Search

• Si -future exclamatives in Spanish shed new light into the notion of insubordination. • Mirative future emerges as a result of successive emancipations. • Mirative future is compatible with the 'distance-forward' deictic template. • Mirative future represents a further step into the process of grammaticalization. • Mirative future exemplifies the range of mirative meaning conveyed in Spanish. This paper examines si -future exclamatives in Spanish, both synchronically and diachronically, with the aim not only of identifying their possible contexts of use but also of distinguishing their various semantic interpretations. In addition to permitting the redefinition of the space of insubordination and assessing the role of analogy in the continuing independence of the marker si , this proposal provides an explanation of Spanish mirative future as emerging from the emancipation of a previous structure, albeit that it retains the deictic value of morphological future –which becomes a functional feature in its new discursive meaning. From this perspective, the grammaticalization of morphological future in Spanish is not contemplated as a closed cycle, but rather as a still ongoing process. More broadly speaking, this paper helps outline the semantic array of mirative meanings through providing evidence about the type of mirativity that can be conveyed in Spanish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Chinese should be categorized as a discourse-configurational language, namely a Category III language under Miyagawa's typology. • Several compelling empirical facts are presented to demonstrate that the δ-feature lowers to T in Chinese. • Chinese wh -adverbial zenme 'how come' is not base-generated in the CP periphery, but rather inserted in the TP. Assuming the Strong Uniformity Principle, Miyagawa recently proposed a typology of languages based on distinct patterns of Feature Inheritance at Phase C. In this typology, Chinese is identified as a Category II language (with the δ-feature on C and the φ-feature on T). That is, Chinese is regarded as a non-discourse-configurational language similar to English. This paper aims to review Miyagawa's discussion of Chinese and argue for its reclassification as a Category III language, that is, a discourse-configurational language like Spanish. I contend that Miyagawa's discussion of Chinese only pertains to Aboutness-shift topic, a type of topic base-generated in the CP domain across languages; as a result, his conclusions are unsustainable. On the other hand, I show that phenomena like Object Preposing, forced A-focalization, and the distribution of Familiar and Contrastive topics in non-assertive embedded clauses provide compelling evidence that the δ-feature has lowered to T in Chinese. Finally, I address a potential counterargument presented by the Chinese wh -adverbial zenme 'how come'. I argue that zenme is not base-generated in the CP periphery, but rather inserted in the TP layer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Linguistic domains (vocabulary, phonetics, syntax) do not change independently in the development of languages. • Relationships among linguistic domains do not follow a uniform or universal pattern. • Linguistic distances between all of the modern languages predict traditional phylogenetic trees to a high degree. Languages differ along multiple dimensions (lexis, phonology, morphology, syntax). Related languages descend from a common ancestor language but have diverged over time. This paper asks whether languages diverge equally along all dimensions, and, to the extent that they do not, which dimension reflects the traditional language family tree best. We computed measures of (i) lexical distance (ii) phonetic distance, and (iii) syntactic distance. The measures were computed on all words and sentences extracted from a corpus of translations of four relatively short English texts into another four Germanic languages (Danish, Dutch, German, Swedish), five Romance languages (French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish) and six Slavic languages (Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Polish, Slovakian, Slovenian). We examined the correlation structure of the distances for all pairs of Germanic (10), Romance (10) and Slavic (15) languages (i.e., within-family comparisons only). The results indicate that the linguistic dimensions are generally correlated (weakly but significantly), and that the correlations are stronger for pairs within families than when all 35 pairs are examined together. Cladistic family trees correlate best with the lexical distance (0.851 < r < 0.887). This confirms that the genealogical language trees are predominantly based on lexical rather than phonetic or syntactic considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]