Some notes on central causal clauses in Venetian

The goal of this paper is to provide novel evidence in favor of an integration of Haegeman’s (2002) taxonomy of adverbial clause subordination by discussing some data from C-introduced causal constructs in Venetian, the Italo-Romance dialect spoken in the city of Venice. Haegeman’s model is based on a two-class categorization of adverbial structures into central clauses, in which matrix-clause phenomena (such as the licensing of some sentence-initial or sentence-final discourse particle-like items, XP-fronting) are excluded, and peripheral clauses, in which these phenomena are licit. The external-syntactic distinction predicted by this model, namely a semantic differentiation resulting from TP/VP-adjunction for central vs. CP-adjunction for peripheral adverbial clauses, has severe consequences for the internal syntax of the a/m constructions, the most striking being the absence of the upper projections of the Split CP of central constructs. The data presented in this paper, however, suggest that (at least) in Venetian, (some) main-clause phenomena may also be licensed in central adverbial clauses under specific circumstances. Additionally, it will be shown that the conclusions drawn from the observation of the Venetian data match the behavior of the same constructions in Standard Italian, as well as in other languages, under the very same conditions.

Negation in Musgum

This paper studies the negation construction in musgum language.We collect the musgum data on negation from native users and analyse them in terms of Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetry and Rizzi’s (1997) split CP approaches. We identify the free negation element (á:à) and several negation markers (kài, kirkài, kài tiŋ and kirkài tiŋ) that close independent and complex clauses. In complex structures with completive and relative clauses, the main clause cannot contain a negation marker. In complex structure with adverbial clause, negation marker can be present in main and adverbial clauses. We discover that Negation Phrase is the highest projection, higher than Force Phrase, rejecting the split‐CP projections order of Rizzi (1997). When the negation head is generated, Inflexion Phrase is subject to heavy pied‐piping. It occupies the specifier of Negation Phrase.

How large is the left periphery of Present-Day German? A unifying approach to multiply-filled-prefield configurations

In this article, it is proposed that different types of apparent “non-V2” arrangements in Present-Day German matrix clauses which are generally treated independently are similar in nature and derivable by means of a limited number of syntactic operations that do not challenge or put into question the classical account of German as a structural V2 language. The analysis reveals that an adequate formalization of all possible left-peripheral word orders must rest upon three basic assumptions: (i) V2 in Modern German main clauses can be neither movement to the head position whose specifier hosts a moved or base-generated XP nor (necessarily) movement to Force°, but can be generalized to raising of the Vfin to Fin°; (ii) German has a Split CP which is fundamentally similar, mutatis mutandis, to that of Romance languages; (iii) this language is subject to the bottleneck effect, which states that all movement into the CP passes through [Spec,FinP]. The theoretical approach pursued here attempts to account for left dislocation and other (frame-setting and non-frame-setting) topicalization phenomena by assuming that in German (differently from other Split-CP languages), XPs base-generated in the middle field move to their surface position by cyclical movement within the left periphery. This allows us to avoid ad hoc explanations, as well as violations of the bottleneck effect.

The Syntax and Semantics of Cantonese Particles in the Left Periphery

Adopting the cartographic approach, this paper proposes syntactic positions for all left-periphery particles above the tense phrase (TP) in Cantonese. These include both sentence-final particles and sentence-initial particles that can be used in isolation as interjections. Based on previous syntactic proposals for the left periphery, a modification of Rizzi’s (2001) split-complementizer phrase (Split-CP) structure is proposed. A Deictic Phrase (DeicP) is added above the finite phrase (FinP) for the Cantonese “tense” particles laa3 and lei4(ge3). Then, based on a number of proposals inspired by Speas and Tenny (2003), two functional phrases are added above the force phrase (ForceP) – a higher affect phrase (AffectP) for Cantonese sentence-initial particles and a lower discourse phrase (DiscourseP) for most of the sentence-final particles. The resulting structure is tentatively proposed to account for the word order of all left-periphery particles in Cantonese, bringing the description of their syntax closer in line with a number of proposals based on left-periphery particles in other languages. This proposal includes a three-way distinction of the functions and meanings of left-periphery particles: 1) particles that lie between ForceP and TP do not refer directly to the discourse context; 2) particles that head DiscourseP do refer directly to the discourse; and 3) particles that head AffectP refer to the discourse and express human emotions.

Object Cliticization in Standard Arabic

<p>Unlike displaced lexical DP objects in Standard Arabic (SA) syntax, displaced pronominal objects, however, have received less critical attention especially within Rizzi’s (1997, 2004) left periphery theory and, therefore, some areas of this constructions remain poorly understood. The present paper examines pronominal object cliticization in SA, the status of the clitic, the derivation of the process and the reasons behind its obligatory movement. The analysis is couched within Minimalist Syntax (Chomsky 2001, 2005) and Split CP (Rizzi, 1997, 2004) to explain the motivation for this movement and its landing site. To achieve the aim of the study, a questionnaire containing samples of the studied structures were presented to five native speakers of Arabic who were asked to provide grammaticality judgments. It is suggested that, in this context, the object clitic can be analyzed as undergoing focus movement as a separate verbal complement like a full DP with an additional cliticization process to the head T hosting the lexical verb. </p>

Object Cliticization in Standard Arabic

<p>Unlike displaced lexical DP objects in Standard Arabic (SA) syntax, displaced pronominal objects, however, have received less critical attention especially within Rizzi’s (1997, 2004) left periphery theory and, therefore, some areas of this constructions remain poorly understood. The present paper examines pronominal object cliticization in SA, the status of the clitic, the derivation of the process and the reasons behind its obligatory movement. The analysis is couched within Minimalist Syntax (Chomsky 2001, 2005) and Split CP (Rizzi, 1997, 2004) to explain the motivation for this movement and its landing site. To achieve the aim of the study, a questionnaire containing samples of the studied structures were presented to five native speakers of Arabic who were asked to provide grammaticality judgments. It is suggested that, in this context, the object clitic can be analyzed as undergoing focus movement as a separate verbal complement like a full DP with an additional cliticization process to the head T hosting the lexical verb. </p>

The Synthetic Performances of Teochew

Huang (2015) characterizes “Modern Chinese as a language of high analyticity at multiple levels” and demonstrates “a ranking of relative analyticity among the three dialects: Cantonese > Mandarin > TSM”. This paper argues that Teochew (cháoshànhuà, 潮汕話), another variety of Min, different from TSM, shows more synthetic performances than Mandarin. Chomsky’s “productivity” criterion (1970) helps distinguish lexical operations from syntactic ones. In this spirit, this paper will illustrate its arguments from two perspectives -- lexical and syntactic operations. When it comes to lexical operations, analyses on both the semantic changes within the same categories and the categorial shifts will be made. Besides, syntactic discussions on emphatic inflection, bare classifier phrases, verb-object order and other variants of V-movements in Teochew will also be demonstrated. All analyses will be put under the theoretical framework of generative grammar with the help of a cartography approach. For analyses at the lexical layer, this paper adopts Si’s 司富珍 (2012, 2017a, 2017b, 2018) XW structure, trying to capture the synthesis performances of the Teochew lexicon. As for syntactic operations, the split-CP hypothesis of Rizzi (1997, 2001, 2004) and Rizzi and Bocci (2015), the CL-to-D hypothesis of Simpson (2005), the light verb approach of Chomsky (1995) and the split-light verb hypothesis of Si 司富珍 (2018) will be used as references. Through comparative studies with Mandarin, Cantonese and other languages like English, this paper will conclude that Teochew is a dialect with higher synthesis compared with Mandarin.

Main and embedded clausal asymmetry in the history of English

In this paper, I sketch the CP layer in main and embedded clauses in the history of English. The Modern English main clause is not as easily expandable as the Old English one, but the reverse is true in the subordinate clause, where Modern English has a more flexible embedded CP than Old English. I focus on the developments of the embedded CP. It has been claimed that Old English lacks an embedded split CP and therefore lacks embedded V2 and a host of other embedded root phenomena. I show this to be true for complements to both assertive and non-assertive verbs. In contrast, the Modern English matrix verb has an effect on the strength of the C-position. Assertive verbs in Modern English allow main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses whereas non-assertives typically do not. The main point of the paper is to chronicle the changes that ‘stretch’ the embedded clause and the changing role of main verbs. It is descriptive rather than explanatory, e.g., in terms of changes in phase-head status.

Focus Constructions in Ǹjò̩-kóo

Focusing is a universal syntactic phenomenon. That is, there is no language in the world that does not have a means of placing prominence on constituents for focus purposes. However, the formal expression of focus differs from one language to another. Some languages express focus morphologically by using distinct morphemes or elements while others employ suprasegmentally means. The paper, therefore examines the focus strategies in Ǹjò̩-Kóo. It gives a detailed description of different constituents that may be focused in the language and the changes that are triggered in the clause as a result of the focusing. Adopting the Minimalist Program of Chomsky (1995) and Cartographic analysis of Rizzi (1997) Split-CP projections within the clausal left periphery, the study investigates how focus clauses are derived in the language and reveals that the syntax of focus in the language involves two probes: focus (foc) and emphasis (emph) each of which can provoke displacement operations. The paper employs information and clause structure evidence to motivate the constituents being focused. It is also observed among other things, that the constituents that could be focused in Ǹjò̩-kóo are subject DP, object DP or object DP of preposition, possessor DP and a whole sentence, and that the language does not distinguish between sentence and verbal focus hence the same strategy is employed for both focus types.

Focus Constructions in Ǹjò̩-kóo

Focusing is a universal syntactic phenomenon. That is, there is no language in the world that does not have a means of placing prominence on constituents for focus purposes. However, the formal expression of focus differs from one language to another. Some languages express focus morphologically by using distinct morphemes or elements while others employ suprasegmentally means. The paper, therefore examines the focus strategies in Ǹjò̩-Kóo. It gives a detailed description of different constituents that may be focused in the language and the changes that are triggered in the clause as a result of the focusing. Adopting the Minimalist Program of Chomsky (1995) and Cartographic analysis of Rizzi (1997) Split-CP projections within the clausal left periphery, the study investigates how focus clauses are derived in the language and reveals that the syntax of focus in the language involves two probes: focus (foc) and emphasis (emph) each of which can provoke displacement operations. The paper employs information and clause structure evidence to motivate the constituents being focused. It is also observed among other things, that the constituents that could be focused in Ǹjò̩-kóo are subject DP, object DP or object DP of preposition, possessor DP and a whole sentence, and that the language does not distinguish between sentence and verbal focus hence the same strategy is employed for both focus types.