- Home
- e-Journals
- Linguistic Variation Yearbook
- Previous Issues
- Volume 9, Issue, 2009
Linguistic Variation Yearbook - Volume 9, Issue 1, 2009
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2009
-
Crosslinguistic variation in comparison constructions
pp.: 1–66 (66)More LessThis paper presents parallel sets of data on comparison constructions from 14 languages. On the basis of the crosslinguistic differences we observe, we propose three parameters of language variation. The first parameter concerns the question of whether or not a language’s grammar has incorporated scales into the meanings of gradable predicates. The second parameter differentiates between languages that allow quantification over degrees in the syntax and those that do not. Finally, we propose a syntactic parameter that concerns options for syntactically filling the degree argument position of a gradable predicate.
-
Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages
Author(s): Elabbas Benmamoun, Archna Bhatia and Maria Polinskypp.: 67–88 (22)More LessWe discuss the phenomenon of closest conjunct agreement with a special focus on head-final languages; we present data from two such languages, Hindi and Tsez, which allow agreement with the rightmost conjunct when the verb follows the conjoined phrase. This contrasts with head-initial languages, such as Arabic, where close conjunct agreement is with the leftmost conjunct in clauses with VS order. In addition, both languages exhibit certain flexibility of word order at root clause level; when the verb precedes the conjoined phrase, it can also agree with the leftmost conjunct. The empirical data from the two languages raise the following questions. First, is the typological difference between head-initial and head-final languages in the context of coordination due to a difference in the structure of coordination in these two groups? Second, to what extent is the syntactic configuration relevant to the computation of closest conjunct agreement? Third, what is the role of linear proximity in closest conjunct agreement? These questions have wider implications for the analysis of agreement and the relation between syntax and the morpho-phonological component.
-
Arguments for successive-cyclic movement through SpecCP
Author(s): Marcel den Dikkenpp.: 89–126 (38)More LessSuccessive-cyclic A'–Cmovement derivations exploiting SpecCP as an intermediate landing-site deserve careful scrutiny. As a companion to Den Dikken’s (2009a) case for a typology of A'–Cdependencies that includes successive-cyclic movement via vP–edges, resumptive prolepsis, and scope marking, but not successive-cyclic movement via SpecCP, this paper demonstrates that the arguments accumulated in the generative literature in favour of successive-cyclic movement via SpecCP are invalid. To the extent that any of these arguments implicate SpecCP at all, they never make reference to SpecCP as an intermediate stopover point: they are arguments either for terminal movement to a subordinate SpecCP or for successive-cyclic movement via intermediate stopovers in positions other than SpecCP.
-
Quantifiers as negative markers in Italian dialects
Author(s): Jacopo Garzonio and Cecilia Polettopp.: 127–152 (26)More LessIn this work we consider the diachronic development of two distinct types of negative markers, those originally stemming from minimizers (m-negation) and those originally deriving from a negative quantifier (q-negation). We provide evidence in favor of the hypothesis that, despite appearances, they do not follow the same grammaticalization path. We claim that the distinct syntactic position of the two types of negation in the modern dialects depends on the distinct evolution path they have taken, which in turn depends on their original properties. While minimizers change their position during the grammaticalization cline, q-negation stays in the same position throughout the whole process. If this is correct, it means that Jespersen’s cycle is not syntactically homogenous and that the result of a postverbal negative marker can be achieved by means of various strategies.
-
The internal syntax of jeder ‘every’
Author(s): Thomas Leupp.: 153–204 (52)More LessIn this paper I explore the elements that make up the German distributive universal quantifier jeder, and the structural relationships among them. I argue that jeder consists of three overt morphemes je-d-er, which are heads in an extended adjectival projection (xAP). Their relative order is derived by movement [xAP je d er tjeP]. Je corresponds to the adjectival stem, -d- is an adjectival article (which in turn is analyzed as a relative complementizer) and -er is an agreement head, AgrA. The xAP further contains movement traces/ copies of the nominal which jeder quantifies over. One of these copies is in the complement of je where, I claim, it supplies the restriction (distributive key or range). The components of the proposal are all motivated independently of jeder: (i) the morphology of jeder identifies it as adjectival, hence an analysis of it must incorporate an (independently motivated) adjectival syntax; (ii) a comparison with the distributive dual quantifier beid- ‘both’ further informs the syntactic analysis internal to the word jeder; and (iii) a comparison of je in jeder and in other je-words suggests that je takes an N(P) complement, a fact that confirms the expectations regarding the selectional properties of je raised by the preceding discussion. Finally, a comparison of jeder with counterparts of it in other languages, as well as with other complex determiners in German, will broaden the scope and corroborate important aspects of the present proposal.
-
Two locations for negation: Evidence from Kashmiri
Author(s): Sadaf Munshi and Rajesh Bhattpp.: 205–240 (36)More LessKashmiri has two structural positions for negation: a high position associated with focus and a low position associated with tense. In verb second environments, the difference between these two positions is neutralized on the surface and irrespective of the location where negation is generated, it appears as a suffix on the finite verb. But in non-verb second environments such as conditionals and correlatives the two negations can be teased apart. In these environments, the high negation appears as a suffix on material such as relative phrases and the conditional marker while the low negation appears as a suffix on the finite verb. The high vs. low distinction has semantic implications: in certain environments where the negation is arguably ‘expletive’, negation can only be high.
-
Failure to agree is not a failure: φ-Agreement with post-verbal subjects in Hebrew
Author(s): Omer Premingerpp.: 241–278 (38)More LessBased on the patterns of phi-agreement with post-verbal subjects in Hebrew, I argue against the idea that failure to establish a phi-agreement relation between a phi-probe and its putative target (e.g., due to intervention) results in ungrammaticality, or a “crash”; at the same time, I demonstrate that phi-agreement also cannot be optional. At first glance, these two claims—that phi-agreement is neither optional, nor does its failure result in ungrammaticality—might seem contradictory. However, I argue that there is a third possibility, which is in fact the only one that can account for the data under consideration: phi-agreement must be attempted by every phi-probe; but if it fails (e.g., due to the presence of an intervener), its failure is systematically tolerated. tolerated.
Most Read This Month
Article
content/journals/15699900
Journal
10
5
false

-
-
Antisymmetry and the lexicon
Author(s): Richard S. Kayne
-
-
-
On productivity
Author(s): Charles Yang
-
- More Less