The locus of parametric variation in Bantu gender and nominal derivation

Linguistic Variation ◽

10.1075/lv.20007.fuc ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Zuzanna Fuchs ◽

Jenneke van der Wal

Keyword(s):

Morphological Variation ◽

Structural Variation ◽

Morphosyntactic Variation ◽

Parametric Variation ◽

Nominal Structure ◽

Different Types ◽

Crosslinguistic Variation

Abstract In this paper, we capture the crosslinguistic variation in Bantu nominal structure in a unified analysis of gender on n (Kramer 2014, 2015). 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 n 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 n heads differentiates “stacking” versus “non-stacking” prefixes in diminutive and augmentative derivations (morphological variation only).

Download Full-text

Wh-Expletives in Hindi-Urdu: The vP Phase

Linguistic Inquiry ◽

10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.1 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 41 (1) ◽

pp. 1-34 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Emily Manetta

Keyword(s):

Long Distance ◽

Parametric Variation ◽

Crosslinguistic Variation

This article addresses wh-displacement and wh-expletive constructions in Hindi-Urdu, accounting for parametric variation in terms of the properties of the phase-defining heads C and v. This analysis provides an understanding of a systematic set of contrasts between Kashmiri and Hindi-Urdu that suggests that crosslinguistic variation may follow from properties of specifically the phase-defining functional heads. It is then possible to construct a unified account of the various strategies of forming long-distance wh-dependencies in the two languages.

Download Full-text

Tools for annotation and comparison of structural variation

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.12516.1 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 6 ◽

pp. 1795 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Fritz J. Sedlazeck ◽

Andi Dhroso ◽

Dale L. Bodian ◽

Justin Paschall ◽

Farrah Hermes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Structural Variation ◽

Computation Time ◽

Proof Of Concept ◽

1000 Genomes Project ◽

Genomic Features ◽

1000 Genomes ◽

Gene Annotations ◽

Single Genome ◽

Different Types ◽

The Impact

The impact of structural variants (SVs) on a variety of organisms and diseases like cancer has become increasingly evident. Methods for SV detection when studying genomic differences across cells, individuals or populations are being actively developed. Currently, just a few methods are available to compare different SVs callsets, and no specialized methods are available to annotate SVs that account for the unique characteristics of these variant types. Here, we introduce SURVIVOR_ant, a tool that compares types and breakpoints for candidate SVs from different callsets and enables fast comparison of SVs to genomic features such as genes and repetitive regions, as well as to previously established SV datasets such as from the 1000 Genomes Project. As proof of concept we compared 16 SV callsets generated by different SV calling methods on a single genome, the Genome in a Bottle sample HG002 (Ashkenazi son), and annotated the SVs with gene annotations, 1000 Genomes Project SV calls, and four different types of repetitive regions. Computation time to annotate 134,528 SVs with 33,954 of annotations was 22 seconds on a laptop.

Download Full-text

Contrasting Contrastive Left-Dislocation Explications

Linguistic Inquiry ◽

10.1162/ling_a_00254 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 48 (4) ◽

pp. 543-584 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Marcel den Dikken ◽

Balázs Surányi

Keyword(s):

Recent Literature ◽

Left Periphery ◽

Parametric Variation ◽

Contrastive Topic ◽

Left Dislocation ◽

Using Data ◽

Crosslinguistic Variation ◽

Deep Anaphora

Of the three logically possible approaches to contrastive left-dislocation (CLD) (base-generation cum deep anaphora; movement cum surface anaphora; elliptical clausal juxtaposition cum resumption), two are represented prominently in the recent literature. Ott’s (2014) account treats CLD uniformly in terms of clausal juxtaposition, the first clause being stripped down to its contrastive topic via an ellipsis operation said to be akin to sluicing. He argues that this analysis is superior to Grohmann’s (2003) approach, featuring movement within a single prolific domain and late spell-out of a resumptive element. Using data mainly from Hungarian and Dutch, we reveal problems for Ott’s biclausal account that undermine its apparent conceptual appeal and compromise its descriptive accuracy. We show that the ellipsis operation required is sui generis, that the approach fails to assimilate the crosslinguistic variation attested in the availability of multiple CLD to known cases of parametric variation in the left periphery, and that it undergenerates in several empirical domains, including P-stranding and “floated” arguments. Grohmann’s movement- cum-surface-anaphora analysis as it stands also cannot handle all these data, but it can be fixed to fit the facts. For Ott’s analysis, no patches seem available. Some further empirical properties of CLD appear underivable from either of these approaches. For these, the base-generation- cum-deep-anaphora analysis can be considered.

Download Full-text

An intragenetic typology of Kwa serial verb constructions

Linguistic Typology ◽

10.1515/lingty-2017-0008 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 21 (2) ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Andrey Shluinsky

Keyword(s):

Serial Verb Constructions ◽

Semantic Maps ◽

Verb Constructions ◽

Different Types ◽

Serial Verb ◽

Syntactic Relation ◽

Crosslinguistic Variation

AbstractThis article presents the results of an intragenetic crosslinguistic study of serial verb constructions (SVCs) in Kwa. Based on a sample of 28 Kwa languages, the article examines the crucial morphosyntactic features of Kwa SVCs and the range of meanings of the two most common grammaticalized types of Kwa SVCs, ‘take’ and ‘give’ SVCs. The morphosyntactic features of SVCs considered include unity of subject, unity of TAM, unity of negation, and absence of an overt marker of a syntactic relation. The three types of ‘take’ SVCs – lative ‘take’ SVCs, instrumental ‘take’ SVCs, and objectal ‘take’ SVCs – are treated separately. Uses of different types of ‘take’ SVCs and of ‘give’ SVCs turn out to be subject to implicational cross-Kwa restrictions that are formulated via hierarchies or semantic maps. Significant crosslinguistic variation is discovered, and it is argued that sometimes the similarities between Kwa languages can be most naturally explained by independent development.

Download Full-text

La distribuzione diatopica di alcuni predicati complessi sardi

Romanistisches Jahrbuch ◽

10.1515/roja-2020-0002 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 71 (1) ◽

pp. 33-81

Author(s):

Francesco Casti

Keyword(s):

Past Participle ◽

Complex Predicates ◽

Future Time ◽

Progressive Aspect ◽

Morphosyntactic Variation ◽

Complex Predicate ◽

The Past ◽

Causative Constructions ◽

Different Types

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to examine the diatopic variation of some Sardinian complex predicates, mainly from a morphosyntactic (and, secondarily, a semantic) perspective. I will discuss (i) the distribution of Camp(idanese) ai / Log(udorese)-Nu(orese) àere a + inf(initive), lit. ‘to have to’ + inf., and of the agglutinated and univerbated forms of Log.-Nu. dèvere/dèppere + inf., lit. ‘must’ + inf., both constructions expressing (different types of) future time reference; (ii) the diffusion of person and number in the modal complex predicate Camp. fai / Log.-Nu. fàghere/fàchere a + inf., lit. ‘to do to’ + inf., with the sense of ‘being able/allowed to do something’; (iii) cases of double accusative marking of clitic pronouns expressing causee/beneficiary and undergoer, and agreement between these pronouns and the past participle of ‘make’/‘let’ in the causative constructions Camp. fai / Log.-Nu. fàghere/fàchere + inf., lit. ‘to make’ + inf., and Camp. lassai / Log.-Nu. lassare/(dassare) + inf., lit. ‘to let’ + inf.; (iv) the ongoing diffusion of the reiterative and/or purposive values of Camp. torrai a/po / Log.-Nu. torrare a/pro + inf., lit. ‘to return to’ + inf.; (v) the ongoing diffusion of the aspectual complex predicate Camp. (am)megai / Log.-Nu. (am)megare de/a + inf., conveying progressive aspect, according to Blasco Ferrer (1991; 2002) and my data. In conclusion, I will argue that isoglosses of morphosyntactic variation of Sardinian complex predicates seem to be more ‘conservative’ (in the sense of Virdis 1988) and to englobe wider and more homogenous areas, if compared to phonological isoglosses.

Download Full-text

Why call it developmental bias when it is just development?

Biology Direct ◽

10.1186/s13062-020-00289-w ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Isaac Salazar-Ciudad

Keyword(s):

Natural Selection ◽

Morphological Variation ◽

Morphological Evolution ◽

Developmental Constraints ◽

Evolution And Development ◽

Different Types ◽

Change Of Perspective ◽

Opinion Article ◽

Main Factor

AbstractThe concept of developmental constraints has been central to understand the role of development in morphological evolution. Developmental constraints are classically defined as biases imposed by development on the distribution of morphological variation.This opinion article argues that the concepts of developmental constraints and developmental biases do not accurately represent the role of development in evolution. The concept of developmental constraints was coined to oppose the view that natural selection is all-capable and to highlight the importance of development for understanding evolution. In the modern synthesis, natural selection was seen as the main factor determining the direction of morphological evolution. For that to be the case, morphological variation needs to be isotropic (i.e. equally possible in all directions). The proponents of the developmental constraint concept argued that development makes that some morphological variation is more likely than other (i.e. variation is not isotropic), and that, thus, development constraints evolution by precluding natural selection from being all-capable.This article adds to the idea that development is not compatible with the isotropic expectation by arguing that, in fact, it could not be otherwise: there is no actual reason to expect that development could lead to isotropic morphological variation. It is then argued that, since the isotropic expectation is untenable, the role of development in evolution should not be understood as a departure from such an expectation. The role of development in evolution should be described in an exclusively positive way, as the process determining which directions of morphological variation are possible, instead of negatively, as a process precluding the existence of morphological variation we have no actual reason to expect.This article discusses that this change of perspective is not a mere question of semantics: it leads to a different interpretation of the studies on developmental constraints and to a different research program in evolution and development. This program does not ask whether development constrains evolution. Instead it asks questions such as, for example, how different types of development lead to different types of morphological variation and, together with natural selection, determine the directions in which different lineages evolve.

Download Full-text

Environmental and spatial factors affect the composition and morphology of tadpole assemblages

Canadian Journal of Zoology ◽

10.1139/cjz-2017-0313 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 96 (10) ◽

pp. 1130-1136

Author(s):

N.C.S. Marques ◽

F. Nomura

Keyword(s):

Environmental Factors ◽

Morphological Variation ◽

Environmental Conditions ◽

Environmental Variables ◽

Morphological Diversity ◽

Oviposition Site ◽

Spatial Factors ◽

Assemblage Composition ◽

Different Types ◽

Spatial Coordinates

Understanding how community compositions are affected by environmental and spatial factors are essential to provide knowledge about the distributions of species. Furthermore, these factors can play a role in species morphological variation. Tadpoles can be found in different types of aquatic microhabitats, showing a considerable amount of morphological diversity. We hypothesized that tadpole morphological diversity is controlled by ecological and spatial factors other than assemblage attributes, and that tadpole assemblage composition is affected by spatial factors. To test these hypotheses, we recorded the abundance of tadpoles from different ponds, identified eight environmental variables that represented local and landscape descriptors of the ponds, recorded the spatial coordinates of the ponds, and measured the morphological variation of assemblages. Spatial factors significantly affected the composition of tadpole assemblages, while both spatial and environmental factors affected morphological variation. The ability of tadpoles to alter their morphology in response to environmental factors might be a result of poor oviposition site choice, and this probably interacts with spatial factors to control the assemblage composition of tadpoles. Morphological variation is advantageous for tadpoles because it allows them to adjust their morphology to environmental conditions. This study has demonstrated how factors that control the assemblage composition of tadpoles also drive their morphological diversity.

Download Full-text

Morphological variation in leaf domatia enables coexistence of antagonistic mites in Cinnamomum camphora

Canadian Journal of Botany ◽

10.1139/b04-152 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 83 (1) ◽

pp. 93-101 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Sachiko Nishida ◽

Akiyo Naiki ◽

Takayoshi Nishida

Keyword(s):

Discriminant Analysis ◽

Morphological Variation ◽

Canonical Discriminant Analysis ◽

Cinnamomum Camphora ◽

Ecological Interactions ◽

Natural Habitats ◽

Different Types ◽

Egg Shells ◽

Plant Herbivore

We examined variation in Cinnamomum camphora (L.) J. Presl (Lauraceae) leaf domatium morphology with respect to domatium inhabitants in the tree's natural habitats. Canonical discriminant analysis revealed that domatium morphology could be classified into four different types: pouch type, domatia with a narrow (about 0.06 mm) pubescent opening; pubescent pit type, domatia with a wider (about 0.21 mm) pubescent opening; glabrous pit type, domatia similar to the pubescent pit type but with a glabrous opening; and dish type, domatia with a wide (about 0.26 mm) glabrous opening. These four domatium types were found in different positions on a leaf, and domatia with narrower openings tended to occur in or near the position between the midrib and basal secondary veins. The four domatium types were associated, respectively, with herbivorous Eriophyidae mites and herbivorous or fungivorous Tarsonemidae mites; with carnivorous Stigmaeidae mites; with Stigmaeidae mites and egg shells or excuviae of carnivorous Phytoseiidae mites; and with egg shells or excuviae of Phytoseiidae mites. These results suggest that different mites use different domatia, even on the same C. camphora leaf. This conclusion may explain the different results in previous reports about domatium fauna. It suggests that ecological interactions within the plantherbivorecarnivore system are complicated.Key words: carnivorous mite, Cinnamomum camphora, domatia, herbivorous mite, inhabitant, morphology.

Download Full-text