions appear to be optional with respect to one another. They
can freely alternate in a number of syntactic contexts and display no difference
in meaning or interpretation (e.g. in scope or presupposition, cf Arregi 2003).
There are some instances where one option is not available and the other prevails,
like with adjuncts or relative islands that constitute independent syntactic
constraints to movement. But it is not the case that CPP is a default option
that occurs if and only if the pied-piped element cannot be extracted from the
clause. CPP constructions in Basque are thus able to optionally alternate with
their wh-movement counterparts, a phenomenon that has also been observed
of Quechua (Cable 2010) and Bangla (Simpson & Bhattacharya 2006).
The Puzzle Although true optionality could be defined as ‘semantically
vacuous alternations in surface order’ (Biberauer & Richards 2006:35), its
syntactic and conceptual implications remain under discussion as it poses
a theoretical problem in the context of the Minimalist Program (MP). True
176
Poster Abstracts
optionality, of the sort that is observed in the above examples, appears to be
contrary to economy principles of the MP, namely Last Resort (LR) and Full
Interpretation (FI), which regulate operations. This is the so-called Fox/Reinhart
intuition on optionality, captured by Chomsky (2001:34) as a ‘general economy
principle’: “An optional rule can apply only when necessary to yield a new
outcome”. Furthermore, pied-piping poses a problem for the received theory of
wh-movement, since it does not match the generalization that only elements
bearing a wh-feature can move (Heck 2009). How can the pattern of optionality
found in Basque be accounted for in terms that are compatible with economy
principles of the MP?
A Q-based Analysis (Cable 2010) Our data can be successfully accounted for
in Cable’s (2010) framework. Cable proposes a novel account of wh-movement
in which the target of wh-movement is a Q-particle that takes as its complement
the wh-phrase and must agree with CQ . Pied-piping constructions are cases
where the targeted Q-particle is not directly structurally adjacent to the whword. In the case of Basque CPP, the QP takes the CP as its complement (3).
This account has two advantages. Firstly, it accounts for restrictions on CPP
in embedded wh-questions that we find in Basque. Basque classifies as what
Cable calls a Q/wh-agreement language, where the wh-word and the Q-particle
must agree. Thus in virtue of the Phase Impenetrability Condition, in order to
Agree the wh-word must be in the same phase as the Q-particle and to do so
must move to the left edge of the clause. This accounts for the impossibility in
Basque for an embedded CP to be pied-piped by wh-words internal to it (5) –
the wh-word has to move to the left edge of the clause (4).
CP1
(3)
C′
QP
CP2
wh-word . . .
(4)
Q CQ
TP
tQP
[ CP Nor1 [ IP joango dela t1 ] ] 2 esan du Jonek t2 ?
who
go
aux
said aux John
177
Louise Raynaud
(5)
*[ CP [ IP Joango dela nor ] ] 2 esan du Jonek t2 ?
go
aux who
said aux John
‘Who did John say will go?’
(Cable 2010:154)
Furthermore, the distribution of CPP is not totally unrestricted, as mentioned
earlier. Cable’s framework allows us to account for these cases in which longdistance extraction of the wh-word is ungrammatical because of an independent
syntactic constraint, e.g. an adjunct island (6) and CPP is the constrained
alternative (7).
(6)
*Zer izutu
zen erregea entzun zenuenean?
what frightened aux king hear aux.comp.when
(7) %Zer entzun zenuenean
izutu
zen erregea?
what hear aux.comp.when frightened aux king
‘What did the king become frightened when he heard?’
Last but not least, theoretically nothing in Cable’s framework requires Q to
be as close as possible to the wh-word it is associated with. So in the same
conditions where there are no barriers and no intervention effects, CPP and
wh-extraction can theoretically occur in free variation. Cable’s account, unlike
others like Heck’s (2009) that could potentially account for the other properties
above, has the advantage of predicting cases in which both wh-extraction and
CPP are viable options and can potentially alternate freely. Moreover, we find
that this analysis is compatible with a global approach to syntactic optionality
such as Biberauer & Richards’ (2006).
Syntactic Optionality Biberauer and Richards (2006) legitimate optional
variation on the basis that it is actually admitted on system-internal grounds in
Minimalism. Whereas optionality is excluded from the functional motivation
of movement, it is not with respect to how a given feature is formally satisfied.
In other words, sometimes “the grammar doesn’t mind” as long as formal
requirements are fulfilled, and then true optionality arises. In absence of
grounds to privilege one option over the other, it can be more efficient to leave
the choice open. Efficiency in the syntax is determined in terms of cost. Keeping
in mind the analysis of Basque data outlined above, the CPP option is no more
costly than wh-extraction: it involves the same number of steps (one movement
of the QP and the elements it contains to Spec,CP), the Agree operation is just
as local and the obligatory feature +Q triggering movement is equivalently
178
Poster Abstracts
satisfied. As in both constructions Move is motivated by an obligatory feature
that is already present in the derivation no matter what, they need not yield
for a new interpretation, and can result in a semantically vacuous alternation.
This approach to optionality that relies on the equal satisfaction of formal and
featural requirements rather than on the identity of the derivations/lexical
array allows us to account for the Basque data in a satisfying way.
The Interpretation Problem While the above accounts for the possibility
of a semantically vacuous alternation, one might expect that there might be
semantic consequences associated with which element the Q-particle merges
with. The absence of difference in interpretation thus needs to be accounted
for. One solution that is compatible with our account of CPP in Cable’s terms
is proposed by Arregi (2003). He claims that the pied-piped complement
reconstructs at LF in its base position, resulting in an LF structure identical to
the long-distance extraction construction such as [CP1 Wh1 . . . [CP2 . . . t1 . . . ]].
This analysis in terms of covert movement is moreover supported by the fact
that whereas long-distance movement is allowed across negation (9), CPP
is not (8), the reason for that being that negation blocks reconstruction of
pied-piped material (Beck 1996).
(8)
*Nork
edan duela
ardoa
ez du esan Mirenek?
who.erg drink aux.comp wine.abs neg aux say Miren.erg
(9)
Nork
ez du esan Mirenek edan duela
ardoa?
who.erg neg aux say Miren.erg drink aux.comp wine.abs
‘Who didn’t Miren say drinks wine?’
179
Standards of comparison and the case of Spanish “que – de
alternation”
Laura Vela-Plo (University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU))
[email protected]
The syntactic and semantic properties of standards of comparison in inequality
comparative sentences are still under discussion. In this paper, we analyse the
syntactic complexity and semantic nature of standards of comparison in Spanish
and other Romance languages, in order to offer a more extensive analysis of the
cross-linguistic properties and variation of these components of comparative
constructions. With this in mind, we first examine Romance standards (e.g.
Spanish que – de or Italian che – di alternation) and then reconsider the syntactic
and semantic formalisation of standards of comparison cross-linguistically to
accommodate the observed data. Finally, the analysis of comparatives in several
typologically different languages will support a parametric classification that is
grounded on the idea that a clausal (CP) complement with wh-movement is
not the unique strategy employed to express degree comparison in natural
languages.
Previous Accounts There are cross-linguistic differences regarding the syntactic structure of standards of comparison. Languages like Japanese have been
argued to allow only phrasal structures in the position of standard of comparison (a DP, which can be modified by a relative clause (RC), cf. Shimoyama
2012); whereas both phrasal and clausal structures are available in languages
like English (cf. Kennedy 2007).
(1) a. John is smarter [than [DP Bill]]/[than [DP him]] phrasal standard
b. John is smarter [than [CP Bill is]]
clausal standard
(2) This mountain is higher [than [DegP 1200 meters]] phrasal standard
With respect to the semantic type of standards of comparison, Kennedy (2007)
proposes that the comparative marker (-er in English) can select a standard that
expresses either individual or degree comparison. On the one hand, individual
denoting standards express orderings between arbitrary individuals, and they
are therefore of type e in the semantics. On the other hand, degree denoting
standards express orderings between individuals and arbitrary degrees and are
already of type d in the semantics. There is cross-linguistic variation regarding
180
Poster Abstracts
the semantics of standards of comparison: some languages allowing only
individual standards, e.g. Turkish (Hofstetter 2009); whereas both individual
and degree standards are available in Japanese (Shimoyama 2012) or English
(Heim 1985).
Implicit Assumption in the Literature Phrasal standards (e.g. “Bill” or
“him”) have been related to individual comparison, while it is generally assumed
that clausal standards (“Bill is”) involve operator movement, similar to a whmovement, in which a trace or variable is left that corresponds to a degree of a
gradable predicate (Chomsky 1977, Kennedy 2007, a.o.). Hence, the following
correlation is frequently implicitly assumed:
(3) A phrasal complement implies an individual denoting standard, and a
clausal complement implies a degree denoting standard.
Proposal We argue that this correlation does not hold and that a new reformulation of the parameters is necessary. Japanese only allows for phrasal complements (DPs, which may include a RC) in standards of comparison. Crucially,
however, this language can have both individual comparison as well as degree
comparison (as in “Kono matidewa [gozyuufifty-meetorumetersyorithan] takai
biruwa kinsisareteiru” ‘In this town, buildings higher [than 50 meters] are
prohibited’, Shimoyama 2012:85). After examining the que – de alternation
in Spanish comparatives, also found in other Romance languages, we also
conclude that the generalization in (3) is not correct.
(4) a. Mide más {*que/de} dos metros.
Degree DE
‘It measures more than 2 metres.’
b. Tu hija es más alta más {*que/de} lo que esperaba.
Degree DE
[Lit.] ‘Your daughter is taller than that which I expected.’
c. María mide más {que/*de} Ana.
Individual QUE
‘María measures more than Ana.’
(5) a. Amelia envía más flores de{[DP las [CP que tú recibes]/*[CP tú recibes]}
7DE[CP] /3DE[DP+RC]
b. Amelia envía más flores en una semana que [CP tú recibes en un mes].
3QUE clausal[CP]
‘Amelia sends more flowers in a week than you receive in a month.’
181
Laura Vela-Plo
The data in (4) and (5) suggest that standards with ‘que’ may denote individual
comparison ((4c), with the denotation proposed in (6a)), but, interestingly, do
not allow the expression of degree comparison (see (4a,b)). Curiously, both
phrasal and clausal structures are found in the position of complement of ‘que’
(see (4c) and (5b)). In contrast, standards with ‘de’ allow the expression of
degree comparison (see (4a,b)) and, crucially, ‘de’ standards can only have a
phrasal complement, either a DP or a RC whose head refers to the degree or
quantity employed as reference of the comparison (see (4b) and (5a)). In terms
of the properties that we are checking, what follows from our analysis is that
Spanish ‘que’ standards are non degree denoting and allow clausal structures;
whereas ‘de’ standards can denote degrees and disallow clausal structures.
(6) a. J másque K = λG<e,d> λyλx[G(x) > G(y)]
INDIVIDUAL denoting standard
b. J másde K = λG<e,d> λdλx[G(x) > d]
DEGREE denoting standard
In sum, building on data from typologically different languages such as Spanish,
Italian (Donati 1997), Japanese (Shimoyama 2012) or Turkish (Hofstetter 2009),
a.o, we show that the correlation outlined in (3) assumed so far does not
hold. If this is correct, the conclusion that follows from here is that degree
abstraction in standards of comparison does not depend on a clausal structure
with wh-movement, and that some languages resort to phrasal structures with
degree or quantity relativization for that purpose.
In this respect, we propose that the nature and complexity of standards
of comparison is cross-linguistically determined by syntactic and semantic
properties that correspond to two independent parameters, not to a single
criterion as presumed. Extending Kennedy’s 2007 proposal, we argue that
there is a syntactic parameter [+/− clausal] by which either phrasal, or both
phrasal and clausal structures are allowed in the complement position of the
standard marker; and a semantic parameter [+/− degree denoting] that
restricts the semantic type of the standard, which can be either non-degree (6a)
or degree denoting (6b).
182
Poster Abstracts
Table 1: Proposed parametric classification and some sample languages.
SYNTACTIC PARAMETER
Are clausal structures allowed?
−clausal
standard
SEMANTIC
PARAMETER
Is degree
comparison
allowed?
+clausal
standard
−degree Turkish (abl), Japanese (yori), Italian (che),
denoting English (than), Italian (che), Spanish (que)
Spanish (que)
+degree Japanese (yori), English (than), English (than)
denoting
Italian (di), Spanish (de)
Key Contributions of this Paper
• A formal syntactic and semantic analysis of the que – de alternation in
Spanish comparatives that can be applied to other Romance languages.
• The idea that a clausal (CP) complement with wh-movement is not
the unique strategy employed to express degree comparison in natural
languages (Chomsky 1977): the use of either DegPs directly or DPs which
may be modified by RCs is also a widespread option, especially (but not
limited to) among Romance languages (also Donati 1997).
• Two autonomous parameters, one syntactic and the other semantic, are
able to account for the variation observed on the expression of standards
of comparison cross-linguistically.
References
Chomsky, N. 1977. On Wh-Movement. In Culicover, P. et al. eds. Formal Syntax,
71–132. NY: Academic Press.
Donati, C. 1997. Comparative clauses as free relatives. Probus 9, 145–166.
Heim, I. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms., U. Texas, Austin.
Hofstetter, S. 2009. Comparison in Turkish. PSuB 13, 187–202.
Kennedy, C. 2007. Modes of comparison. In PCLS 43, 1(1), 141–165.
Shimoyama, J. 2012. Reassessing cross-linguistic variation in clausal comparatives. NatLangSem 20(1), 83–113.
183
Similarities and differences in lexical synonymy: far and its
synonyms in European languages1
Maria Zarifyan & Anastasia Melnik (RNU Higher School of Economics,
Moscow)
[email protected] & [email protected]
The current study is conducted within the framework of the research group
“Multilingual database of synonyms”, that has several purposes: research,
descriptive and practical. The research part is based on lexicographic and
typological approaches: we highlight similarities and differences between the
words. The results of the research part formed the basis of a database with the
descriptions of the synonyms of Russian, English, German, Italian, French
and Polish (the technical developer of the database is Nikolay Mikulin). The
practical part of our study consists of developing online drills that will help a
language learner understand the differences between synonyms of both native
and target language. This paper demonstrates the analysis of a semantic field
far as an example of our study.
The study was conducted in three stages. First of all, we create descriptions
for each item in a set of synonyms in order to juxtapose their semantic and
syntactic features. Secondly, we highlight idiomatic meanings of each word,
because acquisition of idiomatic meanings is usually the most difficult part of
language learning. The aim of our work is a development of online drills that
are based on the descriptions.
This paper focuses on the concept ‘far’ and its synonyms of Russian and
English languages. The polysemy of spatial words is a well-studied area. First of
all, some spatial adjectives can be used both in deictic (reference to a speaker
position) and non-deictic modes (see (1) and (2), respectively):
(1)
My school is far away and I get very tired walking there.
(2)
My school is very far from the city centre.
1
The article was prepared within the framework of the Academic Fund Program at the
National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2016 (grant №16-05-0054
Multilingual database of synonyms: theoretical and computer models) and supported within
the framework of a subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation
for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program
184
Poster Abstracts
Secondly, lexemes with ‘far’ semantics are characterized by having two kinds of
usage due to the type of landmark valence: on the one hand they can be used in
deictic contexts, in which the observer acts as a reference point (see Paducheva
1993), on the other hand they can form constructions with narrative meaning,
in which the reference point is an object outside of the speaker’s scope.
Moreover, it is well-known, that spatial lexemes can develop temporal
meanings. “Space-time” metaphor is considered to be one of the language
universals of semantics, mostly manifested in spatial prepositions and adverbs
(Fillmore 1971, Lakoff & Johnson 1980, Clark 1973, Donati 2010), yet also found
in Russian adjectives (Bulygina & Shmelev 1997): the authors observe Russian
antonymous adjectives blizkij ‘close, nearby’ and dalekij ‘far’ and point out that
blizkij can denote only future events, but not the past ones: blizkoje buduščeje –
‘near future’ (*blizkoje prošloje – ‘near past’). Dalekij most likely denotes distant
events in the past (dalekoje prošloje – ‘remote past’), however it can be also used
when one is talking about the future (dalekoje buduščeje – ‘distant future’).
While ‘space-time’ metaphorical mapping is universal, there are also
metaphors that are less widespread across the languages and thus they are quite
complicated for language learners. In order to facilitate language learning, we
have highlighted the some parametres of ‘far’ that can influence lexicalization
patterns across languages: for example, the type of an oriented object can be
relevant. For instance, all languages are sensitive to animacy or inanimacy:
when one denotes a kinship of two or more people, English distant and remote
can be used (distant <remote> relative, but not ? far relative) as well as Italian
parente lontano (distant relative), German entfernter Verwandter (distant relative), Russian dalnij rodstvennik (distant relative), French cousin éloigné (distant
cousin), Polish daleki krewny (distant relative).
Such differences between languages are the most difficult part for those who
study a foreign language, thus, our practical aim is to develop online exercises,
based on the descriptions. While exercises and tests from language learning
textbooks give the information about a foreign language without considering
the structure of learner’s native language, our multilingual exercises allow a
user to establish connections between grammatical and semantic structure of
both target and native language. The initial step of a drill is to provide a learner
with a set of rules for using the words in different contexts. Such rules must be
short and clear, but at the same time they must encompass each aspect of. Here
is the example of English rules:
Maria Zarifyan & Anastasia Melnik
(3)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
185
An object or place, located at considerable distance (far, distant,
remote): a far country.
Located at considerable distance from the present on the time axis
(far, distant): far future, distant (remote) past.
Coming from a distance; perceptible from afar (distant): a distant
sound; a distant telephone call.
Located at more considerable distance than another (about two
things) (far). He lives on the far side of the lake. the far corner.
Extensive or lengthy (far): a far journey
A person, distantly related by blood or marriage (distant): distant
cousin.
Minimally similar (distant): a distant likeness.
Operating or controlled from a distance (remote): remote sensors,
remote job, remote control
Hidden away; secluded (remote): remote village
When a learner looks through these rules and sees the differences between
each lexeme he/she can start with filling the gaps with the suitable form. Here
is the example of the first task:
(4)
This ____ town is so out of the way that mail comes only once a week.
Thus, a learner must read a sentence and fill the gap with one or several suitable
adjectives. The context helps to choose the correct lexeme: for instance, from
the sentence above, a learner can infer that the town is secluded and hard reach,
therefore the correct answer is remote.
References
Apresjan Yu. D. 1980. Anglo-russkij sinonimicheskij slovar’ [English-Russian
Dictionary of Synonyms]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Russkij Jazyk
Apresjan Yu. D. (ed.) Novyj ob"yasnitel’nyj slovar’ sinonimov russkogo jazyka
[The New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language].
Clark, H.H. 1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T.E. Moore (ed.),
Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–63). New
York: Academic Press.
Donati M. 2010. The space of address between deixis and metaphor. In G.
Marotta, A. Lenci, L. Meini, and F. Rovai (eds.), Space and language 2009.
186
Poster Abstracts
Proceedings of the Pisa International Conference, 299–315. Pisa: Edizioni
ETS.
Fillmore, C. J. 1971. The Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington, In Indiana
University Linguistic Club.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M., 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Practical Information
189
Internet Access
You will be able to access the internet via Wi-Fi at the conference venue and in
most buildings of the university. If your university login allows you to access
eduroam, this is also available at University of Leipzig. If not, please connect to
eduinfo using the following credentials.
Network name
Event name (Veranstaltungsname)
Password
IP-Address
DNS server
eduinfo
ConSole XXV
22c45-2016
obtained automatically (DHCP)
obtained automatically (DHCP)
Copy Shops
Unfortunately, there is no copying facility right in the Seminargebäude, but
some copy shops are quite close:
Printy
Ritterstraße 5
Monday to Friday, 8:00 – 18:00
http://www.printy-leipzig.de/
Universitätsdruckzentrum
Ritterstraße 10
Monday to Friday, 8:00 – 18:00
Copy Café – Copyhouse
Universitätsstraße 18
Monday to Friday, 8:30 – 19:30
http://www.copyhouse-leipzig.de
Campus Copy
next to Copy Cafe
190
Practical Information
Lunch
Here are some suggestions for the lunch break. All locations are close to the
conference venue.
Mensa am Park
Universitätsstraße 5 (ground floor of the conference venue)
The University’s central cafeteria on the campus provides a pasta and
salad buffet and it offers dishes with meat or fish, and vegetarian dishes.
Diner No. 1
Universitätsstraße 16
A small American-style diner serving burgers, sandwiches, and pancakes.
Just the right choice if you’re yearning for a savoury meal.
Maza Pita
Neumarkt 9
Excellent Syrian food in a small shop with a copy shop in the basement.
Subway
Neumarkt 9–19
The well-known sandwich chain. Regular sandwiches start at around 3 €.
Handbrotzeit
Nikolaistraße 12–16
Hand-sized freshly baked bread filled with melted cheese and other
ingredients. They also offer a salad of the season.
Soup&Nem
Nikolaistraße 18
A Thai bistro. You can get various soups and other europeanized Asian
food like fried noodles or roasted duck.
Bagel Brothers
Nikolaistraße 42
Bagels with lots of different toppings; coffee, tea, pastries.
Vapiano
Augustusplatz 11
A well-known German casual restaurant chain offering Italian food. You
order your food directly from the cooks. The pizza and pasta start at 7 €.
Coffee Shops
191
In addition, you find a lot of snack bars and bakeries all over the city centre,
especially in the Nikolaistraße and the main station (German, Italian and
Asian diners).
Coffee Shops
Starbucks
Grimmaische Sraße at the east end of the campus.
Coffee culture
Opposite the Seminargebäude at the corner of Universitätsstraße and
Gewandgäßchen.
Restaurants & Bars
If you are looking for a restaurant or bar to go to in the evening, here are some
suggestions.
Acapulco
Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 42
A nice bar/restaurant on the ‘Karli’, a street in the south of the city centre,
which features a lot of different bars, pubs, clubs and restaurants. The
Acapulco offers a lot of Mexican specialties for moderate prices and may
serve as the perfect starting point for a tour through the bars in the south
of Leipzig.
Piccola Italia
Rosentalgasse 12
A small, cosy Italian restaurant right at the north end of the city centre
and a ten-minute walk from the main station.
100Wasser
Barfußgässchen 15
A nice café/bar in the colourful style of the Austrian architect/designer/artist Friedensreich Hundertwasser. Especially the
rich breakfast buffets, coffee specialties and large selection of cocktails
192
Practical Information
are worth a try. The 100Wasser is located in the city centre in the
‘Barfussgässchen’.
Auerbachs Keller
Mädlerpassage, Grimmaische Straße 2-4
The famous Auerbachs Keller is one of the oldest bars and restaurants in
Leipzig. It is, of course, a magnet for tourists from all over the world but
nevertheless it has maintained the special flair which inspired Goethe to
devote a scene from ‘Faust’ to his favourite wine tavern. Not a cheap
dinner place but definitely worth a look.
Bayerischer Bahnhof
Bayrischer Platz 1
The Bayrischer Bahnhof is a famous bar/beer garden a few minutes
southeast of the city centre. It features some typical German or rather
Bavarian specialties and the ambience of a historic German brewery.
Thüringer Hof
Burgstraße 19
The Thüringer Hof is located in the city centre, right next to the famous
Thomaskirche. A variety of traditional Thuringian and Saxonian dishes
are served.
India Gate
Nikolaistraße 10
A nice restaurant in the middle of the city centre, right next to the
Nikolaikirche and only a two-minute-walk from the university. It offers a
lot of interesting food in a cozy Indian ambience.
Shady
Körnerstraße 2
This small restaurant serves Middle Eastern cuisine in a very nice atmosphere. The food is not that cheap, but absolutely delicious.
Fra Diavolo
Burgplatz 2
A stylish Italian restaurant at the north end of the city centre that serves
delicious pizza and pasta.
Restaurants & Bars
193
Barfussgässchen, Karli and Gottschedstraße
There are three locations where a lot of bars and restaurants are situated.
One is the Barfussgässchen, a small alley, right in the city centre near
the market place, where you find pubs, bars, restaurants and a lot of
people every night. This is also where the conference dinner on Thursday
will take place. The second is the Karli (Karl-Liebknecht-Straße) a bit
south of the city centre. It is quite a long street with many different
bars and is especially popular among students. The third place is the
Gottschedstraße at the west side of the city center where you can find a
lot of bars, pubs, restaurants and coffee bars.
Pilot
Bosestraße 1
A very nice bar/restaurant next to the ‘Centraltheater’ where you might
meet a bizarre stage actor. The food is not that cheap, but excellent (e.g.
rather creative salads or sandwiches).
Sol y Mar
Gottschedstraße 4
A bar/restaurant with relaxing atmosphere where you can sit on couches
and even get a massage.
An Nam
Gottschedstraße 13
An excellent Vietnamese restaurant serving fresh dishes, both vegetarian
and meaty, at reasonable prices.