Grano and Lasnik (2008) argue that phases should be extended if features are still unvalued on the complement of a phase head at the end of what would normally be a phase. Thus, if pronouns are bound variables with unvalued features, then the phase that matters for resolving the unvalued features is extended. However, the one case that their generalization should not cover, namely, local anaphora, suggests that phase extension based on unvalued features is not the right explanation of the bound pronoun effect, and that phases for anaphora are not coordinated with phases that restrict the relations that the bound pronoun effect encompasses.
{"title":"Extended Phase Boundaries and the Spell-Out Trap","authors":"Ken Safir","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00483","DOIUrl":"10.1162/ling_a_00483","url":null,"abstract":"Grano and Lasnik (2008) argue that phases should be extended if features are still unvalued on the complement of a phase head at the end of what would normally be a phase. Thus, if pronouns are bound variables with unvalued features, then the phase that matters for resolving the unvalued features is extended. However, the one case that their generalization should not cover, namely, local anaphora, suggests that phase extension based on unvalued features is not the right explanation of the bound pronoun effect, and that phases for anaphora are not coordinated with phases that restrict the relations that the bound pronoun effect encompasses.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":"54 1","pages":"209-217"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41409498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
When we couple the cyclic expansion of a probe’s domain assumed in Cyclic Agree (Rezac 2003, 2004, Béjar and Rezac 2009) with the lack of formal distinction between heads, intermediate projections, and phrases emphasized in Bare Phrase Structure (Chomsky 1995a,b), an interesting prediction arises. Maximal projections should be able to probe through the same mechanisms that allow intermediate projections to probe in familiar cases of Cyclic Agree. I argue that this prediction is borne out. I analyze agreeing adjunct C in Amahuaca (Panoan; Peru) as a maximal projection that probes its c-command domain in second-cycle Agree. This account derives C’s simultaneous sensitivity to DPs within its own clause and in the clause to which it adjoins. Therefore, I conclude that Amahuaca provides evidence that maximal projections can be probes. The account also yields insight into the syntax of switch-reference in Panoan and beyond.
{"title":"Cyclic Expansion in Agree: Maximal Projections as Probes","authors":"Emily Clem","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00432","DOIUrl":"10.1162/ling_a_00432","url":null,"abstract":"When we couple the cyclic expansion of a probe’s domain assumed in Cyclic Agree (Rezac 2003, 2004, Béjar and Rezac 2009) with the lack of formal distinction between heads, intermediate projections, and phrases emphasized in Bare Phrase Structure (Chomsky 1995a,b), an interesting prediction arises. Maximal projections should be able to probe through the same mechanisms that allow intermediate projections to probe in familiar cases of Cyclic Agree. I argue that this prediction is borne out. I analyze agreeing adjunct C in Amahuaca (Panoan; Peru) as a maximal projection that probes its c-command domain in second-cycle Agree. This account derives C’s simultaneous sensitivity to DPs within its own clause and in the clause to which it adjoins. Therefore, I conclude that Amahuaca provides evidence that maximal projections can be probes. The account also yields insight into the syntax of switch-reference in Panoan and beyond.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":"54 1","pages":"39-78"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41308528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses what happens when locality requirements—which favor short dependencies—come into conflict with antilocality requirements—which rule out dependencies that are too short. It is argued that in such circumstances, certain locality requirements may be minimally violated so that the antilocality requirement is satisfied. A theory along these lines is shown to derive a pervasive pattern of noniterative symmetry in A-movement—found in Haya and Luganda (Bantu), Tongan (Austronesian), and Japanese—in which the highest two arguments in a domain may undergo A-movement, but A-movement of lower arguments is systematically banned. The article concludes with some discussion of how interactions of this sort might be modeled in the grammar.
{"title":"Locality and Antilocality: The Logic of Conflicting Requirements","authors":"Kenyon Branan","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00436","DOIUrl":"10.1162/ling_a_00436","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses what happens when locality requirements—which favor short dependencies—come into conflict with antilocality requirements—which rule out dependencies that are too short. It is argued that in such circumstances, certain locality requirements may be minimally violated so that the antilocality requirement is satisfied. A theory along these lines is shown to derive a pervasive pattern of noniterative symmetry in A-movement—found in Haya and Luganda (Bantu), Tongan (Austronesian), and Japanese—in which the highest two arguments in a domain may undergo A-movement, but A-movement of lower arguments is systematically banned. The article concludes with some discussion of how interactions of this sort might be modeled in the grammar.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":"54 1","pages":"1-38"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42211533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Suppletion is central to the debate on the nature of roots: whether roots are characterized by their phonology or are phonologically abstract. Borer (2014) holds that so-called suppletive verbs consist of different phonologically constant roots with overlapping semantics. Harley (2014), however, argues that suppletive verbs instantiate root suppletion: one abstract root with distinct phonological realizations dependent on grammatical environment. This squib presents additional evidence from verbal suppletion in Creek (Muskogean) that supports the view that roots are abstract. Creek suppletive verbs are part of a larger three-way number-marking paradigm and their distribution is dependent on the formal number features of their first argument.
{"title":"Suppletion in a Three-Way Number System: Evidence from Creek","authors":"Kimberly Johnson","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00429","DOIUrl":"10.1162/ling_a_00429","url":null,"abstract":"Suppletion is central to the debate on the nature of roots: whether roots are characterized by their phonology or are phonologically abstract. Borer (2014) holds that so-called suppletive verbs consist of different phonologically constant roots with overlapping semantics. Harley (2014), however, argues that suppletive verbs instantiate root suppletion: one abstract root with distinct phonological realizations dependent on grammatical environment. This squib presents additional evidence from verbal suppletion in Creek (Muskogean) that supports the view that roots are abstract. Creek suppletive verbs are part of a larger three-way number-marking paradigm and their distribution is dependent on the formal number features of their first argument.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":"54 1","pages":"169-181"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42285398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article is a study of the morphosyntax of the clausal periphery in Wolof, specifically the two layers commonly labeled CP and IP. It has long been noted that (a) C and I share a number of properties, and (b) languages differ in the amount of structure over which functional features are distributed. I propose a structure-building mechanism that can both explain the C-I relationship and derive the variation in the distribution of features over syntactic heads. I argue that features of C and I are bundled together and that this feature bundle can be divided into multiple heads via Head Splitting, which allows parts of feature bundles to reproject. The proposal is illustrated through a detailed exploration of the C-I domain in Wolof, which bundles C and I into one head in some structures and splits them in others.
{"title":"Feature Geometry and Head Splitting in the Wolof Clausal Periphery","authors":"Martina Martinović","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00447","DOIUrl":"10.1162/ling_a_00447","url":null,"abstract":"This article is a study of the morphosyntax of the clausal periphery in Wolof, specifically the two layers commonly labeled CP and IP. It has long been noted that (a) C and I share a number of properties, and (b) languages differ in the amount of structure over which functional features are distributed. I propose a structure-building mechanism that can both explain the C-I relationship and derive the variation in the distribution of features over syntactic heads. I argue that features of C and I are bundled together and that this feature bundle can be divided into multiple heads via Head Splitting, which allows parts of feature bundles to reproject. The proposal is illustrated through a detailed exploration of the C-I domain in Wolof, which bundles C and I into one head in some structures and splits them in others.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":"54 1","pages":"79-116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43660451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In English, simple present (plain) and present progressive constructions can make reference to the future, in constructions known as futurates. In previous literature, these two types of futurate have often been discussed separately or treated as more or less equivalent. This squib argues that they convey different meanings: plain futurates presuppose the existence of a schedule, while progressive futurates do not. We propose a formal definition of a schedule and present novel empirical data based on a questionnaire study. We show that plain futurates are restricted to contexts providing a schedule, but progressive futurates are not.
{"title":"Why Plain Futurates are Different","authors":"Hotze Rullmann;Marianne Huijsmans;Lisa Matthewson;Neda Todorović","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00435","DOIUrl":"10.1162/ling_a_00435","url":null,"abstract":"In English, simple present (plain) and present progressive constructions can make reference to the future, in constructions known as futurates. In previous literature, these two types of futurate have often been discussed separately or treated as more or less equivalent. This squib argues that they convey different meanings: plain futurates presuppose the existence of a schedule, while progressive futurates do not. We propose a formal definition of a schedule and present novel empirical data based on a questionnaire study. We show that plain futurates are restricted to contexts providing a schedule, but progressive futurates are not.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":"54 1","pages":"197-208"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49252418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After decades of research, opinions are still split as to whether geminates should be represented as long or as heavy. In this paper, we attempt to resolve this issue by entertaining a model that rests on the assumption that all underlying geminates are moraic consonants but they might not emerge as such on the surface. We argue that this intuition—due to Davis (2011)—can be formalized in a theoretical model where 1) different degrees of prosodic integration are possible and 2) phonetic interpretation can refer to the difference between epenthetic and underlying elements. This model predicts that the questions of whether a mora has an effect for segmental length and whether it has an effect for syllabic weight are independent from each other. We show that this representational consequence correctly predicts the typology of attested combinations of geminates in different positions and singleton coda consonants in the languages of the world.
{"title":"Reconciling “Heavy” and “Long”: The Typology of Lexical Geminates","authors":"N. Topintzi, Eva Zimmermann","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00499","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00499","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 After decades of research, opinions are still split as to whether geminates should be represented as long or as heavy. In this paper, we attempt to resolve this issue by entertaining a model that rests on the assumption that all underlying geminates are moraic consonants but they might not emerge as such on the surface. We argue that this intuition—due to Davis (2011)—can be formalized in a theoretical model where 1) different degrees of prosodic integration are possible and 2) phonetic interpretation can refer to the difference between epenthetic and underlying elements. This model predicts that the questions of whether a mora has an effect for segmental length and whether it has an effect for syllabic weight are independent from each other. We show that this representational consequence correctly predicts the typology of attested combinations of geminates in different positions and singleton coda consonants in the languages of the world.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48404793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The typology of the logical vocabulary in natural language is highly skewed. In the domain of logical connectives, AND and OR are often lexicalized, lexicalizations of NOR are less common and tend to be structurally complex, and no other logical connective is ever lexicalized. Existing accounts fail to fully derive this major crosslinguistic pattern, and moreover resort to otherwise unwarranted assumptions. The goal of this paper is to provide an account which is less stipulative and has wider empirical coverage than previous accounts, based on a novel notion of communicative stability. Using a model of a rational speaker we observe that attested languages are stable languages, i.e., languages in which the optimal message for a speaker to choose when they want to convey a particular state they are in is not affected by which states they take to be more likely and which ones less. We argue that Stability can account both for why AND and OR are the only simple connectives lexicalized and for why NOR is the only complex connective lexicalized.
{"title":"Communicative Stability and the Typology of Logical Operators","authors":"Moshe E. Bar-Lev, Roni Katzir","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00497","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The typology of the logical vocabulary in natural language is highly skewed. In the domain of logical connectives, AND and OR are often lexicalized, lexicalizations of NOR are less common and tend to be structurally complex, and no other logical connective is ever lexicalized. Existing accounts fail to fully derive this major crosslinguistic pattern, and moreover resort to otherwise unwarranted assumptions. The goal of this paper is to provide an account which is less stipulative and has wider empirical coverage than previous accounts, based on a novel notion of communicative stability. Using a model of a rational speaker we observe that attested languages are stable languages, i.e., languages in which the optimal message for a speaker to choose when they want to convey a particular state they are in is not affected by which states they take to be more likely and which ones less. We argue that Stability can account both for why AND and OR are the only simple connectives lexicalized and for why NOR is the only complex connective lexicalized.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42238668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines a puzzle pertaining to the distribution of covalued nominal expressions in two understudied Mayan languages, Chuj and Ch’ol. While Ch’ol behaves entirely as expected with regards to the binding conditions, Chuj appears to consistently tolerate violations of Condition C, often privileging linear precedence as the determining factor in the distribution of R-expressions and pronouns. The Chuj data therefore initially seem to cast doubt on a long tradition to treat the binding conditions as universal (e.g., Grodzinsky and Reinhart 1993, Reuland 2010, 2011). I argue that the difference between Chuj and Ch’ol can be largely explained if, contrary to Ch’ol, Chuj exhibits ‘high-absolutive’ syntax, independently proposed to account for a number of morphosyntactic phenomena in a subset of Mayan languages (Coon et al. 2014; Coon et al. 2021). High-absolutive syntax creates configurations in which the internal argument asymmetrically c-commands the external argument, bleeding otherwise expected binding relations from the external argument into the internal argument. The violations of Condition C in Chuj are thus only apparent. I further argue (i) that linear precedence effects in Chuj are a reflex of a more general anti-cataphora constraint on free nominals, which can also be shown to apply to Ch’ol, and (ii) that there are corners of Chuj where the binding conditions do apply, and that in such cases linear precedence is irrelevant for the distribution of covalued nominals. This means that the binding conditions are active in Chuj, even though idiosyncratic syntactic properties of the language often render their application impossible. The general lesson is that despite initial evidence to doubt the universality of the binding conditions, a universalist approach not only can be maintained, but is supported by the Chuj data.
{"title":"Binding and Anti-Cataphora in Mayan","authors":"Justin Royer","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00498","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00498","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper examines a puzzle pertaining to the distribution of covalued nominal expressions in two understudied Mayan languages, Chuj and Ch’ol. While Ch’ol behaves entirely as expected with regards to the binding conditions, Chuj appears to consistently tolerate violations of Condition C, often privileging linear precedence as the determining factor in the distribution of R-expressions and pronouns. The Chuj data therefore initially seem to cast doubt on a long tradition to treat the binding conditions as universal (e.g., Grodzinsky and Reinhart 1993, Reuland 2010, 2011). I argue that the difference between Chuj and Ch’ol can be largely explained if, contrary to Ch’ol, Chuj exhibits ‘high-absolutive’ syntax, independently proposed to account for a number of morphosyntactic phenomena in a subset of Mayan languages (Coon et al. 2014; Coon et al. 2021). High-absolutive syntax creates configurations in which the internal argument asymmetrically c-commands the external argument, bleeding otherwise expected binding relations from the external argument into the internal argument. The violations of Condition C in Chuj are thus only apparent. I further argue (i) that linear precedence effects in Chuj are a reflex of a more general anti-cataphora constraint on free nominals, which can also be shown to apply to Ch’ol, and (ii) that there are corners of Chuj where the binding conditions do apply, and that in such cases linear precedence is irrelevant for the distribution of covalued nominals. This means that the binding conditions are active in Chuj, even though idiosyncratic syntactic properties of the language often render their application impossible. The general lesson is that despite initial evidence to doubt the universality of the binding conditions, a universalist approach not only can be maintained, but is supported by the Chuj data.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49587237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this squib, I will analyze a hitherto unnoticed interaction between VP-ellipsis and sluicing (TP-ellipsis) in English in which the VP-ellipsis site contains a certain positive propositional complement headed by a neg-raising predicate whereas the TP-ellipsis site instead denotes the negative counterpart of the exact same proposition, thereby yielding a mismatched-polarity interpretation between the two-ellipsis sites. I will show that the relevant data presented here provide strong support for a pragma-semantic approach to the so-called neg-raised reading (Bartsch 1973; Gajewski 2005, 2007; Kroll 2019) over the syntactic NEG raising alternative (Collins and Postal 2014, 2018).
在这篇文章中，我将分析迄今为止未被注意到的VP-ellipsis和sluicing (TP-ellipsis)在英语中的相互作用，其中VP-ellipsis位点包含一个以负提升谓词开头的肯定命题补语，而TP-ellipsis位点则表示完全相同命题的否定对应，从而在两个省略位点之间产生不匹配的极性解释。我将证明，这里提供的相关数据为所谓的负提升阅读的语用语义方法提供了强有力的支持(Bartsch 1973;Gajewski 2005,2007;Kroll 2019)，而不是语法上的NEG提升替代方案(Collins and Postal 2014, 2018)。
{"title":"When VP-Ellipsis and Sluicing Conspire against Syntactic NEG Raising","authors":"Y. Sato","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00500","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00500","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this squib, I will analyze a hitherto unnoticed interaction between VP-ellipsis and sluicing (TP-ellipsis) in English in which the VP-ellipsis site contains a certain positive propositional complement headed by a neg-raising predicate whereas the TP-ellipsis site instead denotes the negative counterpart of the exact same proposition, thereby yielding a mismatched-polarity interpretation between the two-ellipsis sites. I will show that the relevant data presented here provide strong support for a pragma-semantic approach to the so-called neg-raised reading (Bartsch 1973; Gajewski 2005, 2007; Kroll 2019) over the syntactic NEG raising alternative (Collins and Postal 2014, 2018).","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42141003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"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：