Cyclic Selection: Auxiliaries Are Merged, Not Inserted

IF 1.6 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Linguistic Inquiry Pub Date : 2023-03-21 DOI:10.1162/ling_a_00439
Asia Pietraszko
{"title":"Cyclic Selection: Auxiliaries Are Merged, Not Inserted","authors":"Asia Pietraszko","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traditional approaches to verbal periphrasis (compound tenses) treat auxiliary verbs as lexical items that enter syntactic derivation like any other lexical item, via Selection/Merge. An alternative view is that auxiliary verbs are inserted into a previously built structure (e.g., Bach 1967, Arregi 2000, Embick 2000, Cowper 2010, Bjorkman 2011, Arregi and Klecha 2015). Arguments for the insertion approach include auxiliaries’ last-resort distribution and the fact that, in many languages, auxiliaries are not systematically associated with a given inflectional category (Bjorkman’s (2011) “overflow” distribution). Here, I argue against the insertion approach. I demonstrate that the overflow pattern and last-resort distribution follow from Cyclic Selection (Pietraszko 2017)—a Merge counterpart of Cyclic Agree (Béjar and Rezac 2009). I also show that the insertion approach makes wrong predictions about compound tenses in Swahili, a language with overflow periphrasis. Under my approach, an auxiliary verb is a verbal head externally merged as a specifier of a functional head, such as T. It then undergoes m-merger with that head, instantiating an External-Merge version of Matushansky’s (2006) conception of head movement.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10302109/","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Traditional approaches to verbal periphrasis (compound tenses) treat auxiliary verbs as lexical items that enter syntactic derivation like any other lexical item, via Selection/Merge. An alternative view is that auxiliary verbs are inserted into a previously built structure (e.g., Bach 1967, Arregi 2000, Embick 2000, Cowper 2010, Bjorkman 2011, Arregi and Klecha 2015). Arguments for the insertion approach include auxiliaries’ last-resort distribution and the fact that, in many languages, auxiliaries are not systematically associated with a given inflectional category (Bjorkman’s (2011) “overflow” distribution). Here, I argue against the insertion approach. I demonstrate that the overflow pattern and last-resort distribution follow from Cyclic Selection (Pietraszko 2017)—a Merge counterpart of Cyclic Agree (Béjar and Rezac 2009). I also show that the insertion approach makes wrong predictions about compound tenses in Swahili, a language with overflow periphrasis. Under my approach, an auxiliary verb is a verbal head externally merged as a specifier of a functional head, such as T. It then undergoes m-merger with that head, instantiating an External-Merge version of Matushansky’s (2006) conception of head movement.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
循环选择:辅助项被合并,而不是插入
传统的动词周边词(复合时态)方法将助动词视为词汇项,通过选择/合并,与其他词汇项一样进入句法派生。另一种观点是,助动词被插入到先前构建的结构中(例如,巴赫1967年、阿雷吉2000年、恩比克2000年、考珀2010年、比约克曼2011年、阿雷吉和克莱查2015年)。插入方法的论据包括助词的最后手段分布,以及在许多语言中,助词与给定的屈折类别没有系统地联系(Bjorkman(2011)的“溢出”分布)。在这里,我反对插入方法。我证明了溢出模式和最后手段分布遵循循环选择(Pietraszko 2017)——循环同意的合并对应物(Béjar和Rezac 2009)。我还表明,插入方法对斯瓦希里语中的复合时态做出了错误的预测,斯瓦希里语言是一种有溢出周边的语言。在我的方法下,辅助动词是一个外部合并为功能性头部(如T)说明符的动词头部。然后,它与该头部进行m-合并,实例化了Matushansky(2006)的头部运动概念的外部合并版本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Linguistic Inquiry
Linguistic Inquiry Multiple-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: Linguistic Inquiry leads the field in research on current topics in linguistics. This key resource explores new theoretical developments based on the latest international scholarship, capturing the excitement of contemporary debate in full-scale articles as well as shorter contributions (Squibs and Discussion) and more extensive commentary (Remarks and Replies).
期刊最新文献
Inverse Linking and Extraposition VP-Preposing and Constituency “Paradox” Using Computational Models to Test Syntactic Learnability Applicative Recursion and Nominal Licensing More on (the Lack of) Reconstruction in English Tough-Constructions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1