Subject-object agreement markers in Moksha-Mordvin complement clauses

2020 ◽  
Vol XVI (3) ◽  
pp. 480-532
Author(s):  
N.V. Serdobolskaya ◽  
◽  
A.D. Egorova ◽  
◽  
Author(s):  
András Bárány

This chapter turns to object agreement with personal pronouns in Hungarian. Pronouns are interesting because they do not always trigger agreement with the verb: first person objects never trigger object agreement (morphology), and second person pronouns only do with first person singular subjects. It is proposed that the distribution of object agreement is a morphological effect and argues that all personal pronouns do in fact trigger agreement, but agreement is not always spelled out. This means that Hungarian has an inverse agreement system, where the spell-out of agreement is determined by the relative person feature (or person feature sets) of the subject and the object. A formally explicit analysis of the syntax and the morphological spell-out of agreement is provided.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline Frizelle ◽  
Paul A. Thompson ◽  
Mihaela Duta ◽  
Dorothy V. M. Bishop

Background: Down syndrome (DS) is associated with poor language skills that seem disproportionate to general nonverbal ability, but the nature and causes of this deficit are unclear. We assessed how individuals with DS understand complex linguistic constructions, and considered how cognitive ability and memory and impact the ability of those with DS to process these sentence types. Methods: There were three groups participating in the study: children with DS (n = 33) and two control groups composed of children with cognitive impairment of unknown aetiology (CI) (n = 32) and children with typical development (n = 33). The three groups did not differ on raw scores on a test of non-verbal cognitive ability. Using a newly devised animation task, we examined how well individuals with DS (n = 33) could understand relative clauses, complement clauses and adverbial clauses compared to children with CI and typically developing controls. Participants also completed the Test for the Reception of Grammar-2, three measures of memory (forward and backward digit recall, visuo-spatial memory) and a hearing screen. Results: Results indicated that (1) with the exception of intransitive subject relative clauses, children with DS performed at floor on all other complex sentences, (2) they performed at a significantly lower level than both control groups, and (3) DS status accounted for a significant proportion of the variance over and above memory skills. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that children with DS have a disproportionate difficulty understanding complex sentences compared to two control groups matched on mental age. Furthermore, their understanding of syntax is not completely explained by poor cognitive or memory skills, rather it appears to be a specific deficit that may distinguish children with DS from other neurodevelopmental disorders.


Author(s):  
Nikolett Mus

A cross-linguistically rare interrogative category (i.e., an interrogative verb with the meaning ‘say what’) is observed in the North Samoyedic (Uralic) languages. The interrogative verb in these languages is used in content questions, and functions as the predicate of the main or the embedded clause. It takes the regular verb morphemes with two exceptions: it (i) does not display object agreement, and (ii) cannot combine with the regular past tense morpheme. Furthermore, there is also an ordering restriction on multiple questions containing the interrogative verb. The morphosyntactic evidence suggests that the North Samoyedic interrogative verb is analyzed as a result of a wh-object incorporation. Kokkuvõte. Nikolett Mus: Põhjasamojeedi keelte küsiverb tähendusega ‘mida ütlema’. Põhjasamojeedi (uurali) keeltes esineb keeleüleselt haruldane küsiv kategooria (st küsiverb tähendusega ’mis asja’). Nendes keeltes kasutatakse küsiverbi sisuküsimustes ja küsiverb toimib pea- või kõrvallauses predikaadina, liitudes tavaliste verbimorfeemidega, välja arvatud kahel juhul: küsiverb (i) ei väljenda objektiühildumist, ja (ii) ei kombineeru lihtmineviku morfeemiga. Lisaks on küsiverbil teatavad järjestuspiirangud küsiverbi sisaldava kompleksküsimuse korral. Morfosüntaktilised andmed viitavad, et põhjasamojeedi küsiverb on analüüsitav kui küsisõnalise objekti inkorporatsiooni tulemus. Аннотация. Николетт Муш: Северосамодийский вопросительный глагол ‘что сказать’. В северосамодийских языках (уральская языковая семья) есть типологически редкий вопросительный глагол со значением ‘что сказать’. Этот глагол используется в частных вопросах в качестве предиката главного или подчиненного предложения. Он принимает обычные словоизменительные суффиксы за двумя исключениями: он не сочетается (i) с объектным спряжением и (ii) с показателем прошедшего времени индикатива. Кроме того, существуют ограничения на относительный порядок вопросов с вопросительным глаголом. Данные морфосинтаксиса свидетельствуют о том, что северносамодийский вопросительный глагол возник в результате инкорпорации объекта — вопросительного местоимениия.


Author(s):  
Luís Filipe Cunha

In European Portuguese, both the Condicional (approximately corresponding to the English structure would + Infinitive) and the construction ir (‘go’) in the Imperfect + Infinitive express posteriority with respect to a given past interval. In this paper, I show that, in spite of their seemingly similar behaviour, these two forms diverge in a number of significant aspects. In particular, and taking into account the analysis of contexts such as if-clauses and some subordinate complement clauses introduced by factive and intensional verbs, I will argue that, while the Condicional is mainly used to provide modal information, even losing its basic temporal value, the structure ir (‘go’) in the Imperfect + Infinitive always induces a temporal relation of futurity in a past domain, irrespective of the possible modal meanings accompanying it.


2008 ◽  
pp. 189-197
Author(s):  
Snjezana Kordic

This article provides a survey of major findings on complex sentences in the Slavic languages. It treats coordinate and subordinate clauses, together with their conjunction. As for the subordinate clauses, it deals with complement clauses.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-158
Author(s):  
María José López-Couso ◽  
Belén Méndez-Naya

This article discusses some of the potential problems derived from the syntactic annotation of historical corpora, especially in connection with low-frequency phenomena. By way of illustration, we examine the parsing scheme used in the Penn Parsed Corpora of Historical English (PPCHE) for clauses introduced by so-called ‘minor declarative complementizers’, originally adverbial links which come to be occasionally used in complementizer function. We show that the functional similarities between canonical declarative complement clauses introduced by the major declarative links that and zero and those headed by minor declarative complementizers are not captured by the PPCHE parsing, where the latter constructions are not tagged as complement clauses, but rather as adverbial clauses. The examples discussed reveal that, despite the obvious advantages of parsed corpora, annotation may sometimes mask interesting linguistic facts.


Linguistica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-137
Author(s):  
Susanne Wurmbrand ◽  
Iva Kovač ◽  
Magdalena Lohninger ◽  
Caroline Pajančič ◽  
Neda Todorović

This paper shows that the distribution of (non‑)finiteness in the South Slavic languages reflects an implicational scale along an independently attested semantic complementation hierarchy (e.g., Givón 1980). We suggest that in the South Slavic languages, finiteness is triggered by clausal agreement features associated with different syntactic heads. Building on a complexity approach to the complementation hierarchy, we propose that cross-linguistic variation in finiteness and variation across different types of complements are the result of language-specific differences in the distribution of agreement features. More broadly, we conclude that there is no (universal) semantic correlate of (non‑)finiteness and, contra cartographic approaches, that finiteness is not confined to a particular domain in the clause. Following Adger (2007), we argue that finiteness can be distributed over all clausal domains.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document