Search

Direct compositionality is a property of empirical data (and of grammatical frameworks) where the meaning of an expression can be reliably computed from the meanings of its parts (Jacobson, Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 601-626, 2002). Using empirical data from Kam and Northern Zhuang, two Kam-Tai languages spoken in the P. R. of China, I define the notions of compositional and constructional reduplication rules. A rule is compositional if the host construction does not manifest selectional restrictions on the embedded output of the rule. By contrast, a reduplication rule is constructional if there are selectional restrictions. Based on the descriptive insights of this study and on Jacobson's two types of (direct) compositionality, I define four different degrees of compositionality that a morphosyntactic operation may exhibit: strong compositionality, weak compositionality, weak constructionality (non-compositionality) and strong constructionality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. Introduction This paper argues that a sideward/parallel movement analysis of so-called “Left- Peripheral Ellipsis” (LPE; Sag 1976) and Gapping constructions improves on the traditional deletion analysis in at least two important ways. First, it avoids the need to appeal to the notion of non-constituent deletion. Second, we attempt to show that directionality effects (Ross 1970 and others) can be derived without recourse to the head parameter or directionality stipulated in the application of transformational rules (which would require linear order in the narrow syntax and, further, would need to be parametrized); rather, we show that apparent directionality in LPE and Gapping constructions is a natural consequence of the interaction of Copy, Merge, PF-deletion of copies, and Cyclic Spell-Out— an effect that is derived only under a movement-based approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Structuralism sought to introduce various kinds of autonomy into the study of language, including the autonomy of that study itself. The basis for this was the insistence on categorial autonomy, whereby categories are identified language-internally (whether in a particular language or in language). In relation to phonology, categorial autonomy is tempered by grounding: the categories correlate (at least prototypically) with substance, phonetic properties. This is manifested in the idea of ‘natural classes’ in generative phonology. Usually, however, in more modern grammars, despite some dissent, no such grounding (in meaning) has been attributed to syntax. This attitude culminates in the thesis of the ‘autonomy of syntax’ which was put forward in transformational-generative grammar. In what follows here it is argued that the consequences of this are very unfortunate. Distribution alone is insufficient to determine the identity of categories; what is relevant is the distribution of the prototypical members of the category, where prototypicality is notionally defined. Prototypical nouns, for instance, denote concrete, discrete, stable entities. Syntax, as well as phonology, is grounded. Groundedness ensures that only the prototypical behaviour of semantically prototypical members of a category determines its basic syntax; and this syntax reflects the semantic properties. Groundedness filters out potential syntactic analyses that are incompatible with this. For instance, given the diverse semantic characters of prototypical nouns and verbs, groundedness predicts that the X-bar theory of syntactic structure, which attributes parallel projections to lexical categories, is false. Consideration of the syntax of nouns and verbs confirms that this is indeed the case. The attribution to syntax of categorial autonomy without grounding should be abandoned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Besides their common lexical reading, the Spanish verbs amenazar ‘threaten’ and prometer ‘promise’ can also yield a modal reading. The shift from the former reading to the latter implies a change from a control structure to a raising structure and involves grammaticalization, more specifically auxiliation, which ends up in a layered co-existence of the two (or more) constructions. This paper is mainly concerned with the syntactic and semantic categorization of the grammaticalized quasi-modals amenazar and prometer. Generative accounts have focused on the difference between raising and control, but have not addressed the differences between the two verbs. This paper highlights that modal amenazar faces less constraints than modal prometer . Furthermore, the account presented below will show that epistemic and evidential auxiliaries have scope over the qualification expressed by modal amenazar and prometer, and are therefore not to be called “epistemic”. The paper also deals with the tense restrictions that these verbs undergo. Tenses such as the present perfect are not available in modal constructions with amenazar and prometer because of the activation of agentive patterns inherent to the lexical semantics of the verbs in question. The tense criterion is valid for verbs for which the grammaticalized form is not the most frequent one, but it does not account for true modals in Spanish and other Romance languages. The infinitive criterion turns out to be a good alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper introduces a unit of syntax beyond the constituent called the chain . A number of mechanisms are shown to be sensitive to chains, e.g. the formation of predicates and idioms, the ellipses of gapping, pseudogapping and VP-ellipsis, and the elided material of stripping and answer fragments. The presentation is couched in a surface syntax, dependency-based framework, as opposed to a constituency-based one. While the chain can be defined in a manner consistent with constituency, doing so requires that one adopt some controversial assumptions about the nature of constituency structure. The potential of the chain concept is great; it is the tool necessary to address the manner in which semantic compositionality occurs in the syntax. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is held by many grammarians that the relation of syntax and semantics is characterized by the Fregean principle of compositionality. The principle can be stated in various ways. In this article, the following formulation is adopted: the literal meaning of an expression is uniquely determined by the literal meanings of its subexpressions and their mode of composition. And the author believes that the validity of the formulation is beyond doubt and thus any grammar, whether organized to reflect it directly or not, may ultimately be required to satisfy it. And one of the systems that are precisely designed to reflect the principle is Montague Grammar.