In seminal work, Potts (2005) claimed that the behavior of “supplements”—appositive relative clauses (ARCs) and nominals—offers a powerful argument in favor of a multidimensional semantics, one in which certain expressions fail to interact scopally with various operators because their meaning is located in a new semantic dimension. Focusing on ARCs, with data from English, French, and German (Poschmann 2018), I explore an alternative to Potts’s bidimensional account in which (a) appositives may be syntactically attached with matrix scope, despite their appearance in embedded positions, as in McCawley 1981; (b) contra McCawley, they may also be syntactically attached within the scope of other operators, in which case they semantically interact with them; (c) they are semantically conjoined with the rest of the sentence, but (d) they give rise to nontrivial projection facts when they do not have matrix scope. In effect, the proposed analysis accounts for most of the complexity of these data by positing a more articulated syntax and pragmatics, while eschewing the use of a new dimension of meaning.
{"title":"Supplements without Bidimensionalism","authors":"Philippe Schlenker","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00442","DOIUrl":"10.1162/ling_a_00442","url":null,"abstract":"In seminal work, Potts (2005) claimed that the behavior of “supplements”—appositive relative clauses (ARCs) and nominals—offers a powerful argument in favor of a multidimensional semantics, one in which certain expressions fail to interact scopally with various operators because their meaning is located in a new semantic dimension. Focusing on ARCs, with data from English, French, and German (Poschmann 2018), I explore an alternative to Potts’s bidimensional account in which (a) appositives may be syntactically attached with matrix scope, despite their appearance in embedded positions, as in McCawley 1981; (b) contra McCawley, they may also be syntactically attached within the scope of other operators, in which case they semantically interact with them; (c) they are semantically conjoined with the rest of the sentence, but (d) they give rise to nontrivial projection facts when they do not have matrix scope. In effect, the proposed analysis accounts for most of the complexity of these data by positing a more articulated syntax and pragmatics, while eschewing the use of a new dimension of meaning.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":"54 2","pages":"251-297"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41393595","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 replies to Ackema and Neeleman’s (2018) claim that 1st person singular pronouns are grammatically blocked from having impersonal uses. In connection with this claim, they argue that the impersonal use of German 1st person singular ich described in Zobel 2014 does not exist. I show that Ackema and Neeleman’s alternative analysis of the German data analyzed in Zobel 2014 is flawed, and that new considerations inspired by their proposal further support the claim that German ich has an impersonal use. This result has ramifications not only for Ackema and Neeleman’s account of the morphosyntax and semantics of (impersonally usable) personal pronouns, but also for anyone researching the morphosyntax and semantics of pronominal expressions and how these interact.
{"title":"The Impersonal Use of German 1st Person Singular Ich","authors":"Sarah Zobel","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00446","DOIUrl":"10.1162/ling_a_00446","url":null,"abstract":"This article replies to Ackema and Neeleman’s (2018) claim that 1st person singular pronouns are grammatically blocked from having impersonal uses. In connection with this claim, they argue that the impersonal use of German 1st person singular ich described in Zobel 2014 does not exist. I show that Ackema and Neeleman’s alternative analysis of the German data analyzed in Zobel 2014 is flawed, and that new considerations inspired by their proposal further support the claim that German ich has an impersonal use. This result has ramifications not only for Ackema and Neeleman’s account of the morphosyntax and semantics of (impersonally usable) personal pronouns, but also for anyone researching the morphosyntax and semantics of pronominal expressions and how these interact.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":"54 2","pages":"378-394"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43711494","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 squib argues for the role of correspondence in reduplication by examining the vowel length alternations in Rapa Nui reduplication. The analysis shows that vowel shortening in the base after reduplication is due to the enforcement of vowel length identity through Base-Reduplicant correspondence, while the motivation of vowel shortening is problematic for theories without surface-to-surface correspondence. The findings suggest that reduplication-phonology interactions cannot be handled solely by serialism or cyclicity, and a parallel Optimality Theory evaluation with BR correspondence is supported.
{"title":"Rapa Nui: A Case for Correspondence in Reduplication","authors":"Yifan Yang","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00444","DOIUrl":"10.1162/ling_a_00444","url":null,"abstract":"This squib argues for the role of correspondence in reduplication by examining the vowel length alternations in Rapa Nui reduplication. The analysis shows that vowel shortening in the base after reduplication is due to the enforcement of vowel length identity through Base-Reduplicant correspondence, while the motivation of vowel shortening is problematic for theories without surface-to-surface correspondence. The findings suggest that reduplication-phonology interactions cannot be handled solely by serialism or cyclicity, and a parallel Optimality Theory evaluation with BR correspondence is supported.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":"54 2","pages":"395-412"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47224566","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 anaphor agreement effect (AAE) is the crosslinguistic inability for anaphors to covary with φ-agreement (Rizzi 1990, Woolford 1999); languages use various strategies that conspire to circumvent this effect. In this squib, I identify and confirm a prediction arising from two previous observations by Woolford (1999) concerning the scope of the AAE, based on new evidence from Inuktitut (Eastern Canadian Inuit). I propose that anaphors in Inuktitut are lexically specified as projecting additional syntactic structure, spelled out as oblique case morphology; because φ-Agree in Inuktitut may only target ERG and ABS arguments, encountering an anaphor inevitably leads to failed Agree in the sense of Preminger 2011, 2014. I moreover argue that this exact AAE pattern is previously unattested, yet is predicted to arise given the range of existing strategies. Finally, this squib provides evidence against previous detransitivization-based approaches to reflexivity in Inuktitut (e.g., Bok-Bennema 1991).
{"title":"Case as an Anaphor Agreement Effect: Evidence from Inuktitut","authors":"Michelle Yuan","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00443","DOIUrl":"10.1162/ling_a_00443","url":null,"abstract":"The anaphor agreement effect (AAE) is the crosslinguistic inability for anaphors to covary with φ-agreement (Rizzi 1990, Woolford 1999); languages use various strategies that conspire to circumvent this effect. In this squib, I identify and confirm a prediction arising from two previous observations by Woolford (1999) concerning the scope of the AAE, based on new evidence from Inuktitut (Eastern Canadian Inuit). I propose that anaphors in Inuktitut are lexically specified as projecting additional syntactic structure, spelled out as oblique case morphology; because φ-Agree in Inuktitut may only target ERG and ABS arguments, encountering an anaphor inevitably leads to failed Agree in the sense of Preminger 2011, 2014. I moreover argue that this exact AAE pattern is previously unattested, yet is predicted to arise given the range of existing strategies. Finally, this squib provides evidence against previous detransitivization-based approaches to reflexivity in Inuktitut (e.g., Bok-Bennema 1991).","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":"54 2","pages":"413-428"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46372466","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}
Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020) deny the possibility of coordination of unlike categories. They use three mechanisms to reanalyze such coordination as involving same categories: conjunction reduction, super-categories, and empty heads. We show that their proposal leaves many cases of unlike category coordination unaccounted for, and we point out various methodological, technical, and empirical problems that it faces. We conclude that the so-called Law of the Coordination of Likes is a myth. Instead, all conjuncts must satisfy any external restrictions on the syntactic position they occupy. Such restrictions may be rigid, resulting in categorial sameness, but when they are underspecified or disjunctive, category “mismatches” may arise.
{"title":"Category Mismatches in Coordination Vindicated","authors":"Agnieszka Patejuk;Adam Przepiórkowski","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00438","DOIUrl":"10.1162/ling_a_00438","url":null,"abstract":"Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020) deny the possibility of coordination of unlike categories. They use three mechanisms to reanalyze such coordination as involving same categories: conjunction reduction, super-categories, and empty heads. We show that their proposal leaves many cases of unlike category coordination unaccounted for, and we point out various methodological, technical, and empirical problems that it faces. We conclude that the so-called Law of the Coordination of Likes is a myth. Instead, all conjuncts must satisfy any external restrictions on the syntactic position they occupy. Such restrictions may be rigid, resulting in categorial sameness, but when they are underspecified or disjunctive, category “mismatches” may arise.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":"54 2","pages":"326-349"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48024490","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 considers phenomena related to embedded interrogatives that do not fit the canonical profile of subordinate clauses. It focuses on restrictions on such noncanonical cases of subordination, here referred to as quasi-subordination, and makes the following claims. There are three points in the interrogative left periphery for building question meaning. The lowest point is CP, where interrogatives are differentiated semantically from declaratives. All embedding verbs that can take interrogative complements, can take CP+WH. The highest point is SAP. When its head is specified SAASK, the question denoted by the interrogative becomes a request for information by the speaker, directed towards the addressee. This is the structure we find in matrix questions (and quotations). In between these two levels is what I call PerspectiveP. Its head PerspCQ introduces PRO, an individual for whom the interrogative CP+WH is a potentially active question. That is, PRO is the perspectival center, the one from whose point of view the interrogative can be a request for information (signaled by the specification CQ for centered question). When PRO is bound by the speaker argument in the Speech Act Phrase, we get a matrix question; when PRO is bound by the subject of a matrix predicate we get quasi-subordination. Quasi-subordination is a hybrid between true subordination (with respect to pronominal interpretation, for example) and nonsubordination (with respect to intonation, for example). Restrictions on quasi-subordination are claimed to be regulated, in addition to standard selectional restrictions, by semantic compatibility between the implied ignorance of the individual who is the perspectival center of the question and the meaning of the embedding clause. Empirical support for this view of the interrogative left periphery comes from a range of phenomena from unrelated languages. While the idea of an articulated left periphery goes back to Rizzi (1997), the details of the present proposal are new. The paper discusses several implications of this view of the interrogative left periphery, connecting the specific claims to similar proposals about other clause types and to developments in our understanding of how complement selection works.
{"title":"The Interrogative Left Periphery: How a Clause Becomes a Question","authors":"Veneeta Dayal","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00507","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00507","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper considers phenomena related to embedded interrogatives that do not fit the canonical profile of subordinate clauses. It focuses on restrictions on such noncanonical cases of subordination, here referred to as quasi-subordination, and makes the following claims. There are three points in the interrogative left periphery for building question meaning. The lowest point is CP, where interrogatives are differentiated semantically from declaratives. All embedding verbs that can take interrogative complements, can take CP+WH. The highest point is SAP. When its head is specified SAASK, the question denoted by the interrogative becomes a request for information by the speaker, directed towards the addressee. This is the structure we find in matrix questions (and quotations). In between these two levels is what I call PerspectiveP. Its head PerspCQ introduces PRO, an individual for whom the interrogative CP+WH is a potentially active question. That is, PRO is the perspectival center, the one from whose point of view the interrogative can be a request for information (signaled by the specification CQ for centered question). When PRO is bound by the speaker argument in the Speech Act Phrase, we get a matrix question; when PRO is bound by the subject of a matrix predicate we get quasi-subordination. Quasi-subordination is a hybrid between true subordination (with respect to pronominal interpretation, for example) and nonsubordination (with respect to intonation, for example). Restrictions on quasi-subordination are claimed to be regulated, in addition to standard selectional restrictions, by semantic compatibility between the implied ignorance of the individual who is the perspectival center of the question and the meaning of the embedding clause. Empirical support for this view of the interrogative left periphery comes from a range of phenomena from unrelated languages. While the idea of an articulated left periphery goes back to Rizzi (1997), the details of the present proposal are new. The paper discusses several implications of this view of the interrogative left periphery, connecting the specific claims to similar proposals about other clause types and to developments in our understanding of how complement selection works.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48499328","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}
Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020) showed that selectional violations in coordination are extremely limited (there are exactly two) and exactly match those that are permitted in ellipsis and displacement. Patejuk and Przepiórkowski (to appear) criticize Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020) on numerous fronts. They do successfully show that conjuncts do not need to match in syntactic category, but their dismissal of the selectional violation data does not succeed. I present additional data, including the results of three large-scale acceptability surveys, that show that the two violations of selectional restrictions are real and are fully general. The two patterns that need an analysis are coordinations of NP&CP appearing where CPs are banned, and Adv&AP appearing in prenominal position where adverbs are banned. I propose a variation on the analysis of Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020) that accounts for all of the facts and which meets Patejuk and Przepiórkowski’s objections.
{"title":"Selectional Violations in Coordination (A Response to Patejuk and Przepiórkowski to appear)","authors":"Benjamin Bruening","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00506","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00506","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020) showed that selectional violations in coordination are extremely limited (there are exactly two) and exactly match those that are permitted in ellipsis and displacement. Patejuk and Przepiórkowski (to appear) criticize Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020) on numerous fronts. They do successfully show that conjuncts do not need to match in syntactic category, but their dismissal of the selectional violation data does not succeed. I present additional data, including the results of three large-scale acceptability surveys, that show that the two violations of selectional restrictions are real and are fully general. The two patterns that need an analysis are coordinations of NP&CP appearing where CPs are banned, and Adv&AP appearing in prenominal position where adverbs are banned. I propose a variation on the analysis of Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020) that accounts for all of the facts and which meets Patejuk and Przepiórkowski’s objections.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44094928","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 investigates Tagalog Ā-extraction, considering cases conforming with and cases violating the well-known Tagalog extraction restriction. A unified analysis is proposed using properties of the lower phase and ways this boundary can be circumvented. Two mechanisms are available for this purpose. First, arguments may escape the lower phase through independently attested operations. Second, the phase is transparent to clause-peripheral Ā-probes when material from the inflectional domain is absent. This proposal accounts for the expanded range of phenomena considered, which poses problems for the predominant approach to Tagalog Ā-extraction, where Ā-probes must target the highest c-commanded DP.
{"title":"Locality in Exceptional Tagalog Ā-Extraction","authors":"Henrison Hsieh","doi":"10.1162/ling_a_00505","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00505","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper investigates Tagalog Ā-extraction, considering cases conforming with and cases violating the well-known Tagalog extraction restriction. A unified analysis is proposed using properties of the lower phase and ways this boundary can be circumvented. Two mechanisms are available for this purpose. First, arguments may escape the lower phase through independently attested operations. Second, the phase is transparent to clause-peripheral Ā-probes when material from the inflectional domain is absent. This proposal accounts for the expanded range of phenomena considered, which poses problems for the predominant approach to Tagalog Ā-extraction, where Ā-probes must target the highest c-commanded DP.","PeriodicalId":48044,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47377602","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：