Linguistic Variation Yearbook - Volume 1, Issue 1, 2001

The paper shows that crosslinguistically, overt movement of a wh-phrase to SpecCP results in the loss of the single-pair interpretation for multiple questions, i.e. it forces the pair-list interpretation. It is shown that the damaging effect of overt movement to SpecCP on the availability of single-pair answers can be accounted for with an extension of Hagstrom’s (1998) semantics of questions to languages with overt wh-movement. More precisely, the effect is argued to follow from Relativized Minimality: In questions with a single-pair interpretation, the Q morpheme, which is base-generated below C, induces a relativized minimality effect when a wh-phrase crosses it on its way to SpecCP.

In this article, I present evidence for hierarchy and movement in Warlpiri, the proto-typical nonconfigurational language. Within the verb phrase, I identify both a symmetric and an asymmetric applicative construction, show that these are problematic for an LFG-style account that claims Warlpiri has a flat syntactic structure, and outline an account of the symmetric/asymmetric applicative distinction based on a hierarchical syntactic structure. Above the verb phrase, I establish syntactic hierarchy through ordering restrictions of adverbs, and ordering of topics, wh-phrases, and focused phrases in the left periphery. Finally, I present evidence that placement of phrases in the left periphery is accomplished through movement, with new data that show island and Weak Crossover effects.

This paper argues that a substantial amount of the variation in the grammatical properties of applicative constructions arises from structural differences between two main types, identified by Pylkkänen (2000) as “high” and “low” applicatives. High applicatives take an NP specifier and a VP complement, while low applicatives take an NP specifier and an NP complement. The two types of applicatives differ in their lexical-semantic and transitivity properties, as well as in their A-movement properties under raising or passivization, and in their phonological phrasing. It is proposed that these differences arise from a difference in “phase” structure, where phases are syntactic domains that play a role in semantic and phonological interpretation.

This article offers a comparative syntax approach to wh-questions in French and Bellunese, a Northern Italian dialect spoken in the town of Belluno. A striking difference between the two languages, otherwise very closely related, lies in the fact that bare wh-words in root questions, which display obligatory subject clitic inversion (SCLI), must appear at the right edge of the sentence in Bellunese. In French on the other hand apparent in situ structures ban SCLI and do not accept que in sharp contrast with Bellunese. To make sense of these data we suggest that despite appearances wh-words in Bellunese do move to the left periphery, just as they must in French SCLI structures. This in turn requires that the remaining IP also move to the left periphery which should then be “highly split”. The minimal parameter distinguishing French and Bellunese, we claim, lies in the existence of a class of non assertive clitics in Bellunese, which have turned into interrogative markers. Their absence in French triggers obligatory wh-movement to a high operator position at the left edge of the CP domain. In this light it is suggested that French wh in situ questions also involves invisible remnant IP movement and wh movement to a truncated left periphery.

Adjective ordering in English, as in other languages, is nonrandom. In English, the restrictions involve left-to-right sequence, this being a specific case of the general principle: proximity of adjectives to the noun. This article provides a syntactic analysis of such restrictions, focusing not on the adjectives themselves but rather on properties of the nouns modified by them, namely their count/mass properties. Based on the claim that count and mass are hierarchically organized — rather than dichotomous, as previously thought — adjective ordering is shown to be a reflection of the count/mass distinction. This system accounts for the universality of the ordering restriction on adjectives, the universal principle being proximity to the noun. The difference in linear ordering in English and Spanish is ascribed to the presence/absence of a functional category, this being considered as a parameter. Non-canonically ordered adjectives in English are given a syntactic account as well, thus obviating the need for a pragmatic account.

The Jingulu language of central-northern Australia presents some difficulties in terms of classifying certain of its lexemes into part of speech categories. Personal names, for instance, which should be nouns on notional grounds, have the phonological and morphosyntactic properties of interjections, whilst notionally verbal roots are distinctly non-verbal in their distribution. These phenomena are analysed according to the principles of autolexical syntax, wherein different levels of representation of the same linguistic item (morphem, word, phrase and so forth) need not necessarily correspond to one another exactly.

The paper claims that the Semitic Construct state defines a prosodic domain of Case checking. It has been common lore in generative grammar that the domain of Case checking is a syntactic one. In concert with recent proposals, I argue that Case can also be checked at PF; the domain of Case checking is then defined in prosodic terms. The properties of constructs follow straightforwardly. The treatment extends naturally to nonnominal constructs, which, in turn, provide additional evidence in favor of the prosodic analysis. A morphological parameter derives the difference between languages allowing construct states and those which do not. Finally, contra standard assumption I show that there is no indefiniteness spread in construct states but only definiteness spread.