Search

The order of clitics (CLs) in Romance languages has been studied in depth by many scholars since Perlmutter's first approach. This author points out that person and case features impose a filter that results in the following pattern in Spanish: Se- II- I- IIIdat- IIIacc. This pattern has been revisited because it is not restrictive enough: it gives rise to impossible sequences. In this context, the goal of this work is to define a pattern of morphosyntactic features for River Plate Spanish clitics, and an ordering pattern, with the purpose of developing a computational model for an automatic analysis of this phenomenon. This kind of analysis is justified because the algorithm output shows the degree of success of the descriptive proposal. To this end, we use NooJ, a linguistic development environment that has diverse tools. The computational modeling involves two stages: (i) the creation of an electronic dictionary and (ii) the creation of a computational grammar. The algorithm developed can generate all correct sentences conformed by Nominative Pronoun + CL + CL + Verb, Non-Finite Verb-CL-CL and Imperative Verb-CL-CL, and it can recognize these kinds of expressions in written text assigning the correct semantic labels. With these results, we conclude that our descriptive proposal is adequate for the analysis of sequences of clitics in River Plate Spanish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We make two claims regarding weather expressions in Basque: first, based on Eriksen et al.'s (2010) typology, we show that Basque tends towards the argument type (and less frequently so to the predicate-argument type) when coding dynamic (precipitation or other) events and to both the argument and the predicate type when coding static events; Basque often has transitive structures (i.e. both transitive predicate and argument transitive types), apparently a rare typological feature. Second, with respect to two key issues in the study of weather predicates within Generative Grammar, we claim (a) that Basque supports the view that both lexicalizations of weather verbs (unaccusative and unergative/transitive) are possible across languages, as argued by Bleotu (2015) and Levin & Krejci (2019); and (b) that the empty pro subject of Basque transitive weather constructions is closer to a quasi-argument (Chomsky 1981; Levin & Krejci 2019) rather than to a true expletive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Linguistic iconicity has been studied since ancient times (e.g., Plato's Cratylus, see Cooper & Hutchinson 1997). Within modern grammatical description, this notion was mostly developed by Jakobson and Benveniste; nowadays, iconicity in language is even being experimentally tested (e.g., Blasi et al. 2016; Diatka & Milička 2017). However, most studies on linguistic iconicity pertain to prosody, sound symbolism, or morphology; syntactic iconicity has been vastly underexplored. In this paper, we present two hypotheses concerning syntactic iconicity: (1) syntactic descriptions of natural language strings have an inherent structure which is isomorphic to that of representations in some other component of grammar or a non-grammatical system; or (2) linear order imposed on phrase structure is isomorphic to that in some other component of grammar or a non-grammatical system. We will argue in favour of the former, which constitutes a novel perspective on iconicity in grammar. We furthermore discuss the place that iconicity may have in the architecture of a generative system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I provide a critical survey of the role that semantics took in the several models of generative grammar, since the 1950s until the Minimalist Program. I distinguish four different periods. In the first section, I focus on the role of formal semantics in generative grammar until the 1970s. In Section 2 I present the period of linguistic wars, when the role of semantics in linguistic theory became a crucial topic of debate. In Section 3 I focus on the formulation of conditions on transformations and Binding Theory in the 1970s and 1980s, while in the last Section I discuss the role of semantics in the minimalist approach. In this section, I also propose a semantically-based model of generative grammar, which fully endorses minimalism and Chomsky's later position concerning the primary role of the semantic interface in the Universal Grammar modelization (Strong Minimalist Thesis). In the Discussion, I point out some theoretical problems deriving from Chomsky's internalist interpretation of model-theoretic semantics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1965, I became a student of Dutch and general linguistics at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. The rise of generative grammar played an important role in this change of perspective within Dutch linguistics. Word formation rules, as conceived of and discussed in that monograph, are incompatible with generative grammar or with any grammar-based linguistic framework, because, like the tradition they encode, these rules cross the synchronic-diachronic boundary that is central to all post-Saussurean structural linguistics. The Dutch tradition of morphology before the rise of generative grammar in the 1960s had a different focus, even though it also wanted to account for the word-forming creativity of the language user. [Extracted from the article]

Summary: Despite being a recent development in generative linguistics, Optimality Theory (OT, Prince & Smolensky 1993) has had a profound impact on linguistics, particularly on phonology in North America. OT posits that observed forms of language arise due to conflicting linguistic constraints. When proposed in 1993, OT saw virtually overnight success in American phonology despite not having been the first theory of grammar to focus solely on the constraint. I argue, that the reasons for which OT saw such immediate success due in large part to the efforts of Prince and Smolensky to work at getting the word out, the state of American phonology at the time which felt stagnant to some, and the coincidence of OT's birth with the Internet Boom which Prince and Smolensky used to their advantage [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a methodology for the automatic extraction of specialized Arabic, English and French verbs of the field of computing. Since nominal terms are predominant in terminology, our interest is to explore to what extent verbs can also be part of a terminological analysis. Hence, our objective is to verify how an existing extraction tool will perform when it comes to specialized verbs in a given specialized domain. Furthermore, we want to investigate any particularities that a language can represent regarding verbal terms from the automatic extraction perspective. Our choice to operate on three different languages reflects our desire to see whether the chosen tool can perform better on one language compared to the others. Moreover, given that Arabic is a morphologically rich and complex language, we consider investigating the results yielded by the extraction tool. The extractor used for our experiment is TermoStat (Drouin 2003). So far, our results show that the extraction of verbs of computing represents certain differences in terms of quality and particularities of these units in this specialized domain between the languages under question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to Chomsky's report of the mid 1970s, he and Harris developed their theories in an essentially independent way; whereas according to some statements by Harris, some contact actually took place between them. To shed light on this issue, it may be useful to systematically compare their respective views of the notion 'transformation' as well as their analyses of certain syntactic phenomena. Among the topics dealt with in the present article are: the system of syntactic categories and their symbols; the notion of 'zero elements'; the phenomenon of discontinuous constituents; the English auxiliary system; wh-constructions; the typology of transformations; the notions of 'kernel' and 'kernel sentence'. Several of these analyses show many points of contact between the two scholars (e.g., the analysis of wh-constructions or that of English auxiliaries), which allow us to maintain that they surely influenced each other. The overall differences between the two models are also clear: the transformational relation holds between sentences in Harris's framework, while it holds between underlying strings on the one hand and actual sentences on the other in Chomsky's. As a consequence of this different view of the notion of transformation, two problems which were fundamental for Chomsky had no importance for Harris, namely the order of transformations and the distinction between optional and obligatory transformations. It can therefore be concluded that, if the two scholars certainly influenced each other when they were working out their respective transformational theories, their theoretical views were acutely different almost from the beginning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]