Abstract In this work we deal with two structures that have a very similar pragmatic function in Italian and have been claimed to have similar semantic and syntactic properties, namely clefts and left peripheral focus. Since Chomsky (1977. On wh-movement. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.) they have been both considered as instances of A’-movement and should therefore behave alike. Here we investigate their prosody and their syntax on the basis of three experimental studies and show that while the prosodic patterns found are indeed very similar, their syntax is less homogenous than expected if we apply general tests that have been traditionally used to distinguish A- from A’-movement. In particular, we will discuss three of these tests, namely parasitic gaps, weak crossover and anaphoric binding and show that the two constructions yield quite different results. We analyse the differences within the framework of featural relativized minimality originally proposed in Rizzi (2004. Locality and the left periphery. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, 223–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.) and subsequent work. On this basis, we conclude that there is no one to one match between prosodic and syntactic properties, since we observe differences in the syntactic behaviour of the two constructions that do not surface in the prosodic patterns. Indirectly, this study sheds new light on the interface between prosody and syntax and is a confirmation of a modular theory of the components of grammar: some specific syntactic properties have no reflex in other components of grammar and can only be detected through purely syntactic tests.
在这项工作中，我们处理了意大利语中具有非常相似的语用功能，并声称具有相似的语义和句法特性的两个结构，即裂缝和左外围焦点。自乔姆斯基(1977)。wh-movement。在Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow和Adrian Akmajian(编)，形式语法，71-132。纽约:学术出版社)，他们都被认为是A运动的实例，因此应该表现得相似。在此，我们在三个实验研究的基础上研究了它们的韵律和语法，并表明，虽然发现的韵律模式确实非常相似，但如果我们应用传统上用于区分A-和A ' -运动的一般测试，它们的语法就没有预期的那么同质。特别地，我们将讨论其中的三个测试，即寄生间隙，弱交叉和回指结合，并表明这两种结构产生完全不同的结果。我们在Rizzi(2004)最初提出的特征相对极小性框架内分析了这些差异。局部和左边缘。见Adriana Belletti主编，《结构与超越:句法结构的制图》，第3卷，223-251页。牛津:牛津大学出版社)及其后续作品。在此基础上，我们得出结论，韵律和句法属性之间没有一对一的匹配，因为我们观察到这两种结构在韵律模式中没有表现出来的句法行为差异。间接地，这项研究揭示了韵律和语法之间的界面，并证实了语法成分的模块化理论:一些特定的句法属性在语法的其他成分中没有反射，只能通过纯粹的句法测试来检测。
{"title":"Does prosody meet syntax? A case study on standard Italian cleft sentences and left peripheral focus","authors":"M. Pinelli, Cecilia Poletto, Cinzia Avesani","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2019-2045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2045","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this work we deal with two structures that have a very similar pragmatic function in Italian and have been claimed to have similar semantic and syntactic properties, namely clefts and left peripheral focus. Since Chomsky (1977. On wh-movement. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.) they have been both considered as instances of A’-movement and should therefore behave alike. Here we investigate their prosody and their syntax on the basis of three experimental studies and show that while the prosodic patterns found are indeed very similar, their syntax is less homogenous than expected if we apply general tests that have been traditionally used to distinguish A- from A’-movement. In particular, we will discuss three of these tests, namely parasitic gaps, weak crossover and anaphoric binding and show that the two constructions yield quite different results. We analyse the differences within the framework of featural relativized minimality originally proposed in Rizzi (2004. Locality and the left periphery. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, 223–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.) and subsequent work. On this basis, we conclude that there is no one to one match between prosodic and syntactic properties, since we observe differences in the syntactic behaviour of the two constructions that do not surface in the prosodic patterns. Indirectly, this study sheds new light on the interface between prosody and syntax and is a confirmation of a modular theory of the components of grammar: some specific syntactic properties have no reflex in other components of grammar and can only be detected through purely syntactic tests.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"37 1","pages":"309 - 330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/tlr-2019-2045","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42811379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper proposes an interface account of existential sentences, in which the examination of the semantic, morphosyntactic, discourse and prosodic properties of these and related constructions is aimed to explore the similarities and differences with other types of IS-marked copular structures. In particular, a structural parallelism is proposed between existentials and clefts, as well as between (inverted) locatives and (inverted) pseudoclefts. In the analysis of existential constructions, the investigation of the Definiteness Effect reveals the need for a distinction across there-sentences; in particular, the interface properties of the relevant structures suggest that different analyses should be provided for existential and presentational there-sentences, which present crucial formal asymmetries at various levels of analysis.
{"title":"An interface analysis of marked copular constructions: The case of there-sentences","authors":"Francesca Ramaglia","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2019-2044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2044","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper proposes an interface account of existential sentences, in which the examination of the semantic, morphosyntactic, discourse and prosodic properties of these and related constructions is aimed to explore the similarities and differences with other types of IS-marked copular structures. In particular, a structural parallelism is proposed between existentials and clefts, as well as between (inverted) locatives and (inverted) pseudoclefts. In the analysis of existential constructions, the investigation of the Definiteness Effect reveals the need for a distinction across there-sentences; in particular, the interface properties of the relevant structures suggest that different analyses should be provided for existential and presentational there-sentences, which present crucial formal asymmetries at various levels of analysis.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"37 1","pages":"269 - 307"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/tlr-2019-2044","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41964028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Existential constructions (ECs) represent an important and ‘ever-green’ area of research, as the definition of their properties and the explanation of their related effects still remain controversial in the literature. Furthermore, given the relevance and interface extent of the phenomena connected to ECs, a modular investigation can shed new light on the functioning of natural language (including cognitive aspects), as well as on the nature of predication and the information-structural (IS) quality of marked constructions. This is exactly the objective of the discussion raised by the papers included in this Special Issue of The Linguistic Review. In this respect, among the themes dealt with in the present volume major questions can be listed as follows: – What determines the so-called Definiteness Effect (DE) (a restriction on the acceptability of definite DPs in the post-copular position of existential sentences), its impact and consistency across and within languages? Can this phenomenon be treated as (uniquely) determined by the presence of there? – What is the relationship (if any) between EC formulas and possessive structures across and within languages (e.g. the alternation between there beand have-sentences in English)? – Does the root/non-root distinction play a role in the definition of EC’s related phenomena? – What properties and functions (if any) distinguish existential from locative predications? And, in case, why, and to what extent do languages differ in the encoding of their meanings? – To what extent are ECs related to other (copular) structures, possibly sharing features at different levels of analysis, crossand intra-linguistically? – Finally, how and to what extent are ECs connected with discourse-related IS phenomena?
{"title":"Copular constructions, existentials and related phenomena. An introduction","authors":"Francesca Ramaglia, M. Frascarelli","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2019-2046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2046","url":null,"abstract":"Existential constructions (ECs) represent an important and ‘ever-green’ area of research, as the definition of their properties and the explanation of their related effects still remain controversial in the literature. Furthermore, given the relevance and interface extent of the phenomena connected to ECs, a modular investigation can shed new light on the functioning of natural language (including cognitive aspects), as well as on the nature of predication and the information-structural (IS) quality of marked constructions. This is exactly the objective of the discussion raised by the papers included in this Special Issue of The Linguistic Review. In this respect, among the themes dealt with in the present volume major questions can be listed as follows: – What determines the so-called Definiteness Effect (DE) (a restriction on the acceptability of definite DPs in the post-copular position of existential sentences), its impact and consistency across and within languages? Can this phenomenon be treated as (uniquely) determined by the presence of there? – What is the relationship (if any) between EC formulas and possessive structures across and within languages (e.g. the alternation between there beand have-sentences in English)? – Does the root/non-root distinction play a role in the definition of EC’s related phenomena? – What properties and functions (if any) distinguish existential from locative predications? And, in case, why, and to what extent do languages differ in the encoding of their meanings? – To what extent are ECs related to other (copular) structures, possibly sharing features at different levels of analysis, crossand intra-linguistically? – Finally, how and to what extent are ECs connected with discourse-related IS phenomena?","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"37 1","pages":"173 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/tlr-2019-2046","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45621727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Despite previous studies (cf. among others Huang 1987. Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. In Eric J. Reuland & Alice G.B. Ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (In)definiteness, 226–253. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1990. Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer; Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1998. Two types of existential sentences. Illinois Papers in Linguistics 26. 175–191; Pan, Haihua. 1996. Imperfective aspect zhe, agent deletion, and locative inversion in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(2). 409–432), the defining characteristics of existential sentences in Chinese (including potential equivalents of locative inversion in English) have remained controversial. This is shown to be due to the failure to acknowledge the existence of two different constructions, the existential construction (ExC) ‘Ø V DP’ where a sentence-initial phrase indicating location (PlaceP) is not required, on the one hand, and the locative construction (LoC) with an obligatory PlaceP, on the other: ‘PlaceP V DP’. Only the ExC can serve as a diagnostic context for unaccusative verbs, whereas the LoC allows for a wide range of verbs, including a subset of unergative verbs. Furthermore, two types of LoC need to be distinguished, depending on the type of aspect (perfective aspect -le vs imperfective aspect -zhe), giving rise to different semantics. Both have, however, in common that the PlaceP occupies the subject position (SpecTP), not the topic position, and that it is merged in SpecTP, not moved there, as evidenced by the systematic lack of a corresponding source structure with the PlaceP in postverbal position.
摘要尽管之前有研究（参见Huang 1987。汉语存在句与确定性。在Eric J.Reuland和Alice G.B.Ter Meulen（编辑）中，（In）确定性的表示，226–253。马萨诸塞州剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社；李，颜惠奥黛丽。1990年，普通话秩序与选区。多德雷赫特：克鲁沃；李，颜惠奥黛丽。1998。存在句的两种类型。伊利诺伊语言学论文26。175–191；潘，海华。1996.普通话中的不完全体哲、主词缺失和方位倒置。自然语言与语言学理论14（2）。409–432），汉语中存在句的定义特征（包括英语中位置倒置的潜在等价物）一直存在争议。这被证明是由于没有承认两种不同结构的存在，一方面是存在结构（ExC）“PXS V DP”，其中不需要表示位置的句子首短语（PlaceP），另一方面是带有强制性PlaceP的位置结构（LoC）：“PlaceP V DP”。只有ExC可以作为非宾格动词的诊断上下文，而LoC可以用于广泛的动词，包括非使动词的子集。此外，根据方面的类型，需要区分两种类型的LoC（完成方面-le和不完全方面-zer），从而产生不同的语义。然而，两者都有一个共同点，即PlaceP占据主题位置（SpecTP），而不是主题位置，并且它被合并到SpecTP中，而不是移动到那里，这可以通过系统地缺乏相应的源结构来证明，PlaceP处于语后位置。
{"title":"Existential and locative constructions in Mandarin Chinese","authors":"Waltraud Paul, Yaqiao Lu, T. Lee","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2019-2043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2043","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite previous studies (cf. among others Huang 1987. Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. In Eric J. Reuland & Alice G.B. Ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (In)definiteness, 226–253. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1990. Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer; Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1998. Two types of existential sentences. Illinois Papers in Linguistics 26. 175–191; Pan, Haihua. 1996. Imperfective aspect zhe, agent deletion, and locative inversion in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(2). 409–432), the defining characteristics of existential sentences in Chinese (including potential equivalents of locative inversion in English) have remained controversial. This is shown to be due to the failure to acknowledge the existence of two different constructions, the existential construction (ExC) ‘Ø V DP’ where a sentence-initial phrase indicating location (PlaceP) is not required, on the one hand, and the locative construction (LoC) with an obligatory PlaceP, on the other: ‘PlaceP V DP’. Only the ExC can serve as a diagnostic context for unaccusative verbs, whereas the LoC allows for a wide range of verbs, including a subset of unergative verbs. Furthermore, two types of LoC need to be distinguished, depending on the type of aspect (perfective aspect -le vs imperfective aspect -zhe), giving rise to different semantics. Both have, however, in common that the PlaceP occupies the subject position (SpecTP), not the topic position, and that it is merged in SpecTP, not moved there, as evidenced by the systematic lack of a corresponding source structure with the PlaceP in postverbal position.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"37 1","pages":"231 - 267"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/tlr-2019-2043","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45309516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The vast majority of roots in English show uniform selectional properties across their various instantiations in verbs, nouns, or adjectives: relyVtextit{rely}_{textrm{V}}on, relianceN_{textrm{N}}on, reliantA_{textrm{A}}on. This paper reports a new discovery: there are more than a hundred roots that display nonuniform selectional behavior. Their selectional class depends on whether the root is realized as a verb, a noun, or an adjective: prideV_{textrm{V}}oneself on, prideN_{textrm{N}}in, proudA_{textrm{A}}of. I argue that this is best modeled if the categorizing node itself determines selection.
{"title":"Roots don’t select, categorial heads do: lexical-selection of PPs may vary by category","authors":"J. Merchant","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2019-2020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2020","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The vast majority of roots in English show uniform selectional properties across their various instantiations in verbs, nouns, or adjectives: relyVtextit{rely}_{textrm{V}}on, relianceN_{textrm{N}}on, reliantA_{textrm{A}}on. This paper reports a new discovery: there are more than a hundred roots that display nonuniform selectional behavior. Their selectional class depends on whether the root is realized as a verb, a noun, or an adjective: prideV_{textrm{V}}oneself on, prideN_{textrm{N}}in, proudA_{textrm{A}}of. I argue that this is best modeled if the categorizing node itself determines selection.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"36 1","pages":"325 - 341"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/tlr-2019-2020","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46697320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper presents a cross-linguistic survey of non-local allomorphy and it develops a formal model that accounts for the observed patterns. The distance between the trigger and target of allomorphy in non-local patterns is much more conservative than expected. A model of Vocabulary Insertion is developed, where the limited distance follows from the basic linear computational properties of the PF-interface.
{"title":"Constraining long-distance allomorphy","authors":"Jurij Božič","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2019-2031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2031","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper presents a cross-linguistic survey of non-local allomorphy and it develops a formal model that accounts for the observed patterns. The distance between the trigger and target of allomorphy in non-local patterns is much more conservative than expected. A model of Vocabulary Insertion is developed, where the limited distance follows from the basic linear computational properties of the PF-interface.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"36 1","pages":"485 - 505"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/tlr-2019-2031","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42781569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Working within the framework of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994), this paper offers a derivational analysis of the range of structures and the types of idiosyncrasy associated with compounding. Building on prior analysis by Harley (2009), compound structures are argued to vary according to the ways in which the head and the non-head of a compound are categorised. Specifically, if the non-head of a compound is acategorial, then the relationship between the compound head and non-head is non-decomposable. Based on data from Hebrew (Borer 2009), it is shown that this also makes the non-head inaccessible to independent syntactic-semantic operations, including coordination, and coreference with a pronoun. It is additionally shown that morphologically-conditioned allomorphy (Bobaljik 2012) may be conditioned between the compound head and a suffix, as constitutes part of a bracketing paradox (Williams 1981). Where categorisation of the head of the compound gives rise to effects of headedness, however, this allomorphy may be ‘blocked’ by the structure associated with exocentricity. The final sections of the paper consider exocentricity, and other interactions between idiosyncratic meanings and phonology, in further detail.
{"title":"Compounds, composability, and morphological idiosyncrasy","authors":"Sam Steddy","doi":"10.1515/TLR-2019-2026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR-2019-2026","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Working within the framework of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994), this paper offers a derivational analysis of the range of structures and the types of idiosyncrasy associated with compounding. Building on prior analysis by Harley (2009), compound structures are argued to vary according to the ways in which the head and the non-head of a compound are categorised. Specifically, if the non-head of a compound is acategorial, then the relationship between the compound head and non-head is non-decomposable. Based on data from Hebrew (Borer 2009), it is shown that this also makes the non-head inaccessible to independent syntactic-semantic operations, including coordination, and coreference with a pronoun. It is additionally shown that morphologically-conditioned allomorphy (Bobaljik 2012) may be conditioned between the compound head and a suffix, as constitutes part of a bracketing paradox (Williams 1981). Where categorisation of the head of the compound gives rise to effects of headedness, however, this allomorphy may be ‘blocked’ by the structure associated with exocentricity. The final sections of the paper consider exocentricity, and other interactions between idiosyncratic meanings and phonology, in further detail.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"36 1","pages":"453 - 483"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/TLR-2019-2026","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44554961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Recent work in Distributed Morphology, most prominently Harley (2014), argues for roots being able to take syntactic complements, which opens the door for the possibility of having syntactic features within a root’s representation – something most DM literature rejects (Embick 2015). Upon a closer inspection of the arguments presented in the literature, it is not clear whether the disagreement has an empirical underpinning, or whether it stems from the lack of methodological clarity as far as the identification of the precise nature of what constitutes a syntactic feature. This paper takes this methodological question seriously and investigates a type of derivational behavior that, in our view, provides a decisive argument for the presence of syntactic features on roots. We argue that the presence of a syntactic feature on the root can be conclusively established based on a feature’s impact on specific properties within a larger syntactic structure. Based on empirical evidence form gender agreement phenomena, we introduce a model of grammar that distinguishes roots with syntactic features from those which do not have them. We propose that such a distinction between roots will manifest itself in the timing of root insertion – roots without syntactic features are late inserted, while roots with syntactic features must be early inserted.
{"title":"Roots, their structure and consequences for derivational timing","authors":"I. Kucerova, Adam Szczegielniak","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2019-2022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2022","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recent work in Distributed Morphology, most prominently Harley (2014), argues for roots being able to take syntactic complements, which opens the door for the possibility of having syntactic features within a root’s representation – something most DM literature rejects (Embick 2015). Upon a closer inspection of the arguments presented in the literature, it is not clear whether the disagreement has an empirical underpinning, or whether it stems from the lack of methodological clarity as far as the identification of the precise nature of what constitutes a syntactic feature. This paper takes this methodological question seriously and investigates a type of derivational behavior that, in our view, provides a decisive argument for the presence of syntactic features on roots. We argue that the presence of a syntactic feature on the root can be conclusively established based on a feature’s impact on specific properties within a larger syntactic structure. Based on empirical evidence form gender agreement phenomena, we introduce a model of grammar that distinguishes roots with syntactic features from those which do not have them. We propose that such a distinction between roots will manifest itself in the timing of root insertion – roots without syntactic features are late inserted, while roots with syntactic features must be early inserted.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"36 1","pages":"365 - 387"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/tlr-2019-2022","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43584547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In this paper I examine certain gradable adjectives in Serbian, whose suppletive comparative forms display unexpected semantic properties. In particular, while these adjectives are ambiguous between intersective and non-intersective readings in the positive form, their suppletive comparative and superlative forms are limited to the non-intersective interpretation. These facts show, I argue, that in a theory like Distributed Morphology either adjectival roots or category-assigning heads they combine with come in semantic subtypes (i.e. are specified for certain semantic properties; Harley 2005, Anagnostopoulou and Samioti 2014). I show how the analysis I propose explains semantic properties of change-of-state verbs derived from these adjectives and why these adjectives are restricted to the intersective interpretation when their positive form takes the long-form (definite) inflection. I also provide an illustration of how Arregi and Nevins’s (2014) analysis of the so-called “disuppletive” roots, such worse/badder, can deal with the facts presented in this paper. Finally, I discuss implications of these facts in the context of Bobaljik’s (2012) approach to suppletive comparative morphology.
{"title":"(Non-)Intersective adjectives and root suppletion","authors":"M. Despić","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2019-2027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2027","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper I examine certain gradable adjectives in Serbian, whose suppletive comparative forms display unexpected semantic properties. In particular, while these adjectives are ambiguous between intersective and non-intersective readings in the positive form, their suppletive comparative and superlative forms are limited to the non-intersective interpretation. These facts show, I argue, that in a theory like Distributed Morphology either adjectival roots or category-assigning heads they combine with come in semantic subtypes (i.e. are specified for certain semantic properties; Harley 2005, Anagnostopoulou and Samioti 2014). I show how the analysis I propose explains semantic properties of change-of-state verbs derived from these adjectives and why these adjectives are restricted to the intersective interpretation when their positive form takes the long-form (definite) inflection. I also provide an illustration of how Arregi and Nevins’s (2014) analysis of the so-called “disuppletive” roots, such worse/badder, can deal with the facts presented in this paper. Finally, I discuss implications of these facts in the context of Bobaljik’s (2012) approach to suppletive comparative morphology.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"36 1","pages":"507 - 530"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/tlr-2019-2027","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42808887","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"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：