Search

One of the most significant results in syntax has been a deep empirical and, to some degree, theoretical understanding of the argument/adjunct distinction, which underlies a range of superficially disparate phenomena. Therefore, any phenomenon that seems to challenge the argument/adjunct distinction merits careful examination. This paper investigates just such a phenomenon: proleptic PPs. Previous claims about the argument/adjunct status of proleptic PPs are contradictory and mostly unsubstantiated. The paper subjects proleptic PPs to argument/adjunct diagnostics and shows that they unambiguously pattern as arguments: they cannot iterate, survive do so–replacement, or be stranded under vP-pseudoclefting; reconstruct for Condition C under vP-preposing; and are L-selected. They also pattern as arguments on a novel argument/adjunct diagnostic developed here, selectional switch: if adding XP to a structure changes the selectional interactions between a head Y and some ZP ≠ XP, then XP is an argument. Finally, the paper considers counterarguments to the view it defends, showing that they are unsuccessful or irrelevant. Thus, even XPs whose argument/adjunct status initially seems murky can turn out on closer scrutiny to pattern unambiguously as one or the other, supporting the traditional but not uncontested view that the argument/adjunct distinction runs deep, and suggesting that it may be categorical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I offer a syntactic approach to the formation of complex denominal verbs in Latin. Two basic types of prefixed locative denominal verbs can be distinguished in this language: location ones "agglutinate" a PP expressing location, whereas locatum ones contain a noun expressing the locatum object. Assuming a syntactic distinction between Incorporation and Conflation in denominal verb formation, I claim that prefixed location verbs are formed via Incorporation (i.e. Internal Merge), whereas prefixed locatum verbs are formed via Conflation (i.e. External Merge). Unprefixed locative verbs can only be interpreted as locatum predicates, but unlike prefixed locatum verbs, they are analyzed as involving a possessive relation and as being formed via incorporation. The present approach also provides an explanation of why Romance locatum verbs, unlike location ones, are not necessarily prefixed. It is also claimed that unprefixed and prefixed locatum verbs in Romance are formed via incorporation rather than via conflation, its reason being related to the typological shift from the presence of a typical conflation pattern in satellite-framed Latin to a lack of it in verb-framed Romance languages. Finally, I show that Latin prefixed denominal verbs and prefixed deadjectival ones are all telic and project a ResultP in syntax. In contrast, this projection can be argued to be absent from unprefixed denominal and deadjectival verbs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we analyze an unusual type of right dislocation in Zulu. We demonstrate that the construction in question combines A-movement of a DP out of an embedded finite CP into a matrix argument position (raising-to-object; RtO) with right dislocation of both the raised DP and the clause out of which it raises. The existence of such a construction is noteworthy for several reasons. First, the conclusion that Zulu allows A-movement out of a finite CP is at odds with standard Minimalist analyses of raising and also with the alternative analysis of RtO from finite clauses proposed in , ). Second, on our proposed analysis, RtO can take place out of a CP-complement, which is subsequently dislocated and adjoined to a maximal projection, supporting , who argue that movement from an extraposed CP happens before CP-dislocation. Our findings thus provide a strong argument for a movement analysis of CP-extraposition. We finally conclude that these constructions present a number of complications for recent analyses of right dislocation as leftward movement plus clausal ellipsis (, and Ott and de Vries ()), due to the interaction between A-movement and dislocation and the word order resulting from CP-extraposition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article two hypotheses about the relationship of verbal and adnominal agreement are proposed: first, it is claimed that languages tend to have adnominal agreement only if they also have verbal agreement, but not vice versa. Second, it is argued that languages with adnominal agreement are areally restricted, while languages with verbal agreement are not. A sample of languages was selected to test these hypotheses, and both are confirmed by the data. The article closes with an admittedly speculative explanation of the hypotheses involving patterns of grammaticalization of different types of agreement markers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We used free association and verbal fluency tasks to investigate verbargument constructions (VACs) and the ways in which their processing is sensitive to statistical patterns of usage (verb type-token frequency distribution, VAC-verb contingency, verb-VAC semantic prototypicality). In experiment 1, 285 native speakers of English generated the first word that came to mind to fill the V slot in 40 sparse VAC frames such as ‘he ____ across the. . . .', ‘it ____ of the. . . .', etc. In experiment 2, 40 English speakers generated as many verbs that fit each frame as they could think of in a minute. For each VAC, we compared the results from the experiments with corpus analyses of verb selection preferences in 100 million words of usage and with the semantic network structure of the verbs in these VACs. For both experiments, multiple regression analyses predicting the frequencies of verb types generated for each VAC show independent contributions of (i) verb frequency in the VAC, (ii) VAC-verb contingency and (iii) verb prototypicality in terms of centrality within the VAC semantic network. VAC processing involves rich associations, tuned by verb type and token frequencies and their contingencies of usage, which interface syntax, lexis and semantics. We consider the implications for the mental representation of VACs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The grammatical status of final particles in spoken English, such as then, though, anyway, and but, is undefined, as the various labels used in the literature (e.g. connectors, linking adverbials, conjuncts) show. This indeterminacy derives from the functional diversity of these particles. They not only link units of (spoken) discourse, but may also create a link between a discourse unit and an implied proposition; they are used to express subjective meanings and to modify illocutionary force. As such particles represent a borderline case between grammar and pragmatics, they invite discussion of the usefulness of a strict grammar-pragmatics divide and suggest a conception of grammar that goes beyond the level of 'well-formed' sentences. A distinction will be made between 'microgrammar', which refers to sentence-internal strucural relations, and 'macrogrammar', referring to structural relations beyond isolated sentences. Final particles are analyzed as grammatical elements on the macrogrammatical level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]