Search

This contribution addresses the general theme of Multifunctionality and syncretism in non-finite forms. When we see a particular form in a number of different environments yielding different effects, what does it mean to say that this reflects multifunctionality rather than syncretism? As a refinement of multifunctionality the notion of 'multi-effectuality' is introduced: one element participates in different derivations, performing one and the same operation, but yields different interpretive effects depending on the environment. The analysis takes as a starting point the role of the affix -en in Dutch. The canonical view is that when attached to a verb stem, -en functions either as an infinitival marker or as a nominalizing affix. It is shown that this view cannot be maintained. The "functions" of -en are unified by analyzing it as projecting an 'eventuality expression', with different effects depending on the syntactic environment. The analysis is extended to English, focusing on the contrasts between Dutch and English infinitives and on the role of the English -ing affix in gerunds and participles. The discussion proceeds with an analysis of Frisian with its two forms of the infinitive and concludes with some reflections on the relation between syntactic and semantic categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The expression of reflexivity in Indonesian and related languages is based on various strategies, see Cole and Hermon (2005), Kartono (2013), and Schadler (2014) for discussion. This paper focuses on the expression of reflexivity based on the element diri and its cognates, not discussed in these papers. As a reflexive marker, bare diri is not specified for grammatical features such as number, gender, and person, so it imposes no restrictions on the value of the subject argument. It is only allowed with a subset of verbs, namely agent–theme verbs. Our goal is to determine its precise role. After applying a number of diagnostics for argumenthood (Dimitriadis and Everaert 2014), we show that diri is not an argument. We propose that the role of diri is that of an element marking detransitivization of the verb and reflecting an operation combining the latter's agent and theme roles into one complex agent–theme role ("a bundling operation" in the sense of Reinhart and Siloni 2005). This complex role is assigned to the remaining argument resulting in a reflexive interpretation. Further tests also show that agent and patient roles are indeed present in verbs with diri after the bundling operation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cole, Hermon, and Yanti (2015) present a number of far-reaching conclusions about language universals on the basis of their study of the anaphoric systems of the Austronesian languages of Indonesia. The present contribution critically assesses these conclusions. It reports a further set of data, and shows that contra to what these authors argue, the systems they discuss can be straightforwardly accounted for by a simple set of universal principles plus properties of the vocabulary of the languages involved. I conclude this article with some remarks on acquisition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a functional analysis of the conditions for language to emerge, and analyzes its role in imagination. It starts with some initial reflections on imagination and its evolutionary beginnings in relation to the role of working memory and tool use by chimpanzees and humans up to modernity. It then presents an analysis of what it takes to develop language, and how language gives rise to higher orders of imagination. An important theme in the discussion is which of the changes in the development leading to language may have been gradual and which changes must reflect a discontinuity. It concludes with a paradoxical property of imagination: One part of our mind is able to imagine and create systems that another part of our mind is unable to deal with. It shows how this tension manifests itself in the notion of an impossible language, but crucially also in conceptions of human society at large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do so many languages employ special means to express reflexive predicates, and why can what languages do be so diverse, although the notion of a reflexive predicate appears to be so simple? What happens in languages that don't seem to do anything special? The contributions in this special issue all focus on the various ways in which natural languages express reflexivity, and how the challenges their diversity poses can be addressed. In this contribution I present and further develop my answers to these questions, showing that except for a definition of binding no principles specific to binding need to be assumed. Sections 3-7 provide an overview of issues against which the results of current binding research are to be interpreted. I briefly address the role of phases in the theory of binding and argue that phases are relevant only indirectly namely in so far as the operations involved in the encoding of binding dependencies are themselves sensitive to phase-hood. I also relate my account to current debates about the relation between syntax and morphology (as in Distributed Morphology), showing that a too loose connection between syntax and morphology leads to severe methodological problems. Section 8, presents an explicit derivation of the need for reflexivity to be licensed, addressing questions that have been raised since that idea was first presented. Section 9 provides a summary of the approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What prevents pronominals from being locally bound? Does this a) reflect an intrinsic property of pronominals (Chomsky 1981), is it b) a relative (economy) effect, that only shows up where there is a more dedicated competitor (see from different perspectives, Safir 2004, Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes 2007, Levinson 2000), does it c) have a semantic basis as in Schlenker (2005), or does it d) follow from general conditions on agree based chains, and reflexive predicates (Reuland 2011a)? To help resolve this issue, we investigate Khanty (Uralic, spoken in Northwest Siberia), a language that is reported to allow locally bound pronominals (Nikolaeva 1995), and assess whether it in fact does have them, and, which factors come into play when local binding obtains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is explanation, and what is there to explain in linguistics? I take the reader on a small excursion into explanation, and to puzzles in linguistics that fascinate me. For instance, we as linguists are so used to the existence of conditions on binding. Yet, in this contribution I ask readers to do a small step back and wonder why there would be conditions on binding at all. And if so, why would they have to be special? Any approach to binding will have to face the challenge of the daunting diversity of surface manifestations of binding patterns. Taking the variation between Dutch, Frisian and English as a starting point I show that our standard binding conditions don’t in fact constitute a unitary phenomenon. Rather, they result from the interplay between different factors, in part not even specific to language: properties of predicates, our general inability to handle identicals in a space with insufficient structure, properties of chains, and general economy conditions. As I show, it is on the basis of such a deconstruction of the binding conditions into component factors that the unity underlying the diversity can be uncovered, and the curious patterns we find explained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This article investigates the nature of syntactic categories: What does it mean to be a noun or a verb? The discussion focuses on nominalizations. It is shown that there is a distinction between nouns and verbs at a basic level. The essential difference between verbs and nouns resides in the availability in principle of merging instructions in the sense of . What makes a nominalized verb nominal is consequently shown to reside in the instructions determining the way it is merged in the syntactic representation. Modifying a thesis formulated in , it will be shown that Verbs represent relational concepts for which merging instructions are defined, and Nouns represent concepts for which merging instructions are not defined. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Imagination (leading to planning, culture, "theory of mind") is a powerful property of the human mind. This article will focus on the relation between imagination, planning, and language. Language is a systematic mapping between arbitrary forms in a medium and interpretations. Its minimal units—words—combine an instruction for realization with an instruction for interpretation. A crucial condition for language to emerge is the ability to access and recursively combine concepts as words by form rather than meaning. I will discuss what such control over lexical access depends on. Using language requires holding forms in working memory while temporarily suppressing their realization and interpretation. A memory system with a buffer able to hold chunks of material of sufficient size is necessary. I will argue that the limiting factor is not so much working memory per se, as understood in the seminal work by Baddeley, but rather the interface/area of overlap between short-term declarative and procedural memory systems as discussed by Ullman. I conclude with a discussion of the relation between the shape of the grammatical system and (limitations on) working-memory processing resources thus conceived. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I identify a number of problematic aspects of Christiansen & Chater's (C&C's) contribution. These include their suggestion that subjacency and binding reflect non-domain-specific mechanisms; that proto-language is a "cultural product"; and that non-adaptationism requires overly rich innate structures, and is incompatible with acceptable evolutionary processes. It shows that a fully UG (Universal Grammar)-free version of the authors' neo-adaptationisrn would be incoherent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Previous research has found that the single argument of unaccusative verbs (such as fall) is reactivated during sentence processing, but the argument of agentive verbs (such as jump) is not (). An open question so far was whether this difference in processing is caused by a difference in thematic roles the verbs assign, or a difference in the underlying syntactic structure. In the present study we tease apart these two potential sources. In order to achieve this, we included a set of verbs (like sparkle) which are equal to unaccusative verbs in the thematic role they assign to their argument, but equal to agentive verbs in the syntactic status of their argument (henceforth mixed verbs). As a method we used the visual world paradigm as this enables us to measure processing of the sentences continuously. This method also allowed us to test another hypothesis, namely the hypothesis that not only the argument of unaccusative verbs is reactivated during processing, but also the argument of agentive verbs. This reactivation is expected as the result of integrating the verb and its argument into one representation. In our experiment, participants listened to sentences including one of the three types of verbs. While listening, they viewed a visual display in which one of four objects was strongly related to the argument of the verb (wood–saw). The gaze record showed that the eyes moved to the related object (saw) upon presentation of the argument (wood). More interestingly, the eyes moved back to the related object upon presentation of the verb (fell). We found that looks to the related object increase only late after verb offset for unaccusative verbs, replicating the findings of previous research. We also found a rise in looks to the related object in agentive verbs, but this rise took place much earlier, starting slightly after verb onset. Finally, we found that mixed verbs pattern in processing with agentive verbs. We conclude that the argument of the verb is always reactivated, independent of verb type. In addition, the timing of integration differs per verb type and depends on the syntactic status of the argument and not on the thematic role that is assigned to the argument. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]