Search

We argue that the distribution of -n in Czech positive and comparative adjective cannot be captured by specifying its context for insertion. It can, however, be captured under the assumption that "n" is a portmanteau marker and when it does not surface, it is because the root of the adjective realises the relevant projections.

Based on their morphology, Czech adjectives can be divided into at least three classes. The first class of adjectives has the suffix n in between the root and the agreement marker, e.g., jem-n-y ́ ‘smooth.' The second class of adjectives has the suffix k, e.g., leh-k-y ́ `light'. In the third class, the obligatory agreement marker attaches to the bare root, e.g., slab-Ø-y ́ ‘weak.’ The absence of a stem marker is depicted by the Ø in the first column of Table 3. In this paper, we present an analysis of these three classes in Nanosyntax (Starke 2018), relying on the notion of root size (Caha et al. 2019).

International audience; In this reply to Van de Velde and van der Horst’s paper, I argue that the interest of other scientific domains in linguistics does not betray acrisis; nor does it necessarily indicate a transitional phase or revolution leading to scientific maturity. Rather, I argue that the current situationis a sign of scientific maturity, doing justice to the intrinsically multidimensional nature of the object of study: Language. The perception or experience of a crisis arises only as a consequence of the desire to define Linguistics too narrowly.

There are three ways of deriving verbs in Dutch: through zero marking (e.g. adem), through suffixation (e.g. modern-iseer), and through prefixation (eg ver-breed). We focus on the prefixed verbs, contrasting two views. According to the first view (De Haas & Trommelen 1993), prefixed verbs are left-headed: the prefix is responsible for the change in category, i.e. [V ver [A breed]]. The second view (Neeleman & Schipper 1993) holds that prefixed verbs are right-headed, and involve a zero verbalizing suffix, i.e. [V ver [V [A breed] ø ]]]. We present evidence for the second view, in line with the position of Neeleman & Schipper (1993), but we in addition argue that the causative-inchoative ambiguity of many of these derived verbs requires the introduction of an additional head in the structure. Finally, we present an interpretation of these heads in terms of the nanosyntactic mechanism of phrasal lexicalization.

We investigate the pairing of adjectives and adverbs in Central Morava Czech. We propose a Nanosyntax treatment.

We argue that the allomorphy of Czech comparative adverbs can be captured in a model with split comparative head (as in Caha De Clercq Vanden Wyngaerd 2019, Studia Linguistica) and a split adverb head.

International audience

Dutch has a minimal contrast between the evaluative adverb gelukkig ‘fortunately’, and its antonym ongelukkig-erwijs ‘unfortunately’. Both are derived from the adjective gelukkig ‘lucky, happy’, but only the latter is marked by the overt adverbial suffix -erwijs ‘-ly’. We present an account of this contrast in terms of intervention by a Neg head, which forces the separate spellout of a higher portion of the functional hierarchy as an adverbial suffix. ispartof: Rivista di Grammatica Generativa vol:41 pages:1-11 status: published

Antonymic pairs of gradable adjectives (e.g. tall-short) give rise to contrary opposition. This fact has so far stood in the way of reducing this type of opposition to logical negation, which gives rise to contradictory opposition. We present an analysis of these antonymic pairs in terms of an underlying logical negation, and propose to derive the contrary nature of the opposition from the interaction of interval semantics with the presence of a contextual standard, which is known to be a part of the denotation of gradable adjectives. This analysis opens the way for a decomposition of negative adjectives as containing a logical negation with contradictory meaning geen issn ispartof: Studies van de Belgische Kring voor Linguïstiek vol:12 pages:1-18 status: Published online

We argue that the comparative head that enters into the mor- phologicalmakeupofthecomparative (Bobaljik 2012) is to be split up into two distinct heads(see Caha 2016). Evidence for this claim comes from Czech comparative morphology, root suppletion, and the inter- action of Czech suppletion with negation. We further argue that the account for root suppletion that we provide captures the data better than a Distributed Morphology (DM) account.

ispartof: pages:151-158 ispartof: Proceedings of the West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics vol:34 pages:151-158 ispartof: West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics location:Salt Lake City date:29 Apr - 1 May 2016 status: published

We present a novel account of root suppletion in comparatives and superlatives, and show how it accounts for the presence of ABB and ABC patterns, as well as the absence of ABA patterns. The account assumes that suppletive roots, despite appearances to the contrary, are not contextual allomorphs, but portmanteaus spelling out two distinct features, one belonging to the lexical root, and another one belonging to the comparative. The regular comparative affix then spells out an additional feature relating to the comparative domain. In other words, we show that the comparative (CMPR) head that enters into the morphological makeup of the comparative (Bobaljik 2012) is to be split up into two distinct heads, C1 and C2 (see also Caha 2016). We extend this idea to SPRL, which we show is likewise to be split up into S1 and S2, in order to account for suppletive ABC patterns. These four distinct heads receive empirical support from facts of the degree morphology in Czech and Latin. The new account of root suppletion allows a straightforward way of deriving the attested and unattested patterns of (root) suppletion in degree comparison. The analysis developed supports the hypothesis that the absence of AAB patterns in degree comparison is due to a constraint of a different nature altogether.