1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Fast Track Listing

Linguistic Variation - Online First

Online First articles are the published Version of Record, made available as soon as they are finalized and formatted. They are in general accessible to current subscribers, until they have been included in an issue, which is accessible to subscribers to the relevant volume

4 results

    • The locus of parametric variation in Bantu gender and nominal derivation

      Available online: 16 July 2021
      More Less
      Abstract

      In this paper, we capture the crosslinguistic variation in Bantu nominal structure in a unified analysis of gender on ( ). We demonstrate that this analysis accounts for the morphosyntactic properties of basic nouns as well as locative and diminutive derivations. Moreover, it allows us to capture intra- and inter-language morphosyntactic variation by reference to just three parameters – one strictly morphological and two structural. The presence of one or two heads, and the size of the complement distinguish between different types of locatives (structural variation); the presence or absence of a spell-out rule of adjacent heads differentiates “stacking” versus “non-stacking” prefixes in diminutive and augmentative derivations (morphological variation only).

    • The relative order of foci and polarity complementizers

      Author(s): Elena Callegari
      Available online: 10 June 2021
      More Less
      Abstract

      According to suggested hierarchy of the left periphery, fronted foci (FOC) can never precede polarity complementizers (PolC); yet languages like Bulgarian and Macedonian appear to display precisely such an ordering configuration. On the basis of a cross-linguistic comparison of ten Slavic languages, I argue that in the Slavic subgroup the possibility of having a focus precede PolC is dependent on the morphological properties of the complementizer itself: in languages where the order FOC < PolC is acceptable, PolC is a complex morpheme derived through the incorporation of a lower functional head with a higher one. The order FOC < PolC is then derived by giving overt spell-out to the intermediate copy of PolC rather than to the topmost one. In turn, this option is linked to the possibility, recorded in all languages which allow for FOC < PolC, to also realize the morpheme expressing interrogative polarity as an enclitic particle attaching to fronted foci.

    • Revisiting extraction and subextraction patterns from arguments

      Available online: 19 April 2021
      More Less
      Abstract

      Extraction and subextraction tend to receive separate attention in syntax, which leads to the assumption that they should be analyzed independently, even though they both illustrate an asymmetry between subjects and objects. By looking at various phenomena in English, German, Spanish and Norwegian I propose that this parallel behavior is not accidental, but that there is a previously unnoticed generalization: subextraction is allowed iff extraction is possible and the target of subextraction is not an indirect object. I propose that a revised version of Spec-to-Spec antilocality ( ) is necessary: movement of and out of an XP must cross a () ( ), i.e. the set of all projections of a head. This version of antilocality can derive effects, , and their exceptions; and effects and their neutralization, extending them to subextraction. However, antilocality on its own cannot derive the extraction-subextraction asymmetry in indirect objects. I propose that the Principle of Minimal Compliance (PMC) ( ) can suspend antilocality if agree between a probe and a goal has happened. The version adopted here will allow extraction of the whole XP, but disallow extraction of its specifier due to the lack of an agree relation. Antilocality and the PMC combined also make the right predictions in other domains such as the lack of -support in matrix subject questions and A-movement of the subject in declarative clauses, providing evidence that antilocality is a constraint that should apply to (at least) both A and A′-movement.

    • (No) variation in the grammar of alternatives

      Available online: 22 March 2021
      More Less
      Abstract

      The paper reports the results of an in-depth crosslinguistic study of intervention effects and the grammar of alternatives in a typologically diverse sample of five languages: Palestinian Arabic (Afro-Asiatic, Semitic), Russian (Indo-European, Slavic), Samoan (Austronesian, Oceanic), Turkish (Altaic, Turkic), and Yoruba (Niger-Congo, Defoid). In all of these languages, we find an interesting asymmetry in that focus evaluation interrupts question evaluation and causes an intervention effect, but not vice versa. We take our data to inform the crosslinguistic analysis of two alternative-evaluating operators, the squiggle operator and the question operator. To capture the observed absence of variation, we propose two semantic universals: The squiggle operator unselectively evaluates all alternatives in its scope. The question operator, on the other hand, is selective.

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error