We provide the first detailed description and analysis of the syntax of the understudied Greek split reciprocal reconstruction. As in other languages, the reciprocal appears to be bipartite consisting of a quantificational distributor (‘the one’) and a reciprocator (‘the other’). We show that, in Greek, this bipartiteness runs deep: the two parts are syntactically independent, with the reciprocator having the syntax of a Condition A anaphor, and the distributor behaving as a floating quantifier. Once we turn to how these elements establish relations between themselves and their antecedent, we find that Greek reciprocals resist a movement‐ or Agree‐based analysis, since both elements can occur in positions inaccessible to movement/Agree. Given that the reciprocator can occur in embedded subject position, the Greek data also argue against recent attempts to reduce the binding domain to phases, instead supporting a more traditional definition of the binding domain in terms of the smallest XP containing the anaphor and a subject. Finally, we show that the morphosyntactic properties of the bipartite construction can be connected to independent properties of its two component parts and that these can, in turn, be related to interpretive aspects of reciprocity.
我们首次详细描述和分析了未被充分研究的希腊语分裂互斥重构句法。与其他语言一样，倒数词似乎是由一个量词分词（'the one'）和一个倒数词（'the other'）两部分组成的。我们的研究表明，在希腊语中，这种二元性是深层次的：这两个部分在句法上是独立的，倒数者的句法是条件 A 的拟声词，而分配者则是浮动量词。一旦我们转而研究这些元素如何在它们自己和它们的先行词之间建立关系，我们就会发现希腊语的往复式抵制基于动作或同意的分析，因为这两个元素都可能出现在动作/同意无法触及的位置。鉴于互易成分可以出现在嵌入主语的位置，希腊语数据也反驳了最近将结合域缩小到阶段的尝试，而支持用包含拟词和主语的最小 XP 来定义结合域这一更传统的方法。最后，我们证明了二元结构的形态句法属性可以与它的两个组成部分的独立属性联系起来，而这些属性又可以与互惠性的解释方面联系起来。
{"title":"The syntax of Greek split reciprocals","authors":"Lefteris Paparounas, Martin Salzmann","doi":"10.1111/synt.12289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12289","url":null,"abstract":"We provide the first detailed description and analysis of the syntax of the understudied Greek split reciprocal reconstruction. As in other languages, the reciprocal appears to be bipartite consisting of a quantificational distributor (‘the one’) and a reciprocator (‘the other’). We show that, in Greek, this bipartiteness runs deep: the two parts are syntactically independent, with the reciprocator having the syntax of a Condition A anaphor, and the distributor behaving as a floating quantifier. Once we turn to how these elements establish relations between themselves and their antecedent, we find that Greek reciprocals resist a movement‐ or Agree‐based analysis, since both elements can occur in positions inaccessible to movement/Agree. Given that the reciprocator can occur in embedded subject position, the Greek data also argue against recent attempts to reduce the binding domain to phases, instead supporting a more traditional definition of the binding domain in terms of the smallest XP containing the anaphor and a subject. Finally, we show that the morphosyntactic properties of the bipartite construction can be connected to independent properties of its two component parts and that these can, in turn, be related to interpretive aspects of reciprocity.","PeriodicalId":501329,"journal":{"name":"Syntax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141357172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Russian polar particle li is usually analyzed as a second position clitic, constrained to appear at the linearly second position in the clause. I suggest that this requirement is a consequence of head movement: li is generated in —a polarity projection—merged directly above the associated polar constituent (X). This constituent must head‐move and left‐adjoin to li. The complex head (X+li) is largely equivalent to a wh‐word: at later stages of the derivation, it is attracted to the left periphery of the clause. li can be seen as an analog of a wh‐morpheme, which merges with different morphemes to form a wh‐word. Treating X+li as a complex head allows us to reduce the second position requirement of li to the left edge requirement on the X+li, a requirement often postulated for wh‐words. I provide further evidence for the hypothesis by showing the complementarity of li and negation.
俄语中的极性微粒 li 通常被分析为第二位置助动词，必须出现在分句中的线性第二位置。我认为这一要求是头部移动的结果：li 是在极性投影中产生的，直接合并在相关极性成分 (X) 的上方。这个成分必须头部移动并左连接到 li。复合词头（X+li）在很大程度上等同于一个 wh-词：在派生的后期，它被吸引到分句的左外围。把 X+li 看作复合词头，我们就可以把 li 的第二位置要求简化为对 X+li 的左边缘要求，这也是我们经常假设的对 wh-word 的要求。我通过证明 li 和否定的互补性为这一假设提供了进一步的证据。
{"title":"A head movement analysis of second position clitics: The case of Russian polar particle li","authors":"Philip Shushurin","doi":"10.1111/synt.12288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12288","url":null,"abstract":"Russian polar particle <jats:italic>li</jats:italic> is usually analyzed as a second position clitic, constrained to appear at the linearly second position in the clause. I suggest that this requirement is a consequence of head movement: <jats:italic>li</jats:italic> is generated in —a polarity projection—merged directly above the associated polar constituent (X). This constituent must head‐move and left‐adjoin to <jats:italic>li</jats:italic>. The complex head (X+li) is largely equivalent to a <jats:italic>wh</jats:italic>‐word: at later stages of the derivation, it is attracted to the left periphery of the clause. <jats:italic>li</jats:italic> can be seen as an analog of a <jats:italic>wh</jats:italic>‐morpheme, which merges with different morphemes to form a <jats:italic>wh</jats:italic>‐word. Treating X+li as a complex head allows us to reduce the second position requirement of <jats:italic>li</jats:italic> to the left edge requirement on the X+li, a requirement often postulated for <jats:italic>wh</jats:italic>‐words. I provide further evidence for the hypothesis by showing the complementarity of <jats:italic>li</jats:italic> and negation.","PeriodicalId":501329,"journal":{"name":"Syntax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141061294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We use fieldwork data about cross‐clausal scrambling in Balkar (Turkic) to clarify the nature of movement and its constraints. Balkar has a variety of embedded nominalized clauses, with different subject cases and possibilities for movement. Clauses with nominative (nom) subjects permit cross‐clausal object extraction but not subject extraction. In contrast, clauses with accusative subjects permit both such movements, although movement of the subject is required for object extraction. Finally, clauses with genitive subjects permit only subject extraction. We argue that these facts provide evidence for the following proposals: (i) multiple specifiers are usually possible provided that tucking‐in applies; (ii) the highest of a phase's multiple specifiers is privileged for accessibility; (iii) movement is constrained by anti‐locality (a ban on short movements); and (iv) Balkar DPs do not permit multiple specifiers. These factors are intertwined informatively in Balkar, and are supported by additional facts about possessors, binding, and covert movement.
{"title":"Cross‐clausal scrambling and subject case in Balkar: On multiple specifiers and the locality of overt and covert movement","authors":"Tatiana Bondarenko, Colin Davis","doi":"10.1111/synt.12286","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12286","url":null,"abstract":"We use fieldwork data about cross‐clausal scrambling in Balkar (Turkic) to clarify the nature of movement and its constraints. Balkar has a variety of embedded nominalized clauses, with different subject cases and possibilities for movement. Clauses with nominative (nom) subjects permit cross‐clausal object extraction but not subject extraction. In contrast, clauses with accusative subjects permit both such movements, although movement of the subject is required for object extraction. Finally, clauses with genitive subjects permit only subject extraction. We argue that these facts provide evidence for the following proposals: (i) multiple specifiers are usually possible provided that tucking‐in applies; (ii) the highest of a phase's multiple specifiers is privileged for accessibility; (iii) movement is constrained by anti‐locality (a ban on short movements); and (iv) Balkar DPs do not permit multiple specifiers. These factors are intertwined informatively in Balkar, and are supported by additional facts about possessors, binding, and covert movement.","PeriodicalId":501329,"journal":{"name":"Syntax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140367090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper argues for a unification of two seemingly unrelated phenomena from unrelated language families: Verb Second in Germanic, and Conjunct versus Independent Order in Algonquian. It is argued that both reflect the possibility of the verb moving to C. While in Germanic this results in word order differences, in Algonquian V‐to‐C movement is detectable only via morphological alternations in agreement morphology. Under this view, Conjunct/Independent agreement and V2 are merely distinct reflexes of the same underlying process. This opens up new avenues of research in relation to V‐to‐C movement, framing it as a parametric option with potentially very different surface results in different languages depending on the setting of other parameters.
本文论证了将两个互不相关语系中看似互不相关的现象统一起来的观点：日耳曼语中的动词第二顺序和阿尔冈基语中的连词顺序与独立顺序。在日耳曼语中，这导致了词序的差异，而在阿尔冈古语中，V 到 C 的移动只能通过协议形态的形态交替来检测。根据这一观点，连接/独立协议和 V2 只是同一基本过程的不同反射。这就为 V 到 C 的移动开辟了新的研究途径，将其视为一种参数选项，根据其他参数的设置，在不同的语言中可能会产生截然不同的表面结果。
{"title":"Movement in disguise: Morphology as a diagnostic for verb movement in Algonquian","authors":"Ksenia Bogomolets, Paula Fenger, Adrian Stegovec","doi":"10.1111/synt.12281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12281","url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues for a unification of two seemingly unrelated phenomena from unrelated language families: Verb Second in Germanic, and Conjunct versus Independent Order in Algonquian. It is argued that both reflect the possibility of the verb moving to C. While in Germanic this results in word order differences, in Algonquian V‐to‐C movement is detectable only via morphological alternations in agreement morphology. Under this view, Conjunct/Independent agreement and V2 are merely distinct reflexes of the same underlying process. This opens up new avenues of research in relation to V‐to‐C movement, framing it as a parametric option with potentially very different surface results in different languages depending on the setting of other parameters.","PeriodicalId":501329,"journal":{"name":"Syntax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140376600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent research suggests that verb echo answers (VEAs) to a polar question in Japanese are derived by sluicing: the V head moves to C, and the complement of C, TP, undergoes deletion, stranding the verbal complex in C. Two pieces of evidence are provided for the view: adjunct inclusive interpretation and voice mismatch, neither of which is conclusive, as shown here. One consequence of the sluicing analysis is that VEAs reverse scope. We show that the semantic shift has nothing to do with the scope reversal. Our conclusion is that VEAs are unambiguously derived by multiple applications of argument ellipsis. We also advance an alternative explanation of the obligatory wide scope for focus phrases.
{"title":"Verb echo answers and ellipsis operations: A reply to Sato and Hayashi (2018)","authors":"Hidekazu Tanaka","doi":"10.1111/synt.12274","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12274","url":null,"abstract":"Recent research suggests that verb echo answers (VEAs) to a polar question in Japanese are derived by sluicing: the V head moves to C, and the complement of C, TP, undergoes deletion, stranding the verbal complex in C. Two pieces of evidence are provided for the view: adjunct inclusive interpretation and voice mismatch, neither of which is conclusive, as shown here. One consequence of the sluicing analysis is that VEAs reverse scope. We show that the semantic shift has nothing to do with the scope reversal. Our conclusion is that VEAs are unambiguously derived by multiple applications of argument ellipsis. We also advance an alternative explanation of the obligatory wide scope for focus phrases.","PeriodicalId":501329,"journal":{"name":"Syntax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140298083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Two structure‐building operations are currently posited in minimalist theory: an operation forming sets (set merge), and an operation forming ordered pairs (pair‐merge). I argue that pair‐merge is sufficient to generate syntactic relations, so set merge, also called simple merge, should be eliminated from syntactic theory on grounds of simplicity. This conclusion requires reevaluating the relationship between structure‐building and labeling of constituents for the expression of syntactic relations, because labeling plays a crucial role in this comparison of theories according to the simplicity metric. An existing labeling hypothesis, specifically Chomsky's Labeling Algorithm, is shown not to have any advantage claimed for it by comparison with the just pair‐merge hypothesis proposed here. An advantage of the only pair‐merge hypothesis is that it provides a more principled origin for the inherent asymmetry in the c‐command relation that does not follow from a theory that includes set merge.
极简理论目前假定有两种结构构建操作：一种是形成集合的操作（集合合并），另一种是形成有序对的操作（对合并）。我认为成对合并足以生成句法关系，因此集合并（又称简单合并）应该以简单为由从句法理论中剔除。要得出这一结论，就必须重新评估为表达句法关系而进行的结构构建与成分标注之间的关系，因为标注在根据简单性尺度进行的理论比较中起着至关重要的作用。现有的标注假说，特别是乔姆斯基的标注算法，与本文提出的只对合并假说相比，并没有任何优势可言。仅成对合并假说的一个优点是，它为 C 命令关系中固有的不对称提供了一个更原则性的起源，而这种不对称并不是从包含集合合并的理论中产生的。
{"title":"Just pair‐merge","authors":"Ken Safir","doi":"10.1111/synt.12284","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12284","url":null,"abstract":"Two structure‐building operations are currently posited in minimalist theory: an operation forming sets (set merge), and an operation forming ordered pairs (pair‐merge). I argue that pair‐merge is sufficient to generate syntactic relations, so set merge, also called simple merge, should be eliminated from syntactic theory on grounds of simplicity. This conclusion requires reevaluating the relationship between structure‐building and labeling of constituents for the expression of syntactic relations, because labeling plays a crucial role in this comparison of theories according to the simplicity metric. An existing labeling hypothesis, specifically Chomsky's Labeling Algorithm, is shown not to have any advantage claimed for it by comparison with the just pair‐merge hypothesis proposed here. An advantage of the only pair‐merge hypothesis is that it provides a more principled origin for the inherent asymmetry in the c‐command relation that does not follow from a theory that includes set merge.","PeriodicalId":501329,"journal":{"name":"Syntax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140146622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bare nominals in Wolof can occur in the object position and they must be adjacent to the verb that subcategorizes for them. This is a property usually attributed to pseudo noun incorporation (PNI). However, there are two circumstances under which this adjacency requirement is obviated: a DP is introduced between the subject and the PNI‐ed object, or the latter is ‐moved. While these are disparate phenomena, a dependent case analysis of nominal licensing can account for PNI in Wolof. I assume that all nominals must be licensed with case, with case assignment being calculated in terms of dependent case. If this is not possible, a last resort strategy arises, namely surface adjacency with the verb. This analysis provides a unified analysis of PNI in Wolof.
{"title":"Nominal licensing via dependent case: The view from pseudo noun incorporation in Wolof","authors":"Suzana Fong","doi":"10.1111/synt.12282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12282","url":null,"abstract":"Bare nominals in Wolof can occur in the object position and they must be adjacent to the verb that subcategorizes for them. This is a property usually attributed to pseudo noun incorporation (PNI). However, there are two circumstances under which this adjacency requirement is obviated: a DP is introduced between the subject and the PNI‐ed object, or the latter is ‐moved. While these are disparate phenomena, a dependent case analysis of nominal licensing can account for PNI in Wolof. I assume that all nominals must be licensed with case, with case assignment being calculated in terms of dependent case. If this is not possible, a last resort strategy arises, namely surface adjacency with the verb. This analysis provides a unified analysis of PNI in Wolof.","PeriodicalId":501329,"journal":{"name":"Syntax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140146678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In “Subordination and Binary Branching”, a recent (2023) Syntax paper, Ad Neeleman and colleagues proposed a new analysis of subordination. The main aim of this paper is to refute that analysis, using data from the coordination of unlike categories and unlike grammatical functions. Additionally, building on Neeleman et al.'s observations about the arbitrarily -ary—not just binary—nature of coordination, I sketch a more Minimalist approach to subordination and coordination that is devoid of the problems that Neeleman et al.'s analysis faces, but otherwise covers a similar range of data. On this approach, “subordination” is a synonym of “result of PairMerge” and “coordination” is a synonym of “result of SetMerge”, where SetMerge is understood as an operation creating an arbitrary set, as opposed to the usual more specialized Merge operation, which creates a binary set.
{"title":"Coordination and binary branching","authors":"Adam Przepiórkowski","doi":"10.1111/synt.12285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12285","url":null,"abstract":"In “Subordination and Binary Branching”, a recent (2023) <i>Syntax</i> paper, Ad Neeleman and colleagues proposed a new analysis of subordination. The main aim of this paper is to refute that analysis, using data from the coordination of unlike categories and unlike grammatical functions. Additionally, building on Neeleman et al.'s observations about the arbitrarily <mjx-container aria-label=\"n\" ctxtmenu_counter=\"0\" ctxtmenu_oldtabindex=\"1\" jax=\"CHTML\" role=\"application\" sre-explorer- style=\"font-size: 103%; position: relative;\" tabindex=\"0\"><mjx-math aria-hidden=\"true\"><mjx-semantics><mjx-mrow><mjx-mi data-semantic-annotation=\"clearspeak:simple\" data-semantic-font=\"italic\" data-semantic- data-semantic-role=\"latinletter\" data-semantic-speech=\"n\" data-semantic-type=\"identifier\"><mjx-c></mjx-c></mjx-mi></mjx-mrow></mjx-semantics></mjx-math><mjx-assistive-mml aria-hidden=\"true\" display=\"inline\" unselectable=\"on\"><math altimg=\"/cms/asset/60476e55-ac2f-450a-95c0-b4949eb73e91/synt12285-math-0001.png\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><semantics><mrow><mi data-semantic-=\"\" data-semantic-annotation=\"clearspeak:simple\" data-semantic-font=\"italic\" data-semantic-role=\"latinletter\" data-semantic-speech=\"n\" data-semantic-type=\"identifier\">n</mi></mrow>$$ n $$</annotation></semantics></math></mjx-assistive-mml></mjx-container>-ary—not just binary—nature of coordination, I sketch a more Minimalist approach to subordination and coordination that is devoid of the problems that Neeleman et al.'s analysis faces, but otherwise covers a similar range of data. On this approach, “subordination” is a synonym of “result of PairMerge” and “coordination” is a synonym of “result of SetMerge”, where SetMerge is understood as an operation creating an arbitrary set, as opposed to the usual more specialized Merge operation, which creates a binary set.","PeriodicalId":501329,"journal":{"name":"Syntax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140075275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Two fundamental tasks of syntactic inquiry are to identify the elementary structure-building operations and to determine what properties they have and why. This article aims to bring us closer to those goals by investigating Merge. Two recent definitions of Merge are evaluated. It is argued that both have significant strengths but also some drawbacks, and that set-theoretic definitions of Merge in general face conceptual problems. It is proposed that Merge is not set-theoretic but graph-theoretic in nature: the syntactic objects it operates on and creates are (bare-phrase-structure-compliant) phrase-structure trees. Two new formal definitions of Merge are proposed and evaluated. One obeys the No-Tampering Condition but makes it unclear why Merge() satisfies only one selectional feature of
{"title":"On the definition of Merge","authors":"Erik Zyman","doi":"10.1111/synt.12287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12287","url":null,"abstract":"Two fundamental tasks of syntactic inquiry are to identify the elementary structure-building operations and to determine what properties they have and why. This article aims to bring us closer to those goals by investigating Merge. Two recent definitions of Merge are evaluated. It is argued that both have significant strengths but also some drawbacks, and that set-theoretic definitions of Merge in general face conceptual problems. It is proposed that Merge is not set-theoretic but graph-theoretic in nature: the syntactic objects it operates on and creates are (bare-phrase-structure-compliant) phrase-structure trees. Two new formal definitions of Merge are proposed and evaluated. One obeys the No-Tampering Condition but makes it unclear why Merge(<mjx-container aria-label=\"alpha comma beta\" ctxtmenu_counter=\"0\" ctxtmenu_oldtabindex=\"1\" jax=\"CHTML\" role=\"application\" sre-explorer- style=\"font-size: 103%; position: relative;\" tabindex=\"0\"><mjx-math aria-hidden=\"true\"><mjx-semantics><mjx-mrow data-semantic-children=\"0,1,2\" data-semantic-content=\"1\" data-semantic- data-semantic-role=\"sequence\" data-semantic-speech=\"alpha comma beta\" data-semantic-type=\"punctuated\"><mjx-mi data-semantic-annotation=\"clearspeak:simple\" data-semantic-font=\"italic\" data-semantic- data-semantic-parent=\"3\" data-semantic-role=\"greekletter\" data-semantic-type=\"identifier\"><mjx-c></mjx-c></mjx-mi><mjx-mo data-semantic- data-semantic-operator=\"punctuated\" data-semantic-parent=\"3\" data-semantic-role=\"comma\" data-semantic-type=\"punctuation\" rspace=\"3\" style=\"margin-left: 0.056em;\"><mjx-c></mjx-c></mjx-mo><mjx-mi data-semantic-annotation=\"clearspeak:simple\" data-semantic-font=\"italic\" data-semantic- data-semantic-parent=\"3\" data-semantic-role=\"greekletter\" data-semantic-type=\"identifier\"><mjx-c></mjx-c></mjx-mi></mjx-mrow></mjx-semantics></mjx-math><mjx-assistive-mml aria-hidden=\"true\" display=\"inline\" unselectable=\"on\"><math altimg=\"/cms/asset/912f0c60-02ca-4dc0-8efd-fcd161777bda/synt12287-math-0001.png\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><semantics><mrow data-semantic-=\"\" data-semantic-children=\"0,1,2\" data-semantic-content=\"1\" data-semantic-role=\"sequence\" data-semantic-speech=\"alpha comma beta\" data-semantic-type=\"punctuated\"><mi data-semantic-=\"\" data-semantic-annotation=\"clearspeak:simple\" data-semantic-font=\"italic\" data-semantic-parent=\"3\" data-semantic-role=\"greekletter\" data-semantic-type=\"identifier\">α</mi><mo data-semantic-=\"\" data-semantic-operator=\"punctuated\" data-semantic-parent=\"3\" data-semantic-role=\"comma\" data-semantic-type=\"punctuation\">,</mo><mi data-semantic-=\"\" data-semantic-annotation=\"clearspeak:simple\" data-semantic-font=\"italic\" data-semantic-parent=\"3\" data-semantic-role=\"greekletter\" data-semantic-type=\"identifier\">β</mi></mrow>$$ alpha, beta $$</annotation></semantics></math></mjx-assistive-mml></mjx-container>) satisfies only one selectional feature of <mjx-container aria-label=\"alpha\" ctxtmenu_counter=\"1\" ctxtmenu_oldtabindex=\"1\" jax=\"CHTML\"","PeriodicalId":501329,"journal":{"name":"Syntax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140075233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, I argue that the phenomena of multiple scrambling in Japanese are best captured by assuming different derivations, depending on whether they involve long-distance or clause-internal scrambling. I argue that long-distance multiple scrambling involves remnant VP scrambling, on the assumption that long-distance scrambling necessarily produces a focus chain, which thus prohibits separate applications of scrambling in multiple scrambling configurations. The evidence comes from (i) long-distance multiple scrambling of wh-phrases that behaves like wh-movement, and (ii) long-distance multiple scrambling of quantificational phrases (QPs) that behaves as if these QPs constitute a single QP. As for clause-internal multiple scrambling, I argue that it may involve separate applications of scrambling as well as remnant VP scrambling. The evidence comes from scope facts that involve two scrambled QPs: when the two QPs undergo remnant VP scrambling, they both take scope in their original positions; when they are separately scrambled, they show a different pattern of reconstruction with respect to scope.
{"title":"How to apply multiple scrambling in Japanese","authors":"Jun Abe","doi":"10.1111/synt.12283","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12283","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I argue that the phenomena of multiple scrambling in Japanese are best captured by assuming different derivations, depending on whether they involve long-distance or clause-internal scrambling. I argue that long-distance multiple scrambling involves remnant VP scrambling, on the assumption that long-distance scrambling necessarily produces a focus chain, which thus prohibits separate applications of scrambling in multiple scrambling configurations. The evidence comes from (i) long-distance multiple scrambling of <i>wh</i>-phrases that behaves like <i>wh</i>-movement, and (ii) long-distance multiple scrambling of quantificational phrases (QPs) that behaves as if these QPs constitute a single QP. As for clause-internal multiple scrambling, I argue that it may involve separate applications of scrambling as well as remnant VP scrambling. The evidence comes from scope facts that involve two scrambled QPs: when the two QPs undergo remnant VP scrambling, they both take scope in their original positions; when they are separately scrambled, they show a different pattern of reconstruction with respect to scope.","PeriodicalId":501329,"journal":{"name":"Syntax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140045471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：