Search

This paper presents a novel account for the optionality of negative concord observed with neither...nor coordinations, in an otherwise strict negative concord language—Turkish. I argue that the apparently optional negative concord is a surface phenomenon that can be traced back to a structural ambiguity arising from the type-flexibility of coordination operators. The semantic type of the coordination affects its syntactic position relative to the Turkish NegP, which results in different surface facts: whenever the neither...nor coordination is of a generalized quantifier type, it originates in the vP below the NegP, akin to other negative concord items like nobody, triggering negative concord with sentential negation; whenever it is a propositional coordination, it contains the NegP position, and there is no negative concord. We can account for this exceptionally optional negative concord phenomenon by seamlessly importing these facts into an existing negative concord architecture (Zeijlstra 2004, 2012), with no significant modifications. This reductionist analysis contrasts with alternative approaches that explain optionality by adding complexity to the mechanics of the negative concord system (Şener and İşsever 2003 for Turkish; Szabolcsi 2018a for Hungarian). Finally, this account crucially relies on a theory of coordination operators as type-flexible, and therefore contributes an argument against a view of coordinators as having a rigid propositional type (Hirsch 2017; Schein 2017). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Verb-initial ordering may be derived by fronting the VP (or a larger constituent) to a specifier position higher than the subject. For VSO languages, this analysis requires that the object raise out of the VP to a position below the subject before the (remnant) VP fronts to the higher position. This paper builds a comprehensive analysis of VSO order in the Polynesian language Samoan, employing the VP-fronting analysis, arguing the account does better than competing derivational accounts (e.g., a head movement account). I argue that evidence for the raising of the complement of V to a VP-external position comes from data showing that the coordination of unaccusative and unergative verbs is not possible in Samoan. This paradigm has a ready explanation under the VP-fronting account: as the complement of V must raise out of the VP before VP-fronting takes place, unaccusative subject DPs are predicted to bind a VP-internal copy. This blocks coordination with unergative VPs which do not contain DP copies (via the Coordinate Structure Constraint). I provide a generalized account of DP movement whereby the functional head v is specified to trigger the movement of all DPs in its local c-command domain to its projected specifier positions. In cases where v does not locally c-command any DP, the requirement is trivially satisfied. I show how this accounts for the observed VSO/VOS word order alternations in Samoan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper investigates first and last conjunct agreement in Serbo-Croatian, the latter being a rather rare phenomenon for head initial languages. The paper gives a uniform account of first and last conjunct agreement based on the operation Agree (Chomsky ). The account captures both the contexts where first and last conjunct agreement exhibit parallel behavior and the contexts where the parallelism between the two breaks down. The analysis also captures interaction between gender and number agreement. Given the complexity of the first/last conjunct agreement paradigm in Serbo-Croatian, to the extent that it is successful the analysis presented in the paper provides strong evidence in favor of the operation Agree in general, as well as the particular approach to Agree adopted in the paper. The system developed in the paper allows one instance of uninterpretable features, namely valued uninterpretable features, not to undergo feature checking and does not require uninterpretable features in general to undergo feature checking with interpretable features, differing in these respects from Chomsky (, ) and Pesetsky and Torrego (). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much recent work on closest conjunct agreement has argued that Agree must be sensitive to linear order. In this paper, we argue that the ‘closest’ aspect of this phenomenon is in fact illusory. What may, at first glance, seem like linearly-conditioned agreement can instead be analyzed as the result of different derivations inside the conjunct phrase. Thus, agreement with a single conjunct is in fact agreement with a conjunct phrase which has inherited the features of only one of its conjuncts. Furthermore, the assumption that a given order of operations inside the conjunct phrase is maintained at later cycles of the derivation makes correct predictions about the possibility for each pattern to occur either pre- or postverbally. Thus, we arrive at a principled analysis of conjunct agreement, which derives only the attested patterns in Serbo-Croatian and rules out ungrammatical structures without recourse to linear order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper develops an analysis of the syntax-semantics interface of two types of split coordination structures. In the first type, two bare singular count nouns appear as arguments in a coordinated structure, as in bride and groom were happy. We call this the N&N construction. In the second type, the determiner shows agreement with the first conjunct, while the second conjunct is bare, as in the Spanish example el hornero y hornera cobraban en panes ('the baker and baker were paid in bread loaves'). We call this the DN&N construction. Both N&N and DN&N constructions are common in languages that otherwise require an article or determiner on singular count nouns in regular argument position, and give rise to 'split' readings that cannot be accounted for by the standard semantics of conjunction in terms of set intersection. Furthermore, they are restricted to instances of 'natural' coordination. We formalize the semantics of split conjunction in terms of intersection between sets of matching pairs, which correlates with the lexical semantics and pragmatics of natural coordination. We maintain that an N&N construction gets either a definite or an indefinite interpretation by covert type-shifting, because projection of an article ranging over the coordination as a whole is blocked in languages like English and Spanish. For DN&N structures, we propose a syntactic structure in which D is in construction with the first conjunct. Coordination with a second, bare conjunct requires a covert type-shift that is licensed only under the special matchmaking semantics of conjunction. The analysis addresses a range of issues these coordinate structures raise about syntactic and semantic agreement, in particular with respect to number. Next to English and Spanish we will look into Dutch and French in detail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper explores the syntax of comparatives in English and German. The account builds on the insight that the syntax of comparatives is a combination of coordination and subordination. At times a than-expression is coordinate to a string that immediately precedes it, and at other times, it is subordinate to it. Six key observations are the pillars of the account. These observations accomplish three goals: 1) They determine when comparative coordination obtains, as opposed to comparative subordination; 2) they predict the form that a particular than-expression can assume (e.g. phrasal, clausal); and most importantly, 3) they predict to a large extent the distribution of than-expressions. The key concept is functional equivalence. One can predict the distribution of many than-expressions by acknowledging where they can appear with respect to their functional equivalents. The theory-neutral account remains entirely in surface syntax. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes a unified analysis of the 'respective' readings of plural and conjoined expressions, the internal readings of symmetrical predicates such as same and different, and the summative readings of expressions such as a total of $10000. These expressions pose significant challenges to compositional semantics, and have been studied extensively in the literature. However, almost all previous studies focus exclusively on one of these phenomena, and the close parallels and interactions that they exhibit have been mostly overlooked to date. We point out two key properties common to these phenomena: (i) they target all types of coordination, including nonconstituent coordination such as Right-Node Raising and Dependent Cluster Coordination; (ii) the three phenomena all exhibit multiple dependency, both by themselves and with respect to each other. These two parallels suggest that one and the same mechanism is at the core of their semantics. Building on this intuition, we propose a unified analysis of these phenomena, in which the meanings of expressions involving coordination are formally modelled as multisets, that is, sets that allow for duplicate occurrences of identical elements. The analysis is couched in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar. The flexible syntax-semantics interface of this framework enables an analysis of 'respective' readings and related phenomena which, for the first time in the literature, yields a simple and principled solution for both the interactions with nonconstituent coordination and the multiple dependency noted above. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Jayaseelan () notes that finite clauses in Dravidian languages cannot be coordinated. He proposes that this is because coordination morphology and finiteness morphology in these languages target the same location. This paper proposes an alternative to Jayaseelan's proposal by developing a subcategorization-based account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper develops a new view on switch-reference, a phenomenon commonly taken to involve a morphological marker on a verb indicating whether the subject of this verb is coreferent with or disjoint from the subject of another verb. I propose a new structural source of switch-reference marking, which centers around coordination at different heights of the clausal structure, coupled with distinct morphological realizations of the syntactic coordination head. Conjunction of two VPs has two independent consequences: First, only a single external argument is projected; second, the coordinator head is realized by some marker A (the 'same subject' marker). Conjunction of two vPs, by contrast, leads to projection of two independent external arguments and a different realization of the coordination by a marker B (the 'different subject' marker). The hallmark properties of this analysis are that (i) subject identity or disjointness is only indirectly tied to the switch-reference markers, furnishing a straightforward account of cases where this correlation breaks down; (ii) switch-reference does not operate across fully developed clauses, which accounts for the widely observed featural defectiveness of switch-reference clauses; (iii) 'same subject' and 'different subject' constructions differ in their syntactic structure, thus accommodating cases where the choice of the switch-reference markers has an impact on event structure. The analysis is mainly developed on the basis of evidence from the Mexican language Seri, the Papuan language Amele, and the North-American language Kiowa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines the agreement behavior of coordinate phrases (&Ps) on the basis of Hungarian data. It examines subject-verb agreement in number (and, in the case of pronominal subjects, also in person), and object-verb agreement in definiteness. Its primary goal is to account for the different agreement behavior of IP-internal and left-peripheral &Ps. It argues that because & has no φ-features of its own, &P assumes the φ-features projected by its conjuncts in formal agreement relations, and the features of its discourse referent in semantically motivated relations such as binding. In Hungarian, IP-internal agreement relations are formal relations, in which &P participates with the φ-features of its conjuncts. A left-peripheral &P, on the other hand, can be associated with a resumptive pro sharing its semantic features, and can be represented in agreement relations by its pro associate. An IP-internal &P elicits plural agreement on the verb if and only if either the specifier or the complement of &, or both, project a [plural] feature to &P. Since-as argued by Farkas and de Swart () on the basis of Hungarian facts-only plural noun phrases have a number feature, the possibility of a number feature conflict does not arise. When the conjuncts project contradictory person features or definiteness features to &P, the feature conflict must be eliminated for agreement to be possible. An option is the left dislocation of &P, and agreement with the resumptive pro associated with it. In the case of conjoined objects with conflicting definiteness features, Hungarian speakers prefer closest conjunct agreement, which is presumably licensed at the syntax-phonology interface. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines English unbounded dependency constructions and concludes that the syntactic mechanism responsible for extraction operates in the same way in all constructions, regardless of the structures being subordinate or coordinate. In other words, this work argues that there is a general and fully uniform mechanism behind the linkage of 'gaps' and their 'fillers' in the family of constructions that allow such unbounded dependencies. Crucially, this mechanism is devoid of exceptions, and interacts with other aspects outside the grammar of extraction to predict the Coordinate Structure Constraint, ATB extractions, parasitism, and at least certain islands. Although the underlying syntactic mechanism for extraction is argued to work in the same way for all constructions, certain parts of the grammar can locally impose additional conditions on the possible extraction patterns. Along with recent psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic research, it is argued that many apparent exceptions result from independently motivated performance factors, also observed in garden-path sentences and center-embedded constructions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes that syntactic ergativity should be understood as a construction-based phenomenon rather than a parametric property that defines a subset of morphologically ergative languages. It argues that syntactic ergativity arises when the relevant operation is sensitive to (abstract) Case. Since not all syntactic operations are sensitive to Case, it is expected that some morphologically ergative languages do not show syntactic ergativity, or even demonstrate syntactic split ergativity. As an illustration, two types of coordination reduction in Tongan (Polynesian) are examined: pea-coordination showing an ergative/absolutive pattern and mo-coordination showing a nominative/accusative pattern. It is argued that DP ellipsis in pea-coordination is a Case-sensitive operation, i.e., PF deletion based on featural identity, whereas mo-coordination involves a null pronoun and LF copying, which is based on positional identity, regardless of Case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We update our understanding of the view that grammar regulates inter-segmental temporal coordination and present an extension of that view to a new domain: we argue that inter-segmental coordination is basic to prosody. It is the glue joining segments together differently in different languages (here, illustrated with examples from Arabic and Spanish) and orchestrates their unfolding in ways corresponding to constructs posited in theoretical analysis. The correspondence is one between organization in mind-brain and organization in vocal tract. Moreover, for both mind-brain and vocal tract, the organization is phonological and abstract. It is so because it holds over segments of various identities: in Arabic, the first segment in / / is not prosodified as part of the same unit as / / and this holds true also for / /, / / and so on, regardless of sonority. In contrast, in English or Spanish, a different organization holds. Crucially, uniformity in organization (same organization presiding over sequences with varying segmental makeup) does not imply uniqueness of phonetic exponents: prosodic organization is pleiotropic, simultaneously expressed by more than one phonetic exponent. Finally, two properties of coordination relations are underscored: lawful flexibility and abstractness. The first is revealed in the degrees of freedom with which movements corresponding to any given effector begin; the second in invariances of task-relevant kinematic signatures regardless of the effectors implicated in any given segmental sequence. Once again, abstract phonological structure is mirrored in vocal tracts via coordination relations holding across physiology and the particular modes of its operation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The scope anomaly observed in sentences like Mrs. J can't live in Boston and Mr. J in LA (¬◊>∧) and No dog eats Whiskas or cat Alpo (¬∃>∨) is known to pose difficult challenges to many analyses of Gapping. We provide new arguments, based on both the basic syntactic patterns of Gapping and standard constituency tests, that the so-called 'low VP coordination analysis'-the only extant analysis of Gapping in contemporary syntactic theories which accounts for this scope anomaly-is empirically untenable. We propose an explicit alternative analysis of Gapping in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar, a variant of categorial grammar which builds on both the Lambek-inspired tradition and a more recent line of work modelling word order via a lambda calculus for the prosodic component. The flexible syntax-semantics interface of this framework enables us to characterize Gapping as an instance of like-category coordination, via a crucial use of the notion of hypothetical reasoning. This analysis of the basic syntax of Gapping is shown to interact with independently motivated analyses of scopal operators to immediately yield their apparently anomalous scopal properties in Gapping, offering, for the first time in the literature, a conceptually simple and empirically adequate solution for the notorious scope anomaly in Gapping. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates the internal syntax of complex curse expressions in Dutch. It argues that they have the internal structure of coordinations and that the coordinated curse atoms are roots. It is further proposed that the expressive/affective meaning of curse expressions emerges from augmentative strategies at the level of curse atoms, syntax and sounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Dravidian languages, finite clauses cannot be coordinated, relative clauses cannot be finite, and relative clauses cannot be coordinated. I offer an explanation of these facts by making a typological claim about the Dravidian clausal left periphery: apart from a high ForceP, there is only one position in this domain. The coordination marker, the relativizer, and the elements that instantiate Mood-Mood being the realization of finiteness in Dravidian-must compete for this position. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The semantic contrast between counterexpectational and corrective but has long interested linguists (see Anscombre and Ducrot and much subsequent work). Recently, Vicente () has proposed that the two types of but also differ in their syntax. While counterexpectational but coordinates constituents from a variety of different categories, corrective but always coordinates full clauses. These clausal coordination structures are then subject to reduction by ellipsis to derive their surface form. I argue that this clause-only coordination hypothesis is incorrect. Corrective but, like other coordinators, is able to combine both clausal and subclausal constituents. Only a crosscategorial syntax for corrective but accounts for the full range of contexts in which it occurs. Furthermore, when ellipsis does apply, it often must apply to subclausal coordination structures for its identity constraint to be satisfied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A series of studies have distinguished two types of but, namely, corrective and counterexpectational. The difference between these two types has been considered largely semantic/pragmatic. This article shows that the semantic difference also translates into a different syntax for each type of but. More precisely, corrective but always requires clause-level coordination, with apparent counterexamples being derived through ellipsis within the second conjunct. On the other hand, counterexpectational but is not restricted in this way, and offers the possibility of coordination of both clausal and subclausal constituents. From this difference, it is possible to derive a number of syntactic asymmetries between corrective and counterexpectational but. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]