{"title":"Bipartite Agentivity Expression in Chinese Passives","authors":"Zhe Chen, Yafei Li","doi":"10.1111/synt.12203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12203","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45823,"journal":{"name":"Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/synt.12203","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49605929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Scope Argument against T‐to‐C Movement in Sluicing","authors":"I. Landau","doi":"10.1111/synt.12204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12204","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45823,"journal":{"name":"Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research","volume":"23 1","pages":"375-393"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/synt.12204","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43867473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Similarities and Differences between Quantifier Raising and\u0000 Wh\u0000 Movement Out of Adjuncts","authors":"Misako Tanaka","doi":"10.1111/synt.12189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12189","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45823,"journal":{"name":"Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/synt.12189","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42528818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Labeling without Weak Heads","authors":"Norimasa Hayashi","doi":"10.1111/synt.12196","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12196","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45823,"journal":{"name":"Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research","volume":"23 1","pages":"275-294"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/synt.12196","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42143185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
. One of the main discoveries of generative syntax is that long-distance extraction proceeds in a successive-cyclic manner, in that these dependencies are comprised of a sequence of local extraction steps. This paper provides support for this general picture by presenting parsing evidence for intermediate landing sites created by successive-cyclic movement, building on prior work by Gibson & Warren (2004). It furthermore uses this parsing evidence to investigate the distribution of intermediate gaps. The central findings of this paper are that (i) there is evidence that successive-cyclic movement targets the edge of CPs, and (ii) that there is no comparable evidence for an intermediate landing site at vP edges. These findings are fully consistent with the classical view of successive cyclicity, according to which only finite clause edges host intermediate landing sites. In the context of phase theory, these results receive a straightforward explanation if CPs are phases, but vPs are not. The processing evidence presented here thus provides a novel diagnostic for the distribution of phases and new evidence for their active role in online sentence processing.
{"title":"Locality Domains in Syntax: Evidence from Sentence Processing","authors":"S. Keine","doi":"10.1111/synt.12195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12195","url":null,"abstract":". One of the main discoveries of generative syntax is that long-distance extraction proceeds in a successive-cyclic manner, in that these dependencies are comprised of a sequence of local extraction steps. This paper provides support for this general picture by presenting parsing evidence for intermediate landing sites created by successive-cyclic movement, building on prior work by Gibson & Warren (2004). It furthermore uses this parsing evidence to investigate the distribution of intermediate gaps. The central findings of this paper are that (i) there is evidence that successive-cyclic movement targets the edge of CPs, and (ii) that there is no comparable evidence for an intermediate landing site at vP edges. These findings are fully consistent with the classical view of successive cyclicity, according to which only finite clause edges host intermediate landing sites. In the context of phase theory, these results receive a straightforward explanation if CPs are phases, but vPs are not. The processing evidence presented here thus provides a novel diagnostic for the distribution of phases and new evidence for their active role in online sentence processing.","PeriodicalId":45823,"journal":{"name":"Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/synt.12195","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41668432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, I argue that all of the conjuncts in nominal conjunction always bear the same case. Apparent counterexamples, where conjuncts seem to differ with respect to morphological case marking are claimed to be either due to a misanalysis of the underlying syntactic structure or due to superficial morphological processes that create the impression of a difference in case marking. Once we control for phenomena of this sort (namely &P-clitics, Suspended Affixation and Allomorphy), we find that case marking is always symmetric in nominal conjunction. This finding is in stark contrast to the phenomenon of φ -agreement which is known to exhibit asymmetry effects. Based on this observation, I show that the Chomskyan account to case assignment according to which case arises only as a reflex of φ -agreement cannot account for this mismatch without stipulative assumptions. The pattern however follows straightforwardly if we assume that case assignment proceeds on the basis of syntactic structure whereas φ -agreement can either be syntactic or postsyntactic. Finally, I show that the generalization established in this paper can be used as a simple diagnostic to distinguish syntactic from morphological case marking alternations.
{"title":"On the Symmetry of Case in Conjunction","authors":"P. Weisser","doi":"10.1111/synt.12188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12188","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I argue that all of the conjuncts in nominal conjunction always bear the same case. Apparent counterexamples, where conjuncts seem to differ with respect to morphological case marking are claimed to be either due to a misanalysis of the underlying syntactic structure or due to superficial morphological processes that create the impression of a difference in case marking. Once we control for phenomena of this sort (namely &P-clitics, Suspended Affixation and Allomorphy), we find that case marking is always symmetric in nominal conjunction. This finding is in stark contrast to the phenomenon of φ -agreement which is known to exhibit asymmetry effects. Based on this observation, I show that the Chomskyan account to case assignment according to which case arises only as a reflex of φ -agreement cannot account for this mismatch without stipulative assumptions. The pattern however follows straightforwardly if we assume that case assignment proceeds on the basis of syntactic structure whereas φ -agreement can either be syntactic or postsyntactic. Finally, I show that the generalization established in this paper can be used as a simple diagnostic to distinguish syntactic from morphological case marking alternations.","PeriodicalId":45823,"journal":{"name":"Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/synt.12188","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41765642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Boban Arsenijević, Jana Willer-Gold, Nadira Aljović, Nermina Čordalija, M. Vukosav, Nedžad Leko, Frane Malenica, Franc Marušič, T. Milicev, N. Miliċeviċ, Petra Mišmaš, Ivana Mitić, Anita Peti-Stantić, B. Stankovič, Jelena Tusek, A. Nevins
A recurring hypothesis about the agreement phenomena generalized as closest-conjunct agreement takes this pattern to result from reduced clausal conjunction, simply displaying the agreement of the verb with the nonconjoined subject of the clause whose content survives ellipsis (Aoun, Benmamoun & Sportiche 1994, 1999; see also Wilder 1997). Closest-conjunct agreement is the dominant agreement pattern in the South Slavic languages Slovenian and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. A natural question is whether closest-conjunct agreement in these varieties may indeed be analyzed as entirely derived from conjunction reduction. In this article, we report on two experiments conducted to test this. The results reject the hypothesis as far as these languages are concerned, thereby upholding the relevance of models developed to account for closest-conjunct agreement within theories of agreement.
{"title":"Elided Clausal Conjunction Is Not the Only Source of Closest‐Conjunct Agreement: A Picture‐Matching Study","authors":"Boban Arsenijević, Jana Willer-Gold, Nadira Aljović, Nermina Čordalija, M. Vukosav, Nedžad Leko, Frane Malenica, Franc Marušič, T. Milicev, N. Miliċeviċ, Petra Mišmaš, Ivana Mitić, Anita Peti-Stantić, B. Stankovič, Jelena Tusek, A. Nevins","doi":"10.1111/SYNT.12171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/SYNT.12171","url":null,"abstract":"A recurring hypothesis about the agreement phenomena generalized as closest-conjunct \u0000agreement takes this pattern to result from reduced clausal conjunction, simply displaying the \u0000agreement of the verb with the nonconjoined subject of the clause whose content survives ellipsis \u0000(Aoun, Benmamoun & Sportiche 1994, 1999; see also Wilder 1997). Closest-conjunct agreement \u0000is the dominant agreement pattern in the South Slavic languages Slovenian and \u0000Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. A natural question is whether closest-conjunct agreement in these \u0000varieties may indeed be analyzed as entirely derived from conjunction reduction. In this article, \u0000we report on two experiments conducted to test this. The results reject the hypothesis as far as \u0000these languages are concerned, thereby upholding the relevance of models developed to account \u0000for closest-conjunct agreement within theories of agreement.","PeriodicalId":45823,"journal":{"name":"Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/SYNT.12171","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45736257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
One of the strongest arguments for a raising‐to‐object analysis of English accusative‐and‐infinitive constructions comes from the fact that adverbials and particles belonging to the matrix clause can intervene between the embedded subject and the embedded predicate. We reevaluate this argument in the light of a neglected alternative analysis, namely that matrix‐clause intervention is the result of extraposition of the embedded predicate. We show that this analysis gives a better account of matrix‐clause intervention than raising to object. Our arguments are based on the scopal properties of the embedded subject and on the order among multiple intervening elements. We also consider various mixed analyses that feature both raising to object and extraposition. These turn out to be conceptually awkward and empirically flawed.
{"title":"On Matrix‐Clause Intervention in Accusative‐and‐Infinitive Constructions","authors":"A. Neeleman, A. Payne","doi":"10.1111/SYNT.12174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/SYNT.12174","url":null,"abstract":"One of the strongest arguments for a raising‐to‐object analysis of English accusative‐and‐infinitive constructions comes from the fact that adverbials and particles belonging to the matrix clause can intervene between the embedded subject and the embedded predicate. We reevaluate this argument in the light of a neglected alternative analysis, namely that matrix‐clause intervention is the result of extraposition of the embedded predicate. We show that this analysis gives a better account of matrix‐clause intervention than raising to object. Our arguments are based on the scopal properties of the embedded subject and on the order among multiple intervening elements. We also consider various mixed analyses that feature both raising to object and extraposition. These turn out to be conceptually awkward and empirically flawed.","PeriodicalId":45823,"journal":{"name":"Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/SYNT.12174","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43405968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：