Permissive Subordination: A language-particular grammatical option (original) (raw)
Related papers
Syntactic architecture and its consequences III: Inside syntax
2021
This paper reconsiders some core issues on the morphosyntax and semantics of deponents, and what I contend are their counterparts in languages with no fullyfledged voice paradigms, namely pseudo-reflexives in Germanic and Romance. In particular, I show that non-active voice and reflexive marking in these constructions functions as a verbalizer, specifically on the roots of these verbs, which are nominal. Consequently, at least some roots seem to be categorial, and their category and other selectional features (such as non-causative semantics) relevant for Merge. Thus, the paper provides novel evidence for the view that roots have meaning, and in particular, for the existence of entity denoting roots.
Preposition-determiner amalgams in German and French at the syntax-morphology interface
Comparative Germanic Syntax : The State of the Art, 99-131. In Peter Ackema, Rhona Alcorn, Caroline Heycock, Dany Jaspers, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd (eds)Amsterdam : John Benjamins., 2012
The present paper examines preposition+determiner amalgams in French and German. I show that French and German P+D amalgams differ with respect to coordination: while German amalgams are transparent for coordination, French amalgams block certain coordinations. I propose that this is due to ta syntactic difference: German P+D amalgams correspond to two positions in the syntax, while French P+D amalgams occupy only one position. Adopting a model where morphology is split applying before and after the syntax, I argue that this syntactic difference of P+D amalgams corresponds to a morphological difference: German amalgams are post-syntactic contractions while French amalgams are inflected prepositions that enter the syntax as a single unit.
2015
verbs and their relationship to transitive ones, and also considers the active-inactive type of argument linking (3.4). Section 4 deals with further argument linking types for transitive verbs: the inverse type (4.1), the salience or voice type (4.2), the positional type (4.3), and the generalized case type (4.4), the latter comprising accusative, ergative and split systems, and the possibility of dative. Section 5 considers ways of marking special semantic classes of verbs lexically. Section 6 discusses how a third argument is integrated, and thus extends the typology of section 4. It deals with the semantic decomposition of ditransitive verbs (6.1) and general principles of constraining it (6.2), considers serial verb constructions and noun incorporation as argument-reducing operations (6.3), turns to constructions where the recipient is treated like the object of a transitive verb (6.4) or differently from the object of a transitive verb (6.5), and closes with a new look on the E...
Verb Projection Raising, Scope, and the Typology of Rules Affecting Verbs
1986
This article examines a particular type of clause union: Verb Projection Raising. Verb Projection Raising is a variant of the better-known Verb Raising construction of German and Dutch and occurs in several varieties of Belgian Dutch (Flemish) and Swiss German. Among the former we concentrate on West-Flemish (WF), among the latter on the dialect of the Zurich area, Züritüütsch (ZT). Verb Projection Raising sheds light on three important and partly related theoretical issues: the treatment of reanalysis, the grammar of scope, and the typology of rules that affect verbs. After considering the analytical aspects of the Verb Projection Raising construction in some detail, we argue that (unlike some of the altenatives) the multiple representation approach successfully accounts for its main properties. We then show how certain unexpected scope facts can be accounted for within this approach by adopting a modified version of Haïk's (1984) nonmovement analysis of scope relations. Finally, we argue that the fact that Verb (Projection) Raising changes scope relations suggests a revision of the typology of rules affecting verbs proposed in Koopman (1984). More specifically, we argue that verb-second type rules should be taken not as part of the system of A-dependencies but as part of the system of A-dependencies. This revision in turn leads us to generalize the Case Filter to a principle that applies not only to case-receiving categories but also to case-assigning categories. Verb Raising is a type of clause union that affects the verb of a nonfinite complement clause to the left of certain matrix verbs (German and Dutch being SOV). In essence, the verbs form a cluster; furthermore, the embedded verb usually ends up to the right of the matrix verb in Dutch, though generally not in German. Illustrations are given in (1) (German) and (2) (Dutch): 1 (1) … dass er das Problem zu begreifen versucht that he the problem to understand tries 'that he tries to understand the problem' 1 The present article grew out of a talk we presented at the 1984 GLOW conference in Copenhagen. We would like to thank Hans den Besten, Riny Huybregts, Eric Reuland, and Anna Szabolcsi for useful comments and discussions. We are also grateful to two anonymous LI referees. The usual disclaimers apply. Here and below, illustrations will often be given as embedded clauses only in order to avoid the distorting effect of the Verb Second rule, which moves the finite verb into second position in root clauses. Liliane Haegeman & Henk van Riemsdijk, 'Verb Projection Raising, Scope, and the Typology of Rules Affecting Verbs' 6) Note that the formulation in (15) does not have the one-to-one implication usually associated with the θ-Criterion, in its informal formulation: (i) Each argument is assigned one and only one θ-role. (ii) Each θ-role is assigned to one and only one argument.
Several other chapters in this book analyze grammatical phenomena according to the architectural assumptions and constraint-based representational apparatus of lexicalist theories of grammar; in the present chapter, we ask some fundamental questions concerning what it means for a theory to be lexicalist. While critically assessing some consensus beliefs among lexicalists, this exploration will also serve as a corrective to certain pervasive misunderstandings about lexicalism and its limitations as propagated by some of its more vigorous detractors.2 In particular, we provide a careful overview of certain lexicalist assumptions concerning the relation between lexical representations, morphology, and syntax, and we propose a lexicalist framework incorporating a much richer conception of morphology than has customarily been assumed in lexicalist theories. According to this conception, periphrasis (multi-word expression) is as much a mode of morphological realization as synthesis is. In...
How many Ps in a pod? A few remarks on the status of P in the pool of syntactic categories
2016
Being one of those P-afficionados who has been trying to stir up the P-soup1 for more than 42 years now, attempting to gain some insight into the still quite mysterious properties of the category P, interesting publications on P/PP always attract my interest. A particularly welcome contribution was the article ‘On the Syntax of Prepositional Phrases’ (Bayer & Bader, 2007). I use the present opportunity to make a few remarks about properties of various kinds of P that were partly prompted by this insightful article, the central issue of which is the contradistinction between P as the head of a lexical projection and P as a functional element. Some properties point in one direction, and some in the other. The question really is whether the two sets of apparently opposing properties can somehow be made compatible. Let us start by listing some of the apparently opposing properties.