Numeral phrases in Standard Arabic are known for gender and number mismatches between the numeral and the enumerated noun. This article reduces these mismatches to two morphological deletion rules. The first deletes the feminine morpheme of the numeral when the enumerated noun is feminine, and the second deletes the plural morpheme of the enumerated noun when the numeral carries a plural morpheme. The first rule is further restricted to deleting only feminine morphemes that are underlyingly part of the numeral, and not inherited via agreement with a feminine enumerated noun via a syntactic agreement process. The analysis in this article is consistent with Sadiqi’s (2006) claim that the feminine form in Arabic is the basic one from which the masculine was derived historically by reducing the feminine form. The deletion analysis here also finds support from Chomsky’s approach of deriving the masculine from the feminine as theoretically less costly and more explanatorily adequate. Resume: Il est bien connu que les syntagmes numeraux en arabe standard peuvent attester l’absence de l’accord en genre et en nombre entre le numeral et la tete nominale. Cet article reduit ce non-accord a deux regles morphologiques de suppression. La premiere supprime le morpheme du feminin du numeral quand le nom est feminin. La seconde supprime le morpheme du pluriel du nom quand le numeral porte un morpheme du pluriel. La premiere regle s’applique seulement aux morphemes qui font partie du numeral en une forme sous-jacente; elle ne s’applique pas a des morphemes qui resultent de l’accord syntaxique avec un nom. L’analyse soutenue dans cet article est compatible avec la proposition de Sadiqi (2006), qui voudrait que la forme feminine en arabe soit la forme de base et que la forme masculine soit derivee diachroniquement par la reduction de la forme feminine. L’analyse presentee ici est egalement appuyee par l’approche de Chomsky, selon laquelle la forme masculine est derivee de la forme feminine, dans la mesure ou cette analyse est plus simple de point de vue theorique et qu’elle atteint un niveau superieur d’adequation explicative.

This article examines how three factors determine the surface forms of English stop-stop co-articulation across word boundaries in both native and nonnative speech: place of articulation, frequency, and speech rate. The release percentage and closure duration ratio produced by English (L1) and Mandarin (L2) speakers were measured. The results showed that a place order effect was only partially supported in L1 speech but not shown at all in L2 speech. The results also confirmed a gradient lexical effect, finding a significant correlation between self-rated frequency and overlap. In addition, the results showed that increased speech rate did not induce increased overlap, given that speakers from both groups had either more or less overlap at the fast speech rate than at the slow rate. Resume: Cet article examine trois facteurs qui determinent les formes de surface des coarticulations obstruante-obstruante a travers des frontieres des mots en anglais natif et en anglais non natif : le lieu d’articulation, la frequence, et le rythme de la parole. Nous avons mesure la frequence de relâchement des obstruantes et la proportion de la duree de leurs fermetures chez des locuteurs natifs de l’anglais (L1) et chez des locuteurs natifs du mandarin (L2). Les resultats ont montre qu’un effet de l’ordre des lieux d’articulation a ete partiellement atteste chez les locuteurs L1, mais que cet effet n’a aucunement ete atteste chez les locuteurs L2. Les resultats ont egalement confirme un effet lexical progressif; une correlation significative entre la frequence autoevaluee et le chevauchement a ete observee. De plus, les resultats ont montre qu’un rythme plus eleve n’a pas entraine un degre eleve de chevauchement, etant donne que les locuteurs des deux groupes ont produit soit plus, soit moins, de chevauchement au rythme plus eleve.

This article investigates supralaryngeal characteristics of Japanese and Korean length and laryngeal contrasts in stops and affricates. Electropalatography data collected from five Japanese and five Korean speakers revealed similar differences among the consonants in the degree of linguopalatal contact and duration of the closure. Japanese (voiceless) geminate and Korean fortis obstruents were most constricted and had the longest duration (although considerably longer in Japanese). Japanese voiced and Korean lenis obstruents were least constricted and had the shortest duration. Japanese voiceless (singleton) and Korean aspirated obstruents showed intermediate degree of contact and duration. Both stops and affricates showed a positive correlation between degree of contact and duration. The results show that the two very different sets of phonological contrasts are implemented similarly at the supralaryngeal level. These cross-language similarities and cross-category differences are proposed to result from the application of independently-motivated phonetic enhancement rules to distinct phonological representations of laryngeal/length contrasts in the two languages.

Coahuitlan Totonac is spoken in Veracruz, Mexico, and has been variously ascribed to two different branches of the Totonacan family tree. While recent work has begun to bring empirical evidence to the internal structure of this family tree, there remain several important areas of disagreement, in addition to the disputed affiliation of Coahuitlan. This article informs the family tree and demonstrates that Coahuitlan belongs to the Northern branch using shared innovations and two computational methods. The comparative method seeks sets of shared innovations for evidence of subgrouping. This article presents proposed shared innovations in phonology, morphology, and lexicon, which fall into two sets, one belonging to the Sierra and Lowland branches, and the other belonging to the Northern. Coahuitlan Totonac overwhelmingly shares innovations found in Northern languages and lacks innovations found in Sierra. Two quantitative methods are also used to show that Coahuitlan groups groups closely with other Northern languages. Resume: Coahuitlan Totonac est parle a Veracruz au Mexique et s’est vu assigne a deux branches differentes de l’arbre familial Totonacan. Malgre les travaux recents qui portent de nouveaux faits empiriques concernant la structure interne de cet arbre familial, plusieurs sujets inspirent encore la controverse. A l’aide d’innovations communes et de deux methodes computation-nelles, cet article eclaircit l’arbre familial et montre que Coahuitlan appartient a la branche du nord. La methode comparative cherche des innovations communes pour etablir des sousgroupes. Cet article presente des innovations communes aux niveaux phonologiques, morphologiques, et lexiques qui se divisent en deux groupes, l’un appartenant aux branches Sierra et Lowland, l’autre appartenant a la branche du nord. Coahuitlan Totonac presente surtout ces innovations caracteristiques des langues du nord et manque des innovations attestees en Sierra. Deux methodes quantitatives sont egalement employees afin de montrer que le groupe Coahuitlan est similaire aux autres langues du nord.

In this paper, I show that cyclic head approach to regular morphology alone cannot account for the freely available variations in the realization of nominalizers in English nominalizations involving overt verbalizers. Instead, I offer an account of the regularity effects using the technology of Local Dislocation (, , , ). Using this analysis, I derive both the variable nominalization patterns and the restrictions on particles and results in derived nominals from . By treating regularity as the by-product of extant morphosyntatic operations, we can better explain the distribution of regular and irregular nominalizers and account for particle/result restrictions in English derived nominals. Dans cet article, je demontre que l’approche developpee par pour tenir compte de la morphologie reguliere en termes de tetes cycliques ne peut pas expliquer la variation libre dans la realisation des nominalisateurs dans les nominalisations anglaises qui incluent des verbalisateurs visibles. Ensuite, j’offre une analyse des regularites qui exploite le mecanisme du Deplacement local (, , , ). Cette analyse explique a la fois les differentes realisations dans les nominalisations et les contraintes concernant les particules et les resultats dans les nominaux derives de . En analysant la regularite comme le produit derive d’operations morphosyntaxiques actives, nous arrivons a mieux expliquer la distribution des nominalisateurs reguliers et irreguliers et tenir compte des contraintes concernant les particules et les resultats dans les nominaux derives en anglais.

Reviewed by: The Modular Architecture of Grammar by Jerrold M. Sadock Francesco-Alessio Ursini Jerrold M. Sadock. 2012. The Modular Architecture of Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 282 USD 114.99 (Hardcover). The Modular Architecture of Grammar presents a state-of-the-art introduction to automodular grammar, a theory based on Fodor’s (1983) modularity of mind hypothesis. According to the Modularity of Grammar Hypothesis, autonomous modules generate linguistic representations (e.g., sentence structures, propositions), but do not interact (p. 7). The representations that these systems generate, however, are connected via mapping principles governed by the interface (meta-) module. The theoretical consequences of this assumption are far-reaching. For instance, the theory lacks movement operations or hierarchical levels of representation, and syntax does not have a central function in the architecture (cf. GB and Distributed Morphology: Chomsky 1981, Halle and Marantz 1993). The theory is tested against a wide range of data, including some well-known but still controversial problems. It presents an interesting representational alternative to derivational theories, and can provide several stimulating points of reflection for theoretically inclined linguists. Below, I summarize the contents of the book. Chapter 1, “Autonomous modularity: syntax and semantics”, introduces the two central modules of this architecture: semantics and syntax. The semantic module generates Function/Argument (FA) structures, which determine how the meanings of lexical items, phrases and sentences are composed. The syntax module generates phrase/sentence structure, as standardly assumed in generative frameworks. The syntactic rules of representation come in a standard, if conservative generative format (e.g., S→NP, VP). The semantic rules also come in a conservative, categorial format. For instance, an object of type Fap is a function that takes an argument object of type a as an input, and returns a type p proposition as a result (Cresswell 1973). Lexical items are initially defined as pairings of F/A and syntactic representations, which include information about category and distribution. For instance, the intransitive verb sneeze has F/A type Fa and syntactic category “Vin[vp ___]” (i.e., it is a verb in a VP). Chapter 2, “The interface”, presents the interface module and its three core principles. The first is lexical correspondence: each lexical item must have a representation in each module/dimension. The second is categorial correspondence: categories from different modules are mapped in a homogenous way (e.g., NPs to arguments, propositions to sentences). The third is geometric correspondence: a relation from one dimension (e.g., c-command in syntax) must correspond to a relation in another dimension (e.g., scope in semantics). Since the theory assumes that different rules generate syntactic and semantic representations, which are connected via precise mappings, it predicts that discrepancies and asymmetries among representations can arise. For instance, copular sentences such as Sally is a carpenter are analysed as including lexical correspondence discrepancies, which emerge when lexical items (is, a) have syntactic representations, but null semantic representations. The interface module maps the contentful NPs in this sentence to, respectively, argument [End Page 225] and predicate type representations, and the copula and indefinite article to null representations. Hence, lexical and categorial correspondence is maintained even if not all syntactic representations correspond to non-null semantic representations. Other types of discrepancies can emerge as well (e.g., lexical items with a semantic but no syntactic representation). Chapter 3, “Role structure”, adds the Role (also event, cognitive) structure module (RS), which determines the event structure and thematic roles associated to lexical items and sentences. Only three roles are postulated: proto-agent, proto-patient, and ancillary participant (Dowty 1991). Thus, the role structure of a verb such as put can be represented as “RS: ‘put’ (type), AGT, PAT, ANC”. Notably, unlike syntactic structures, role structures are assumed to be non-hierarchical sequences including event type and roles. The assumption that there is a distinct role structure module is motivated via the analysis of voice phenomena and relations among the role structures of verbs. For instance, passive and active sentences are analysed as involving subject NPs that have an argument (semantic) type, but distinct role values (agent for active sentences, patient for passive ones). Antonym verb pairs such as buy and sell...