Syntactic Distribution Research Articles

Overt Existential Closure in Bura (Central Chadic)

No abstract.

Regional variation in the syntactic distribution of null finite complementizer

AbstractThis article explores syntactic and regional variation in the choice between declarative (nonrelativizer) that and zero complementizer. Using a corpus of contemporary prose from New Zealand, Australian, American, and British newspapers, the study examines complementizer choice in complements to verbs and adjectives, extraposed complements to verbs, it-subject constructions (It is obvious (that)), and copula constructions (The trouble is (that), It could be (that), What matters is (that), It was only later (that)). The form of the embedded subject (pronoun, short NP (noun phrase), long NP) is also taken into account. It is shown that significant regional differences in zero rates are to some extent syntactic. The New Zealand and Australian data show less inhibition of zero in clauses that are not adjacent to the clause-selecting lexical head than the American and British data.

The Infinitive Marker across Scandinavian

In this paper I argue that the base-position of the infinitive marker in the Scandinavian languages and English share a common origin site. It is inserted as the top-most head in the VP-domain. The cross-linguistic variation in the syntactic distribution of the infinitive marker can be accounted for by assuming that it undergoes head movement. This movement is optional in Danish, English, Norwegian, and Early Modern Danish and is not feature-driven. In Faroese, Icelandic, and Swedish, on the other hand, it is triggered by φ-feature checking on Finº. In Icelandic and Swedish these φ-features are strong and induce obligatory vº→Finº movement, whereas they are weak in Faroese and do not induce vº→Finº movement.

Un tipus especial d'oracions interrogatives: les interrogatives escindides

This paper deals with the properties of interrogative sentences with a split constituent (or split interrogatives) in Catalan and Spanish. We compare split interrogatives with Wh-questions, yes/no questions, different kinds of confirmatory questions and clitic left dislocation constructions. Split interrogatives show a very clear-cut syntactic and phonological distinction between those constituents to be interpreted as shared or old information (theme) and the constituent which receives the focus of the sentence. Following recent theoretical work on the left periphery of the sentence, we propose that the Ground Phrase projection (placed below ForceP) is especially relevant in split interrogatives and that this relevance yields a derivation with two syntactic movements to the higher functional projections. Such analysis accounts for the surface constituent order found in split interrogatives, the semantic interpretation of each part of the sentence, and the syntactic structure of Wh-constituents, and it covers also several constraints on locality, syntactic distribution, definiteness, and negation that characterize split interrogatives.

The “marked nominative” in Datooga

The case system of Datooga, a Southern Nilotic dialect cluster of Northern and Central Tanzania, is of the marked nominative type, i.e., it is based on the opposition of a nominative case which encodes both the subject of an intransitive verb (S) and the subject of a transitive one (A) vs. an accusative case which encodes the object of a transitive verb (P). However, in contrast to prototypical nominative/accusative systems, it is the nominative case rather than the accusative which receives morphological marking in Datooga. This unusual marking pattern reflects an unusual division of labour between the case forms, the marked nominative being confined to the function of coding S and A in pragmatically neutral clauses, whereas the unmarked “accusative”, or “absolute” as it will be called further on, takes over a wide range of functions apart from coding P, e.g., it characterizes the citation form, nouns in non-verbal predication and preverbal subjects. Thus, what at first glance appears as an odd and outlandish markedness paradox from a general typological perspective turns out to be a very economical case system at closer inspection of the syntactic distribution and functional load of the opposing case forms.

Disjuncts

Focusing on a number of “logical” disjuncts in English, this paper argues that syntactic and semantic divisions in previous analyses have been drawn at the wrong point; while adjuncts (such as adjunct because) express real-world causal (or causal-type) relationships, disjuncts (such as since) express reasoning processes. Distinctions between content and style disjuncts in Quirk et al. (1985) and between content, epistemic and speech-act connectors in Sweetser (1990) are analysed (Sections 1–3 ff.). In the light of Sweetser, imbalances in syntactic distribution, foregrounding potential, and question-formation patterns in Quirk et al.'s content disjunct and style disjunct categories are identified; and Quirk et al.'s claimed identical sense of adjunct since and content disjunct because is contrasted with the fact of their syntactic difference (Sections 4 ff.). An alternative to Quirk et al.'s disjunct analysis into properly syntactic cognitive disjuncts and parenthetical comment disjuncts is proposed and justified (Sections 5 ff.). Possible objections to this are considered, with a focus on intonational issues (Sections 6 ff.). The notions canonical sense and canonical sub-sense are considered, particularly with respect to the disjuncts since and though (Section 7). Direct syntactic evidence for the proposed re-analysis is considered (Section 8), and areas where further work is required are identified (Section 9).

Focus and split-intransitivity: the acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish

Recent unrelated studies reveal what appears to be a common acquisitional pattern in second language acquisition (SLA). While some findings show that advanced learners can indeed achieve convergent, native-like competence with formal syntactic properties (even when these are underdetermined by the input), other findings suggest that they can display divergent and even optional competence at the syntax-discourse interface with discursive properties like focus and topic. These apparently contradictory observations are not coincidental, as they can also be traced in other acquisitional studies on L1 acquisition, L1 attrition in bilinguals, child SLA and SLI (specific language impairment).If this pattern is correct, it should be observed in the L2 acquisition of any given property that is simultaneously governed by both a formal grammatical constraint and a discursive constraint. I tested whether this is the case in advanced non-native Spanish acquisition of the syntactic distribution of subject-verb (SV) and verb-subject (VS) word order, which is constrained by both a formal syntactic property (the Unaccusative Hypothesis or Split-intransitivity Hypothesis) and a property at the syntax-discourse interface (presentational focus).Results show that the interlanguage grammars (ILGs) of both English ( n = 17) and Greek ( n = 18) learners of Spanish converge with the grammars of native Spanish speakers ( n = 14) when formal properties are involved, yet they diverge (in particular by showing optionality) with discursive focus. These results confirm the emerging view that acquisition of formal syntactic properties is more readily acquired than discourse properties, which are persistently problematic.

The unitary procedural semantics of the, this and that

While THE vs THIS and THAT are treated in different places in contemporary grammars, it is well-known that the three lexemes have common ancestry in the demonstrative paradigms of Old English. In this article I intend to show that the traditional approach to the analysis of THE vs THIS and THAT as belonging to different syntactic types misses a crucial level of unitary analysis where semantics is integrated in pragmatic procedures. I argue that THE, THIS and THAT share a pan-Uermamc þ- morpheme, whose semantics is motivated and constrained by the architecture of the cognitive processing of ostensive stimuli. If we adopt the analysis proposed, we can achieve a higher degree of correlation between morphological form, syntactic distribution, semantic content and pragmatic function. The analysis also shows that pragmatic procedures may be coded in semantics, thus integrating the two levels of meaning.

Tongan Determiners and Semantic Composition

This article describes the syntactic distribution and semantic interpretation of determiners in Tongan (Polynesian). This determiner system is unusual because it contains, in addition to the familiar definite and indefinite, a third contrasting morpheme, labeled Ôsemi-definiteÕ in traditional descriptions. A description of the behavior of these three determiners is offered that makes use of some conceptual tools provided by recent crosslinguistic work in formal semantics.

A multi-level semantic approach to Korean causal conjunctive suffixes -(e)se and -(u)nikka

The purpose of this paper is to discuss actual usage of the two Korean causal conjunctive suffixes, -(e)seand-(u)nikka, and to propose their multi-layered semantics based on analysis of corpus data. To account for the functional differences of the two conjunctives, most previous studies focused on different syntactic distributions or semantic contrast by employing an objectivist viewpoint, failing to incorporate the polyfunctionality, semantic overlapping and pragmatic ambiguities of them. This paper advances that the meanings of the two causal suffixes are distributed on four different cognitive-discourse levels: content, epistemic, speech act, and discourse level. Corpus analysis does reveal that all four levels are accessible to both conjunctive suffixes but the difference between the two suffixes lies in the different degree of accessibility of these four levels in their sentence semantics. This finding suggests that we treat these linguistic categories more flexibly by accepting their gradient and pragmatically ambiguous status.

Modifying Adjuncts (review)

Reviewed by: Modifying adjuncts ed. by Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen José Luis González Escribano Modifying adjuncts. Ed. by Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen. (Interface explorations 4.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. Pp. vi, 657. ISBN 3110173522. $118 (Hb). This volume contains the revised versions of seventeen papers presented at the Oslo conference ‘Approaching the Grammar of Adjuncts’ (22–25 September 1999). The title is intended as a pun on the need to change current approaches to obtain a more integrative view of the syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and morphology of adjuncts. That was the aim of the Oslo conference, although coverage of all of those areas was not uniform and remains unequal in the proceedings. The original papers, though, have been extensively revised and subjected to mutual refereeing by the participants in the interim, which allows for significant cross-referencing and enhances the overall cohesiveness of the collection. The book opens with an index followed by the editors’ ‘Modifying the grammar of adjuncts: An introduction’ (1–29), which describes the state of the art and the conference’s theoretical assumptions and agenda, briefly summarizes the contributions, calling attention to the points of interaction among them, and points out the gaps in the discussion provided and the areas left to further research. The papers themselves are organized as follows. Part A contains three papers discussing the argument-adjunct distinction: David Dowty’s ‘The dual analysis of adjuncts/complements in categorial grammar’ (33–66), Barbara H. Partee and Vladimir Borschev’s ‘Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity’ (67–112), and Manfred Bierwisch’s ‘Heads, complements, adjuncts: Projection and saturation’ (113–59). All acknowledge, and Dowty’s theoretically justifies, the fuzziness of the distinction and offer diagnostics. Bierwisch exploits the different direction of thematic discharge in complementation and modification to establish a criterion of delimitation. Part B, concerned with the placement of adjuncts, starts with Werner Frey’s ‘Syntactic conditions on adjunct classes’ (163–209), which motivates five layers of adverbial modification and corresponding classes of adjuncts, although not a rigid hierarchical structure like Guglielmo Cinque’s. Frey’s paper acts as a pivot to which several other contributors refer in their own analyses. It is followed by two papers on the scopal and pragmatic properties of manner adverbs, respectively, Benjamin Shaer’s ‘Manner adverbs and the association theory: Some problems and solutions’ (211–59) and Regine Eckhardt’s ‘Manner adverbs and information structure: Evidence from the adverbial modification of verbs of creation’ (261–305), and by two more papers on high clausal adjuncts, Thomas Ernst’s ‘Semantic features and the distribution of adverbs’ (307–34), which claims that what makes adverbs like probably non-right-adjoinable is their ‘subjective’ character, and Inger Rosengren’s ‘Clause-final left-adjunction’ (335–62), which examines mirror-image effects in the distribution of PP adjuncts in English/Swedish vs. German. Part C consists of three papers that focus on the restitutive/repetitive reading of the wieder class of adverbs and defend alternative lexical-pragmatic and decompositional-scopal approaches to the problem: respectively, Gerhard Jäger and Reinhard Blutner’s ‘Competition and interpretation: The German adverb wieder’ (393–416) vs. Karin Pittner’s ‘Process, eventuality, and wieder/again’ (365–91) and Arnim Von Stechow’s ‘How are results represented and modified? Remarks on Jäger & Blutner’s anti-decomposition’ (417–51). Finally, Part D contains six papers on the lack of biunique correspondence between the syntactic distribution and interpretation of low (i.e. VP) adverbials. Graham Katz’s ‘Event arguments, adverb selection, and the stative adverb gap’ (455–74) offers a semantic explanation for the stative adverb gap, Claudia Maienborn’s ‘Event-internal modifiers: Semantic underspecification and conceptual interpretation’ (475–509) motivates two layers of adverbial modification within VPs, Johannes Dölling’s ‘Flexibility in adverbal modification: Reinterpretation as contextual enrichment’ (511–52) provides a contextual-semantic account of variable interpretations of underspecified adverbs, Susan Rothstein’s ‘Secondary predication and aspectual structure’ (553–90) discusses depictive and...

The syntactic distribution of factive complements

Cet article analyse l’observation de Kiparsky et Kiparsky (1970), selon laquelle il existe une corrélation profonde entre la syntaxe et la sémantique des compléments factifs à la lumière d’un large ensemble de phénomènes déjà connus et nouveaux: l’incompatibilité des compléments à marquage de cas exceptionnel et sans complémenteur that avec les prédicats factifs, les effets d’îlots faibles, l’incompatibilité des compléments purement propositionnels avec les verbes contenant des préfixes aspectuels (RE-, DIS-), les restrictions sur la concordance des temps dans les contextes propositionnels. Je propose qu’il existe une différence structurale entre compléments propositionnels et factifs relative à la position syntaxique qu’ils occupent, différence qui rend compte des phénomènes syntaxiques discutés ici, et qui fournit en même temps une base solide pour l’expression de la différence sémantique – présence vs absence d’une présupposition – entre les types de compléments: les compléments factifs apparaissent, en FL, à l’extérieur de VP, tandis que les compléments propositionnels doivent occuper leur position «de base» à l’intérieur de VP.

Prosodic differences among function words

Function words in standard Serbian fall into two classes: prosodically free functional elements on the one hand, and prosodically bound functional elements, or clitics, on the other. The two classes have overlapping syntactic distributions, yet exhibit clear prosodic differences. Free functional elements may become prosodic words if they are minimally disyllabic, or if focused, and in this they crucially differ from clitics, whose only prosodic option is to be included into the host prosodic word. It is argued that the prosodic properties of the two classes of function words cannot be captured by a single set of ranked constraints, and that one of the classes, the class of clitics, needs to be encoded lexically, by virtue of prosodic prespecification.

The Particularity of Particles, or Why They Are Not Just ‘Intransitive Prepositions’

Although the distinction between verb-preposition combinations (e.g., They fought over the money) and prima facie similar transitive verb-particle combinations (e.g., They handed over the money) is well known, some grammarians have taken the view that particles are in fact a sort of prepositions all the same, namely, intransitive ones. While this view is not faulty in itself, I do not subscribe to any of three related claims, namely (i) that directional particles and full directional PPs have the same syntactic distribution, (ii) that directional particles are shortened versions of full PPs, and (iii) that the use of a directional particle only differs from the use of a formally related full directional PP in leaving the reference object (i.e., the ‘landmark’ in Cognitive Grammar terms) understood. I argue that, since even directional particles can be quite different from their prepositional counterparts, it follows that we should consider all particles as a class distinct from prepositions.

Quantification and focus in Negative Concord

This paper provides evidence that Negative Concord in a single language can simultaneously realize two cross-linguistically available options along two parameters, which parameters are thereby shown to be available in typological terms independently of each other. N-words in Hungarian can be semantically negative or non-negative, and both types are lexically ambiguous between a universally quantified and a non-quantificational indefinite interpretation, confirming a typological prediction of Giannakidou (2000). N-words belonging to the negative paradigm are modified by a negative particle which the non-negative paradigm lacks. The negative n-words are in complementary distribution with each other and with clausal negation preverbally. The universally quantified and the existentially closed indefinite interpretations have different syntactic distributions verifiable among other in terms of presuppositionality effects and modifiability by certain quantification-senstitive elements. N-words are demonstrated to be syntactically focusable in Hungarian, which fact is linked to a historically tracable EVEN component residing in the modifying particle of the negative n-word paradigm, in line with Lahiri (1998) and Horn (2000).

Two types of wh-adverbials

This paper presents cross-linguistic arguments for distinguishing between two types of wh-adverbials: causal how, causal why, and epistemic why pattern together in taking an IP scope, functioning as operators, whereas method how, manner how, and purpose why pattern together in taking a VP scope, functioning as predicates of underlying events. For the former group, there is always a cause-effect relation underpinning their syntactic distributions across languages, which is semantically realized as a causative predicate taking two events as its arguments, i.e., a cause event and an effect event. In a causal question, it is the cause event that is bound by the question operator; in a resultative question, the effect event is bound instead. For the latter group, they surface as conjuncts of main predicates in Tsou, which in turn argues for a neo-Davidsonian treatment of adjunct association in syntax (Parsons 1990). The fact that a conjunctive how can be construed as either a manner/method question or a resultative question in Tsou further argues for an independent semantic module in grammar in the vein of Culicover and Jackendoff (1997).

Some Clitic Combinations in the Syntax of Romance

L’objectiu d’aquest article és donar compte de certs buits en la distribució sintàctica de les com- binacions de clítics en varietats de l’aragonès, el català, l’occità i el castellà. La perspectiva segons la qual l’ordre dels clítics ve determinat per patrons és insuficient perquè els patrons entren en joc després del component sintàctic, ja sigui a la morfologia, ja sigui en algun altre component post- sintàctic. En l’alternativa que proposo l’ordenació de les combinacions de clítics es pot donar a la sintaxi, com anticipaven Kayne (1994) i Terzi (1999). En concret, proposaré que en algunes de les anomalies hi ha involucrades combinacions de clítics que no formen constituents (clítics escindits), mentre que, en altres, un dels elements no és realment un clític, sinó un element amb un estatus morfològic diferent o un pronom feble com a Cardinaletti i Starke (1999).

The Clausal Structure of Spanish: A Comparative Study (review)

Reviewed by: The clausal structure of Spanish: A comparative study by Francisco Ordóñez Kleanthes K. Grohmann The clausal structure of Spanish: A comparative study. By Francisco Ordóñez. (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics.) New York: Garland, 2000. Pp. xii, 209. This publication of Francisco Ordóñez’s 1997 CUNY dissertation, Word order and clause structure in Spanish and other Romance languages, deals with clause structure in Romance (particularly, Spanish). It provides a highly stimulating discussion of many issues relating to Romance syntax and contains new provocative analyses. In the ‘Introduction’ (3–23), O introduces the theoretical framework which he employs throughout the study, namely antisymmetry (cf. Kayne, R. S. The antisymmetry of syntax, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994). He emphasizes the bidirectional relation of his work and antisymmetry: The antisymmetry framework makes available the specific analyses presented here which in turn empirically support antisymmetry. The chapter titles are all very revealing. ‘The VSO/VOS alternation in Spanish’ (25–69) is the topic of Ch. 2. Discussing asymmetries in Spanish between subjects and objects in the VOS- and VSO-orders, O explicitly proposes a scrambling account: VOS is derived by leftward movement of the object. Such an approach arguably explains asymmetries in quantifier binding and Principle C (objects c-command subjects only in the VOS order), the ban on wh-objects in situ in VOS (viz., a generalized ban on scrambling in situ wh-elements), the specific interpretation of indefinite objects in VOS (cf. scrambling of indefinites in ‘real’ scrambling languages, like Korean, Hindi, and German), the restriction on subject pronouns in VSO (which are scrambled to the left), and more. O then considers ‘Focus and post-verbal subjects in Romance’ (71–118) in Ch. 3, proposing that the wider distribution of postverbal subjects in Spanish (compared to Catalan, French, Italian) follows from an additional inflectional projection, Neut(ral)P, a nonfocused position. In the more restricted languages, NeutP is absent and TP moves over the subject (viz. light predicate raising), rendering the subject in focus position. O also applies this analysis to the Spanish VOS orders discussed in Ch. 2, thus suggesting that Spanish has the full range of options while the other languages considered only make available a subset. ‘Inversion in interrogatives in Spanish and Catalan’ (119–49) is the next chapter. Here, O lays the basis for the final chapter and argues that preverbal subjects in Spanish (and Catalan) are obligatorily topicalized, hence occupy Top(ic)P (part of the Comp-domain in the left periphery of the clause, above TP). He considers traditional accounts of overt verb movement in these languages and the problems these pose to the antisymmetry framework; he concludes that V-to-C movement does not take place (as opposed to the Germanic languages). He also shows that postverbal subjects in interrogatives are not in the canonical subject position but behave more like postverbal subjects in free inversion structures. Turning to interrogatives proper, O proposes that obligatory inversion is a by-product of a recursive CP, where topic and wh-properties clash. The final chapter, ‘Left dislocated subjects and pro-Drop’ (151–90), extends O’s proposal that lexical subjects in preverbal position are always topicalized (arguably applying to Catalan and Italian as well). Evidence against a single, canonical subject position (‘SpecIP’) in all constructions comes from ellipsis, quantifier extraction, wh-questions, and interpretive restrictions on quantified subjects in this [End Page 379] position. O eliminates Agr(eement)S(ubject)P and takes AgrS to be a clitic absorbing theta role and case (making Agr in fact an argument). He offers independent evidence from the similarities between clitic doubling and agreement. In sum, O argues that preverbal subjects and objects have the same syntactic distribution and should hence be analyzed on a par, both involving movement to TopP. This book is a careful study of a number of phenomena relating to clause structure in Romance. It offers a detailed analysis within the antisymmetry framework but presents an interesting collection of empirical data as well. Kleanthes K. Grohmann University of Stuttgart Copyright © 2002 Linguistic Society of America

Determiners, Nouns, or What? Problems in the Analysis of Some Commonly Occurring Forms in Philippine Languages

This paper deals with the problems inherent in determining the syntactic word class of the initial word in many common noun phrases in Philippine languages such as Tagalog ang, Ilokano ti, and Bontok nan. These forms have been variously called case-marking particles, construction markers, common noun markers, articles, determiners, specifiers, or simply proclitics. However, a good syntactic typology of the languages requires that a decision be made as to their word class, based not simply on functional characteristics, semantic features, or translation equivalents, but on their syntactic distribution. Under certain assumptions, these words would be determiners, with the immediately following word being the head noun of its phrase. However, the words that follow appear to be verbal, having the same form as in the predicate of a sentence, and this paper thus considers an alternative solution in which the words in question are specifying-nouns meaning 'the one' and are the heads of their phrases. Under this analysis, the immediately following words are verbal constructions that constitute relative clauses dependent on the specifying nouns. Corroborating evidence is found in the Talubin dialect of Bontok, in which the words in question require genitive clitics to be attached to them, rather than to an immediately following content word. Historical evidence showing that the forms in question were originally demonstrative nouns (and still function as such) supports their synchronic analysis as nouns.

On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers

This study offers syntactic and semantic evidence that there are three types of locative modifiers within the verbal domain that differ with respect to their syntactic base position and interpretation. Two of them are subject to semantic indeterminacy, thereby leading to multiple utterance meanings. The study aims at showing that the full range of interpretations can be derived within a rigid account of lexical and compositional semantics. Locative modifiers are invariably treated as first-order predicates adding a locative constraint. All semantic differences originate from the structural environment they are embedded in and the pragmatic resolution of semantic indeterminacy. The syntactic distribution of locative modifiers is shown to be derivable from interface conditions.