Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (523) (remove)
Language
- English (523) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (523)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (523)
Keywords
- Japanisch (32)
- Koreanisch (30)
- Informationsstruktur (26)
- Koordination <Linguistik> (21)
- Nominalphrase (20)
- Computerlinguistik (17)
- Pronomen (16)
- Wortstellung (16)
- Ellipse <Linguistik> (15)
- Arabisch (14)
Institute
This paper explores the conundrum posed by two different control constructions in Yucatec Maya, a Mayan language spoken by around 800,000 speakers in the Yucatán Peninsula and northern Belize. Basic syntactic structure of the language is introduced, and a general SBCG treatment of control in YM is presented, alongside with an example of motion verbs as control matrices. The unruly case of intransitive subjunctive control, where the controllee appears with an unexpected status (incompletive) and without set-A morphology, is discussed and a proposal to treat it as nominalization is evaluated. The nominalization proposal is rejected based on the following grounds: (1) nominalization tends to attract definitive morphology, which is absent from intransitive subjunctive control constructions, (2) nominalization does not truly explain the lack of set-A morphology if one desires to provide a unified account of set-A morphemes, (3) verbs bereft of otherwise expected set-A morphemes have an independent motivation in the form of agent focus constructions.
Free relatives in German basically behave as NPs. As is first noticed by Groos and Riemsdijk (1981), an interesting property of free relatives that they do not share with ordinary relative clauses is that the relative pronouns are sensitive to matrix case requirements as well as to subordinate ones.
Rawang [...] is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken by people who live in the far north of Kachin State in Myanmar (Burma), particularly along the Mae Hka ('Nmai Hka) and Maeli Hka (Mali Hka) river valleys (see map on back page); population unknown, although Ethnologue gives 100,000. In the past they had been called ‘Nung’, or (mistakenly) ‘Hkanung’, and are considered to be a sub-group of the Kachin by the Myanmar government. Until government policies put a stop to the clearing of new land in 1994, the Rawang speakers still practiced slash and burn farming on the mountainsides (they still do a bit, but only on already claimed land), in conjunction with planting paddy rice near the river. They are closely related to people on the other side of the Chinese border in Yunnan classified as either Dulong or Nu(ng) (see LaPolla 2001, 2003 on the Dulong language). In this paper, I will be discussing the word-class-changing constructions found in Rawang, using data of the Mvtwang (Mvt River) dialect of Rawang, which is considered the most central of those dialects in Myanmar and so has become something of a standard for writing and inter-group communication.
Khoekhoe, a Central Khoisan language, has been claimed to have a clause-second position and topological fields similar to German and Dutch. The position in front of the clause-second position can be occupied by either the matrix verb or a dependent. We argue that monomoraic words are exempt from the general head-final order of Khoekhoe and suggest that this can give rise to discontinuous constituents, where second-position clitics intervene within the VP. We show that this idea provides a simple account of Khoekhoe word order variation and formalize it within a linearization-based HPSG analysis that has a wider scope than the previous Minimalist analyses of Khoekhoe and that is compatible with evidence from tonology.
Departing from the exhaustive indexation, syntax-driven approach to binding, we argued for an alternative, semantics-oriented rationale for binding principles. Under this new understanding of the nature of grammatical constraints on anaphoric binding, these principles are viewed as contributing to circumscribe the contextually determined semantic value of anaphoric nominals. This conceptual shift helps to find a fully fledged formal specification of binding principles with the HPSG lean description formalism where these constraints are entered in the grammar as part of the information kept at the lexical entries of anaphoric expressions.
This paper shows that several typologically unrelated languages share the tendency to avoid voiced sibilant affricates. This tendency is explained by appealing to the phonetic properties of the sounds, and in particular to their aerodynamic characteristics. On the basis of experimental evidence it is shown that conflicting air pressure requirements for maintaining voicing and frication are responsible for the avoidance of voiced affricates. In particular, the air pressure released from the stop phase of the affricate is too high to maintain voicing, which in consequence leads to a devoicing of the frication part.
In Dutch V-final clauses the verbs tend to form a cluster in which the main verb is separated from its syntactic arguments by one or more other verbs. In HPSG the link between the main verb and its arguments is canonically modeled in terms of argument inheritance, also known as argument composition or generalized raising. When applied to Dutch, this treatment yields a number of problems, making incorrect predictions about the interaction with the binding principles and the passive lexical rule. To repair them this paper proposes an alternative, in which subject raising and complement raising are modeled in terms of different devices. More specifically, while subject raising is modeled in terms of lexical constraints, as for English, complement raising is modeled in terms of a more general constraint on headed phrases. This new constraint not only accounts for complement raising out of verbal complements, it also deals with complement raising out of adjectival and adpositional complements, as well as with complement raising out of PP adjuncts and subject NPs. It is, hence, a rather powerful device. To prevent overgeneration we add a number of constraints. For Dutch, the relevant constraints block complement raising out of CPs, V-initial VPs and P-initial PPs. For English, the Empty COMPS Constraint is sufficient to block complement raising entirely.
As the name of the framework suggests, one of the driving forces behind traditional HPSG analyses is the notion of head. With the exception of a few non-headed constructions (i.e., mostly coordination), constructions are typically seen as being headed by a particular word or phrase with the nonhead constituting a complement, specifier or adjunct. The head determines the internal composition of a phrase and is responsible for its external distribution. Moreover, syntactic headedness, as determined by morphosyntactic criteria, is typically assumed to coincide with semantic headness. In the case of NPs, for instance, this means that the semantic contribution (including the index) of the entire phrase is provided by the element that is the head by morphosyntactic criteria (typically the noun).
In this paper, we intend to challenge this view of heads on the basis of two constructions from English. In both instances, we will argue that the constituents that are responsible for the internal combinatorial make-up of the phrase do not constitute heads because they fail both to determine the external distribution of the phrase and to contribute the semantic index of the projected phrase. At the same time, however, we will show that it is possible to view these cases not as random departures from more well-behaved headed constructions, but instead as particular instantiations of more general construction types which do not impose strict conditions on external headedness.