scholarly journals Referentiality and modifiability of incorporated nouns

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-362
Author(s):  
Marieke Olthof
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Discourse Grammar ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Referential Function

AbstractThis study investigates the pragmatic referentiality and semantic modifiability of incorporated nouns. While some researchers argue that incorporated nouns have a referential function, others claim that they are not used to refer. Similarly, some hold that incorporated nouns are modifiable, whereas other researchers maintain that they cannot be modified. In order to tease apart these conflicting views, the present study systematically investigates the cross- and intra-linguistic variation regarding the referentiality and modifiability of incorporated nouns. A pre-defined set of criteria for the identification of referentially vs. non-referentially used nouns and modifiable vs. non-modifiable nouns, taken from Functional Discourse Grammar, is applied to incorporated nouns in a sample of 21 languages. The results show variation between referentially used modifiable nouns, non-referentially used modifiable nouns and non-referentially used non-modifiable nouns, both across and within languages. In addition, referentially used modifiable incorporated nouns and non-referentially used non-modifiable incorporated nouns appear to occur independently of each other, such that the conflicting perspectives on the referentiality and modifiability of incorporated nouns may be related to differences between studies and theoretical approaches in the languages they focus on. Moreover, incorporated non-referentially used modifiable nouns are only found in languages that also show incorporated referentially used modifiable nouns, which suggests that two independent incorporation processes should be distinguished: the incorporation of modifiable nouns and the incorporation of non-modifiable nouns.

Overview

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Haspelmath
Keyword(s):  
Functional Variation ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Typological Approach ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Syntactic Properties ◽  
Indefinite Pronouns

This book examines the connections between the formal and functional (semantic and syntactic) properties of indefinite pronouns. It considers the main theoretical debates surrounding the semantic and syntactic properties of indefinite pronouns as well as the diachronic sources of the markers of indefinite pronouns. It describes the new generalizations that emerge from the typological and diachronic research and provides explanations. It also outlines the goals and methods of the typological approach, focusing on the important preconditions for typology such as the availability of data from a variety of languages. Other topics covered by the book include the space of formal and functional variation found in indefinite pronouns, implicational universals, theoretical approaches to the functions of indefinite pronouns such as the tradition of structuralist semantics, the grammaticalization of indefinite pronouns, further sources of indefinite pronouns that cannot be easily subsumed under grammaticalization, and the cross-linguistic patterning of negative indefinite pronouns.

scholarly journals Formal variation in incorporation: A typological study and a unified approach

Linguistics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marieke Olthof
Keyword(s):  
Unified Approach ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Discourse Grammar ◽  
Complex Forms ◽  
The Many

AbstractThis study investigates the formal variation in elements involved in incorporation structures. Although it has traditionally been assumed that only stems can be incorporated, several languages also show incorporation of formally more complex elements. Most theoretical approaches to incorporation are, however, limited to incorporated stems and the few that do include more complex forms consider the incorporation of simple and complex elements separate processes. The present study, by contrast, recognizes the many shared characteristics between incorporation structures with simple and complex elements and adopts the approach to incorporation advocated in Functional Discourse Grammar, which proposes a unified account of incorporated simple stems, derived stems, inflected words, phrases and clauses. In addition, the study hypothesizes that these forms constitute an implicational hierarchy, i. e., that more complex incorporated elements only occur in languages that also allow the incorporation of all simpler forms. Results from a typological study of incorporated elements in a variety sample of 30 incorporating languages show that all forms except clauses are indeed found incorporated and that the hypothesized implicational pattern holds. The study thus demonstrates that the incorporation of simple and complex elements is interrelated, supporting a unified treatment of incorporated elements of different degrees of complexity.

Let's talk about you and me

2014 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 465-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
HEDDE ZEIJLSTRA
Keyword(s):  
Blocking Effect ◽  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
First Person ◽  
Second Person ◽  
Maximize Presupposition ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Cross

A recent development in Dutch concerns the deictic interpretation of the second-person singular pronoun je, which may refer to the speaker only. In such examples the subject refers to the speaker – not the hearer – but at the same time, these examples come along with an implicature stating that the hearer would have done the same thing if s/he were in the speaker's situation. Why is it the case that a second-person singular pronoun may refer to the speaker only? And why is it that when speaker-referring je is used, it always comes along with an implicature of the kind described above? In this article I argue that this behavior of Dutch je is a consequence of its semantically unmarked status with respect to the first-person singular pronoun ik. Along the lines of Sauerland (2008), I propose that Dutch je only carries one feature, [PARTICIPANT], whereas ik carries two features: [SPEAKER] and [PARTICIPANT]. Consequently, je may in principle refer to all participants in the conversation, enabling je to refer to the speaker as well. The fact that je does not normally refer to the speaker but to the hearer only then follows as some kind of blocking effect resulting from application of the principle of Maximize Presupposition. The paper concludes by spelling out the predictions that this analysis makes for the cross-linguistic variation with respect to the readings that participant and other pronouns may yield.

(Non-)intervention in A-movement

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Hartman
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
Intervention Effects ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Parallel Movement ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Subject Raising

This article explores ‘defective intervention’ effects in a range of A-movement constructions in English. Moving beyond an old observation that English lacks intervention in standard subject-to-subject raising constructions, I present new data showing that English does in fact display intervention in a variety of other NP-raising contexts. I explore the consequences of this expanded data set, and propose an account of intervention that aims to capture both the cross-linguistic variation between English and other languages, and the cross-constructional variation within English. Keywords: intervention; raising; tough-movement; raising-to-object; passivization; PP-reanalysis; parallel movement; reconstruction; A-movement

scholarly journals Directionality and Resultativity: The Cross-linguistic Correlation Revisited

Nordlyd ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Minjeong Son
Keyword(s):  
Careful Examination ◽  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
Directed Motion ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Motion Constructions ◽  
Tight Correlation

Recent approaches to the cross-linguistic variation in the expressions of directed motion assume a tight correlation between adjectival resultative and directed motion constructions (e.g., Beck and Snyder 2001, Mateu and Rigau 2001; 2002, McIntyre 2004, Beavers et al. 2004). Beck and Snyder (2001), in particular, argue that languages that allow adjectival resultatives also allow directed motion with goal PP (or telic Path PP) based on the compounding parameter proposed by Snyder (1995; 2001). This paper, however, shows that such ‘macro’-parametric approaches to the cross-linguistic variation (in directed motion) fail when individual languages are investigated in detail. Based on Korean, Japanese, Hebrew, Czech, and Indonesian, I show that there is no necessary correlation between directed motion (i.e., goal PP) constructions and the availability of resultative phrases, and that the previous parameter approaches face challenges in explaining the facts drawn from these languages. I further show that the variation in directed motion is better explained by careful examination of individual adpositions that differ from one language (e.g., English) to another (e.g., Korean).

scholarly journals Cross-linguistic Variation of Binding Possibilities and Parameterized DP Hypothesis Revisited

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Zhang Zhiyi
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
The Cross

The former study approached the cross-linguistic variation of binding possibilities from the perspective of parameterized DP hypothesis. However, the parameterized DP hypothesis failed to explain some syntactic truth as regards the binding relation between possessive NP and pronoun. It has been examined in the present study that different languages have different means to form possessive structure and different mechanisms work in obligatory and optional binding. The c-commanding relation is the semantic basis for the optional binding between the possessive NP and the pronoun. For languages with possessive NP entering derivation after T, possessive NP fails to c-command pronoun and there will be no optional binding. For languages with possessive NP or morpheme entering derivation before T, possessive NP or morpheme succeeds to c-command pronoun and there is optional binding.

scholarly journals Correction by Focus: Cleft Constructions and the Cross-Linguistic Variation in Phonological Form

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Greif ◽  
Stavros Skopeteas
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
Lexical Tones ◽  
Contrastive Focus ◽  
Focus Structure ◽  
Production Experiment ◽  
Phonological Form ◽  
Cleft Constructions ◽  
The Cross

A challenging issue of cross-linguistic variation is that the same syntactic construction may appear in different arrays of contexts depending on language. For instance, cleft constructions appear with contrastive focus in English, but in a larger array of contexts in French. A part of the cross-linguistic variation may be due to prosodic differences, since prosodic possibilities determine the array of focus structures that can be mapped onto one and the same syntactic configuration. In the present study, we compare languages with flexible nuclear-accent placement (English, German), with languages that do not use this prosodic strategy (French, Mandarin Chinese). In a speech production experiment, we examine the prosodic realization of contrastive focus and identify prosodic reflexes of focus in all languages. The presence of different phonetic reflexes of focus suggests that – anything else being equal – the same syntactic constructions should be possible in the same array of contexts. In an acceptability study with written questionnaires, we examined the felicity of cleft constructions in contexts licensing a focus within the cleft clause. This focus structure is orthogonal to the preferred focus structure of cleft constructions and can appear in cases of second-occurrence foci (in contexts of correction). The obtained judgments reveal a distinction between languages with flexible nuclear-accent placement (English, German) and languages with other types of reflexes of focus (French, Chinese): languages of the former type have an advantage in using cleft constructions with a focus within the cleft clause, which shows that the array of contexts of using clefts in English and German is not a proper subset of the array of contexts applying to the same constructions in French and Chinese. The obtained differences can be explained by the role of prosodic devices and corroborate the view that prosodic reflexes of focus have different semantic-pragmatic import: it is easier to establish a focus structure that is orthogonal to the syntax in a language with flexible nuclear-accent placement (English, German); this does not hold for prosodic correlates of focus that reinforce the articulation of prosodic constituents (French) or the articulation of lexical tones (Chinese).

scholarly journals The development of locative relative markers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Ballarè ◽  
Guglielmo Inglese
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
European Languages ◽  
Social Variation ◽  
The Cross

Abstract The accessibility hierarchy was first proposed by Keenan & Comrie (1977) to describe the cross-linguistic distribution of relative markers in terms of likelihood of relativization of different syntactic roles. The hierarchy is also commonly believed to reflect constraints on possible changes in the domain of relativization. For example, the hierarchy predicts that locative relatives that develop into general relativizers should expand their functional range in a step-by-step fashion from lower to higher roles. In this paper, we revise existing claims about the diachrony of locative relatives. In doing so, we survey known cases of locative relatives that develop into general relativizers and we also discuss data from linguistic variation in non-standard varieties in European languages, with a focus on social variation in Italian. As we argue, data from Italian suggests that another possible cline of development of locative relatives should be acknowledged, that is, locative > concern > subject.

Cross-Linguistic Variation in the Layered Structure of PP

2020 ◽  
pp. 191-217
Author(s):  
Hisako Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Internal Structure ◽  
Layered Structure ◽  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
Linguistic Differences ◽  
Case Morphology ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Parallel Pattern ◽  
Principled Account ◽  
Nominal Morphology

This chapter provides a novel observation concerning cross-linguistic variation regarding NP-ellipsis (henceforth NPE) inside articulated PPs and considers its theoretical implications. It first shows that although NPE is equally available in nominals in English, Chinese, and Japanese, the parallel pattern breaks down when NPE takes place within PPs. This study proposes a principled account of the cross-linguistic variation in question on the basis of (i) the layered internal structure of PPs, (ii) the syntactic reflection of fusional/non-fusional case morphology, and (iii) a phase-based analysis of ellipsis. The proposed analysis correctly predicts not only the availability of NPE within PPs but also one without PPs in English, Chinese, and Japanese. This chapter also provides theoretical implications for the role of phases in ellipsis and the cross-linguistic differences in nominal morphology.

Do gestures compensate for the omission of motion expression in speech?

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kawai Chui
Keyword(s):  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Multimodal Communication ◽  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
Motion Information ◽  
Linguistic Expression ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
Motion Event ◽  
The Cross

The present study investigates whether and to what extent motion-event gestures compensate for the omission of linguistic expression in Chinese discourse and across different languages to understand language-specificity/language-universality and the coordination of motion information across the two modalities. The Chinese conversational and narrative data consistently show that manner fog (i.e., manner absent from speech but present in gesture) was not found. Chinese speakers also demonstrate a preference for compensation — gestures tend to compensate for the lack of path content in speaking. These results differ from those for English and Turkish which do not prefer path gestures in manner-only clauses. The cross-linguistic variation provides evidence for language specificity in gestural compensation. The language-specific coordination of information in speech and gesture suggests Chinese speakers’ habitual focus of attention on PATH in multimodal communication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document