Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (EISS 9 ... - CSSP - CNRS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(45a) is exactly like its Tatar counterpart in (35b). PHON 2 in (45b), ‘the causative morpheme’, however, differs from TYR in that it is specified for the Akt I-CAUSE node rather than for both Akt I- CAUSE and Akt G-CAUSE . We predict, then, that in such a language, direct causatives would look exactly like in Tatar, but in indirect causatives, the inchoative morpheme would show up inside the causative morphology, as shown in (46)–(49): (46) ⏟[ v P … v INCH [ AktP … Akt I-CAUSE [ VP … ]]] I-CAUSE; inchoative PHON 1 ⏟ [ VP … ]]] I-CAUSE; transitive [ VP … ]]] G-CAUSE; transitive (47) [ v P … v TR [ AktP … Akt I-CAUSE PHON 2 (48) ⏟[ vP … v INCH [ AktP … Akt G-CAUSE [ VP … ]]] G-CAUSE; inchoative PHON 1 (49) [ v P … v TR ⏟[ AktP … Akt G-CAUSE PHON 1 ⏟ PHON 2 As far as we can tell, this is exactly what happens in Tundra Nenets (Uralic, Samoyedic), illustrated in (50)–(51): (50) a. man j pet j a-nɂ mal j ca-mɂ tira-bta-l-pta-w. I Peter-DAT shirt-ACC dry.intr-PTA-L-PTA-1SG ‘I made Peter dry his shirt.’ b. *man j pet j a-nɂ mal j ca-mɂ tira-bta-bta-w. I Peter-DAT shirt-ACC dry.intr-PTA-PTA-1SG c. *man j pet j a-nɂ mal j ca-mɂ tira-l-bta-bta-w. I Peter-DAT shirt-ACC dry.intr-L-PTA-PTA-1SG d. *man j pet j a-nɂ mal j ca-mɂ tira-l-pta-l-pta-w. I Peter-DAT shirt-ACC dry.intr-L-PTA-L-PTA-1SG (51) pet j a mal j ca-mɂ tira-bta-l-ŋa. Peter shirt-ACC dry.intr-PTA-L-3SG ‘Peter started drying his shirt.’ (50) shows a double causative configuration derived from the unaccusative verb stem ‘dry (intr.)’, which allows us to observe the morphological realization of both Akt-v sequences. The first instance of the causative creates the direct causative ‘dry’, and the second one derives the indirect causative ‘make dry’. The resulting configuration and its spell-out are shown in (52): ⏟ PTA ⏟⏟[ v P v TR [ AktP Akt I-CAUSE (52) [ v P v TR [ AktP Akt G-CAUSE L PTA [ VP … 'dry' … ]]]]] Our focus here is the spell-out of the Akt heads. The PTA morpheme is associated, by hypothesis, with the subtree in (45b). It lexicalizes the lower Akt I-CAUSE for the same reason that TYR does in Tatar in (43): the inchoative L in (45a) is a weaker competitor, since, first, it is underspecified for the second-order features on Akt and, secondly, it does not make use of the v INCH part of its subtree. This is evidenced by ungrammaticality of (52c-d), where L shows up in between the causative morphology and the verb stem. Things are different for the higher Akt G- CAUSE: PTA is not suitable for lexicalizing Akt G-CAUSE , due to the feature mismatch, and L is the only candidate. Attaching PTA on top of another PTA morpheme with no L occurring in between is correctly predicted to yield an ungrammatical sentence in (52b). 220
Finally, (53) shows the inchoative configuration corresponding to (51), where L spells out both higher Akt and higher v INCH : (53) ⏟[ v P v INCH [ AktP Akt G-CAUSE L ⏟ [ v P v TR [ AktP Akt I-CAUSE [ VP … 'dry' … ]]]]] PTA Once again, RPD coupled with minimal additional assumptions about the structure of lexical items involved in the derivation correctly predicts the appearance of a certain piece of morphology in between two instances of the causative. The cross-linguistic variation is thus reduced to a simple lexical parameter. We have argued that the difference between Tatar and Tundra Nenets comes from the feature specification on the ‘causative morpheme’. These languages, however, are fundamentally similar in that whenever Akt is realized by an item distinct from the causative morpheme, the same item shows up in the inchoative configuration: N in Tatar and L in Tundra Nenets are both specified for the v INCH node in addition to the Akt node. However, properties of such morphemes can be subject to cross-linguistic variation, too. A natural expectation is to find a lexical item which is only associated with the Akt node, possibly with an additional G-CAUSE/I-CAUSE/INCR specification: (54) PHON ⇔ [ AktP Akt (G-CAUSE/…) ] We suggest that causativization data from Malagasy and Tagalog, discussed extensively in Travis 2010, can be analyzed as involving a morpheme like (54). These languages exhibit a pattern similar to (50) from Tundra Nenets: the two instances of the causative element are separated by a piece of morphology (-f- (F) in (55b), derived from (55a)). For Travis, F is an exponent of the Event head. On her view, it delimits a complete event structure built in the lexicon, which the higher -an- morpheme takes as a complement. However, we believe that reanalyzing F in terms of Akt gains clear empirical advantages. Problematic for the Event Phrase analysis is the very fact that F can only appear in between two instances of the causative. If it marks completeness of the event structure, it is unclear why it is not free to occur in a configuration where no higher causative has been merged. This is not an option, however: Travis’ discussion suggests that nothing of the form in (55c) exists in Malagasy. (55) a. m-an-sitrika AT-AN-hide.intr ‘Y hides X.’ b. m-an-f-an-sitrika AT-AN-F-AN-hide.intr ‘Z makes Y hide X.’ c. *m-f-an-sitrika AT-F-AN-hide.intr Within our system, on the other hand, F would be analyzed as a realization of Aktionsart, not of Event, as in (56). Moreover, if its lexical subtree looks like (54), the fact that it can only occur in between two v-heads falls out with no additional assumptions: (56) [ ⏟ EP E [-CASE] M [ ⏟ v P v TR AN ⏟[ AktP Akt G-CAUSE F ⏟[ vP v TR [ AktP Akt I-CAUSE [… 'hide.intr' … ]]]]]] AN 221
Page 1 and 2:
EISS 9 Empirical Issues in Syntax a
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Preface v Valentina Bianch
Page 5:
Preface The ninth volume of the ser
Page 8 and 9:
contexts; we provide experimental e
Page 10 and 11:
which we included random intercepts
Page 12 and 13:
• Locality condition: The proposi
Page 14 and 15:
[[(1B′)]] f = {invite(john, x) |
Page 16 and 17:
focus projection, and require that
Page 18 and 19:
The term ‘root clause’ was intr
Page 20 and 21:
pared the degree of metrical promin
Page 22 and 23:
Focus in situ + negative tag Focus
Page 24 and 25:
Horvath, Julia. 2010. “Discourse-
Page 26 and 27:
languages: Hungarian (H) and Romani
Page 28 and 29:
attach-wh usually licenses a single
Page 30 and 31:
on’ requires an overt preposition
Page 32 and 33:
of syntactic priming: the stricter
Page 34 and 35:
(43) Nu văd cum și, mai important
Page 36 and 37:
for certain values to be identical
Page 38 and 39:
ing the CNJ-LST proposed for coordi
Page 40 and 41:
oth of these cases, as well as the
Page 42 and 43:
References Abeillé, Anne. 2005. Le
Page 44 and 45:
the addressee by virtue of linguist
Page 46 and 47:
dressee is enticed by the imperativ
Page 48 and 49:
some way. She notes that it is not
Page 50 and 51:
. A: Give me an aspirin! B: # I don
Page 52 and 53:
Effective preference structures can
Page 54 and 55:
the content gets realized (i.e. he
Page 56 and 57:
to the principle in (39), which aim
Page 58 and 59:
Kaufmann follows the second strateg
Page 60 and 61:
5. Portner 2005, 2007: a dedicated
Page 62 and 63:
to realize the imperative once he a
Page 64 and 65:
epresentation and defeasible reason
Page 66 and 67:
equative reading can be paraphrased
Page 68 and 69:
‘the greatest French soldier’ t
Page 70 and 71:
2.4. Plurals 2.4.1. Plural definite
Page 72 and 73:
group of people constituting the on
Page 74 and 75:
3. A(n) sole/*only The solution to
Page 76 and 77:
ichest i : richest ii :: only : sol
Page 78 and 79:
In the case of a singular definite
Page 80 and 81:
The lexical entries we have given f
Page 82 and 83:
Strawson, P. F. 1950. On referring.
Page 84 and 85:
In this paper, I show that a dialec
Page 86 and 87:
(3) […] argretter, qu’dins ch
Page 88 and 89:
2.3. Are there any restrictions on
Page 90 and 91:
stand to the right of que2, which,
Page 92 and 93:
heads FinP (Bovetto 2002, López 20
Page 94 and 95:
(24) a. j’prétinds qu’à l’h
Page 96 and 97:
. *T’as raison Colas, faut tacher
Page 98 and 99:
6. Conclusion This paper shows that
Page 100 and 101:
Appendix Frequency of DCC for embed
Page 102 and 103:
In this paper, I provide empirical
Page 104 and 105:
subjects are realized in a cleft to
Page 106 and 107:
problem with the examples in (11),
Page 108 and 109:
continuations chosen after exclusiv
Page 110 and 111:
The questions were of two forms: ei
Page 112 and 113:
quantified lexical subject any elem
Page 114 and 115:
QUD:Qui a corrigé les copies? SF S
Page 116 and 117:
Finally, the ranking proposed, with
Page 118 and 119:
Onea, Edgar, and David Beaver. 2011
Page 120 and 121:
semantics of these constructions ha
Page 122 and 123:
filter. A quantifier like two sailo
Page 124 and 125:
are not principal filters, can be c
Page 126 and 127:
(22) monotone increasing NPs like a
Page 128 and 129:
the equation of the formulas in (27
Page 130 and 131:
presuppose the non-emptiness of the
Page 132 and 133:
tune with the well-known observatio
Page 134 and 135:
Keenan, Edward. 1996. The semantics
Page 136 and 137:
(2) Paul veut que nous {soyons SUBJ
Page 138 and 139:
(8) Le professeur subodore que les
Page 140 and 141:
• verbs describing a course of ac
Page 142 and 143:
The semantico-pragmatic condition h
Page 144 and 145:
force is stronger than that of the
Page 146 and 147:
dire (‘say’) or suggérer (‘s
Page 148 and 149:
However, it must be stressed that t
Page 150 and 151:
If it is the case that those moves
Page 152 and 153:
certain environments. Again, the re
Page 154 and 155:
Gross, Maurice. 1978. Correspondanc
Page 156 and 157:
Semantically, the difference betwee
Page 158 and 159:
(14) a. Descriptive meaning of (13)
Page 160 and 161:
What is crucial here is that the en
Page 162 and 163:
(30) a. Heute steigt sau die coole
Page 164 and 165:
In the following, we will give a te
Page 166 and 167:
These contrasts in their syntactic
Page 168 and 169:
(50) [ QP je- [ DP der [ NP Student
Page 170 and 171:
degree expression out of a seemingl
Page 172 and 173:
969264437.pdf. Koopman, Hilda, and
Page 174 and 175:
semantic representation and computa
Page 176 and 177: NP [AGR=[PERS=3,NUM=sing]] John S N
Page 178 and 179: Class CanSubj S Class DirObj VP Cla
Page 180 and 181: a. ⎡ ⎤ causation [ ] activity C
Page 182 and 183: lexical meaning PO pattern DO patte
Page 184 and 185: ⎡ ⎤ a. S causation [ ] NP [I= 1
Page 186 and 187: Class VSpine syntactic dimension VP
Page 188 and 189: sends ⎡ ⎤ causation EFFECTOR 8
Page 190 and 191: Crabbé, Benoit. 2005. Grammatical
Page 192 and 193: Claim 2. Semantic composition of ve
Page 194 and 195: (7) yo-k2nol-ú 3Z/N.SG.PAT-rain-ST
Page 196 and 197: inanimate are not selected by verba
Page 198 and 199: in (25), or from transitive to intr
Page 200 and 201: (26) a. ⎡ ⎤ English-transitive-
Page 202 and 203: Abstracting away from the particula
Page 204 and 205: As shown by the statement of the no
Page 206 and 207: (36) Áhs2 ni-ka-nláht-a-ke 2-té-
Page 208 and 209: coincident and dualic prefixes, mea
Page 210 and 211: aises, of course, the question of w
Page 213 and 214: A finer look at predicate decomposi
Page 215 and 216: kill is compatible with wide variet
Page 217 and 218: Do these relations correspond to di
Page 219 and 220: paper. The wider claim is that sube
Page 221 and 222: More significantly, all involve dir
Page 223 and 224: assume a syntactic view of event st
Page 225: other heads. Secondly, spell-out pa
Page 229 and 230: ⏟ AA ⏟ (61) [ v P … v TR [ Ak
Page 231 and 232: Negation-resistant polarity items A
Page 233 and 234: To summarize, these indefinites can
Page 235 and 236: covert alternative-sensitive operat
Page 237 and 238: (17) a. any book = ∃x∈D. x is a
Page 239 and 240: tion, negative quantifiers and with
Page 241 and 242: Since PPIs are endowed with the [+D
Page 243 and 244: 4.5. Extra-clausal negation A cruci
Page 245 and 246: What this data shows us is that PPI
Page 247 and 248: Prima facie it appears to be the ca
show all

Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (EISS 9 ... - CSSP - CNRS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?