Department Linguistik
Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (94) (remove)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (94) (remove)
Language
- English (94) (remove)
Keywords
- information structure (25)
- Syntax (23)
- Festschrift (22)
- Informationsstruktur (22)
- Linguistik (22)
- Morphologie (22)
- festschrift (22)
- linguistics (22)
- morphology (22)
- syntax (22)
Institute
Splits and Birds
(2019)
Experimenting with Lurchi
(2019)
Accusative Unaccusatives
(2019)
On uninterpretable features
(2019)
Verum focus and negation
(2019)
On doubling unconditionals
(2019)
A form-function mismatch?
(2019)
Bienenfresserortungsversuch
(2019)
The instrumental -er suffix
(2019)
Preface
(2019)
It has been long agreed by formal and functional researchers (primarily based on English data) that contrastive topic marking, namely marking a constituent as a contrastive topic via the B-accent/the rising intonation contour) requires the co-occurrence of focus marking via the A-accent/the falling intonation contour (see Sturgeon 2006, and references therein). However, this consensus has recently been disputed by new findings indicating the occurrence of utterances with only B-accent, dubbed as lone contrastive topic (Büring 2003, Constant 2014). In this paper, I argue, based on the data in Vietnamese, that the presence of lone contrastive topic is just apparent, and that the focus that co-occurs with the seemingly lone contrastive topic is a verum focus.
Singular quantified terms
(2016)
In this paper, I discuss the behavior of singular partitives, focusing on Hebrew. I show that group noun-headed singular quantified terms behave essentially different from other singular quantified terms. Specifically, the domain of quantification in the former is a discrete set (the members of the group), while in the latter the domain of quantification is a set of mass entities. I propose a preliminary analysis of singular quantified terms in Hebrew, respecting the properties peculiar to this language as well as the observations about group vs. non-group singular quantified terms. This analysis is based on a novel class of quantifiers I name ’Measure Quantifiers’, which instantiate relations between algebraic sums. Using shifts between algebraic sums, we can represent the different readings of singular and plural individual or group terms.
This paper investigates an unnoticed difference in Mandarin between the Q-adjectives and the gradable adjectives of quality and shows that this observation follows straightforwardly from a theory that differentiates gradable predication of quantity and that of quality (e.g., Rett 2008; Lin 2014; Solt 2015; a.o.).
Recent work in semantics has shown that languages can vary in whether or not they include degrees (that is, elements of type < d >) in their semantic ontology. Several authors have argued that their languages of study lack degrees, including Bochnak (2013) for Washo (isolate, USA), Pearson (2009) for Fijian (Austronesian, Fiji), and Beck, et al. (2009) for Motu (Austronesian, Papua New Guinea). In this paper, I follow the tests proposed in Beck, et al. (2009) to assess the status of degrees in Warlpiri (Pama-Nyungan, Australia).
I use Warlpiri data collected following the Beck, et al. survey to argue that Warlpiri gradable predicates do not combine with a degree argument. (Like many other Australian languages, adjectival concepts like big and small are expressed using nouns in Warlpiri (Dixon 1982, Bittner & Hale 1995, among others). I refer to these lexical items as “gradable predicates” in this paper.) This paper represents a first pass at assessing the status of degrees in an Australian language, which have otherwise been unexamined from the point of view of degree semantics.
Content: 1 The Typology 1.1 Object Placement 2 Treatment of StG in terms of LF Movement – with and without Head Movement 3 An OT-solution in terms of linearisation (‘LF-to-PF-Mapping’) 3.1 The trigger for additional orders: Focus 3.2 Competitions 3.3 Summary 4 RP 4.1 LF Movement – with and without Head Movement 4.2 The OT-account for RP 4.3 Competitions 5 Summary
Content: 0 Introduction 1 Elements that block verb raising – a discussion 1.1 Haider’s observation 1.2 The other constructions 1.3 A possible explanation 1.4 Riemsdijk’s grafting approach as a possible alternative? 1.5 Intermediate Summary 2 Parsing problems with speech act adverbials in the pre-field
Content: 1 Introduction 2 A restrictive theory of head movement 2.1 Preliminary Remarks 2.2 Theoretical Problems of Head Movement 2.3 Remnant Phrasal Movement 2.4 Münchhausen Style Head Movement 3 Verb Second Movement 3.1 Introductory Remarks 3.2 Problems of V/2 constructions: Does V really move to Comp? 3.3 The preverbal position 3.4 The Second Position 4 References
Counting Markedness
(2003)
This paper reports the results of a corpus investigation on case conflicts in German argument free relative constructions. We investigate how corpus frequencies reflect the relative markedness of free relative and correlative constructions, the relative markedness of different case conflict configurations, and the relative markedness of different conflict resolution strategies. Section 1 introduces the conception of markedness as used in Optimality Theory. Section 2 introduces the facts about German free relative clauses, and section 3 presents the results of the corpus study. By and large, markedness and frequency go hand in hand. However, configurations at the highest end of the markedness scale rarely show up in corpus data, and for the configuration at the lowest end we found an unexpected outcome: the more marked structure is preferred.
The present paper addresses a current view in the psycholinguistic literature that case exhibits processing properties distinct from those of other morphological features such as number (cf. Fodor & Inoue, 2000; Meng & Bader, 2000a/b). In a speeded-acceptability judgement experiment, we show that the low performance previously found for case in contrast to number violations is limited to nominative case, whereas violations involving accusative and dative are judged more accurately. The data thus do not support the proposal that case per se is associated with special properties (in contrast to other features such as number) in reanalysis processes. Rather, there are significant judgement differences between the object cases accusative and dative on the one hand and the subject nominative case on the other. This may be explained by the fact that nominative has a specific status in German (and many other languages) as a default case.
The present paper addresses a current view in the psycholinguistic literature that case exhibits processing properties distinct from those of other morphological features such as number (cf. Fodor & Inoue, 2000; Meng & Bader, 2000a/b). In a speeded-acceptability judgement experiment, we show that the low performance previously found for case in contrast to number violations is limited to nominative case, whereas violations involving accusative and dative are judged more accurately. The data thus do not support the proposal that case per se is associated with special properties (in contrast to other features such as number) in reanalysis processes. Rather, there are significant judgement differences between the object cases accusative and dative on the one hand and the subject nominative case on the other. This may be explained by the fact that nominative has a specific status in German (and many other languages) as a default case.
In the recent literature there is a hypothesis that the human parser uses number and case information in different ways to resolve an initially incorrect case assignment. This paper investigates what role morphological case information plays during the parser’s detection of an ungrammaticality or its recognition that a reanalysis is necessary. First, we compare double nominative with double accusative ungrammaticalities in a word by word, speeded grammaticality task and in this way show that only double nominatives lead to a so-called ”illusion of grammaticality” (a low rate of ungrammaticality detection). This illusion was found to disappear when the second argument was realized by a pronoun rather than by a full definite determiner phrase, i.e. when the saliency of the second argument was increased. Thus, the accuracy in recognizing an ungrammaticality induced by the case feature of the second argument is dependent on the type of this argument. Furthermore, we found that the accuracy in detecting such case ungrammaticalities is distance sensitive insofar as a shorter distance leads to a higher accuracy. The results are taken as support for an ”expectationdriven” parse strategy in which the way the parser uses the information of a current input item depends on the expectation resulting from the parse carried out so far. By contrast, ”input-driven” parse strategies, such as the diagnosis model (Fodor & Inoue, 1999) are unable to explain the data presented here.
Do we know the answer?
(2003)
Holmberg (1997, 1999) assumes that Holmberg's generalisation (HG) is derivational, prohibiting Object Shift (OS) across an intervening non-adverbial element at any point in the derivation. Counterexamples to this hypothesis are given in Fox & Pesetsky (2005) which show that remnant VP-topicalisations are possible in Scandinavian as long as the VP-internal order relations are maintained. Extending the empirical basis concerning remnant VP-topicalisations, we argue that HG and the restrictions on object stranding result from the same, more general condition on order preservation. Considering this condition to be violable and to interact with various constraints on movement in an Optimality-theoretic fashion, we suggest an account for various asymmetries in the interaction between remnant VP-topicalisations and both OS and other movement operations (especially subject raising) as to their order preserving characteristics and stranding abilities.
The main claim of this paper is that the minimalist framework and optimality theory adopt more or less the same architecture of grammar: both assume that a generator defines a set S of potentially well-formed expressions that can be generated on the basis of a given input, and that there is an evaluator that selects the expressions from S that are actually grammatical in a given language L. The paper therefore proposes a model of grammar in which the strengths of the two frameworks are combined: more specifically, it is argued that the computational system of human language CHL from MP creates a set S of potentially well-formed expressions, and that these are subsequently evaluated in an optimality theoretic fashion.
The simple generator
(2006)
I argue that the shift of explanatory burden from the generator to the evaluator in OT syntax – together with the difficulties that arise when we try to formulate a working theory of the interfaces of syntax – leads to a number of assumptions about syntactic structures in OT which are quite different from those typical of minimalist syntax: formal features, as driving forces behind syntactic movement, are useless, and derivational and representational economy are problematic for both empirical and conceptual reasons. The notion of markedness, central in Optimality Theory, is not fully compatible with the idea of synactic economy. Even more so, seemingly obvious cases of blocking by structural economy do not seem to result from grammar proper, but reflect (economical) aspects of language use.
Natural law
(2006)
This work concentrates on the requirements of the computational system of HL, by developing the idea that Natural Law applies to universal syntactic principles. The systems of efficient growth are for the continuation of motion and maximal distance between the elements. The condition of maximization accounts for the properties of syntactic trees - binary branching, labeling, and the EPP. NL justifies the basic principle of organization in Merge: it provides a functional explanation of phase formation and thematic domains. In Optimality Theory, it accounts for the selection of a particular word order in languages. A comprehensive and definitive understanding of the principles underlying MP will eventually lead to a more advanced design of OT.
If we want to compare the explanatory and descriptive adequacy of the MP and OT, the original definitions by Chomsky (1964) are or little direct use. However, a relativized version of both notions can be defined, which can be used to express a number of parallels between the study of individual I-languages and the language faculty. In any version of explanatory and descriptive adequacy, the two notions derive from the research programme and can only be achieved together. They can therefore not be used to characterize the difference in orientation between OT and the MP. Even if ‘OT’ is restricted to a particular theory in Chomskyan linguistics (to the exclusion of, for instance, its use in LFG), it cannot be said to be stronger in descriptive adequacy than in explanatory adequacy in the technical sense of these terms.
Minimalist accounts lack a natural theory of markedness, whereas Optimality-Theoretical accounts fundamentally encode markedness. We think the duality of interfaces assumed in Minimalism is a step towards explaining pairedness behavior, where a given language exhibits a marked/ unmarked pair of items occupying the same niche. We argue that while Minimalism articulates the derivational aspect of language, and underlies grammaticality, an Optimality Theoretic articulation of PF and LF is conceptually natural and explains pairedness behavior. We adopt this ‘hybrid’ account, first, to explain the existence of marked (often termed ‘reflexive’) and unmarked anticausatives in German, recently studied in depth by Sch¨afer [2007].
Branching constraints
(2009)
Rejecting approaches with a directionality parameter, mainstream minimalism has adopted the notion of strict (or unidirectional) branching. Within optimality theory however, constraints have recently been proposed that presuppose that the branching direction scheme is language specific. I show that a syntactic analysis of Chechen word order and relative clauses using strict branching and movement triggered by feature checking seems very unlikely, whereas a directionality approach works well. I argue in favor of a mixed directionality approach for Chechen, where the branching direction scheme depends on the phrase type. This observation leads to the introduction of context variants of existing markedness constraints, in order to describe the branching processes in terms of optimality theory. The paper discusses how and where the optimality theory selection of the branching directions can be implemented within a minimalist derivation.
This paper discusses three case studies on the realization of spurious prepositions and argues that they illustrate a general interaction of convergence requirements of the morphological component with an economy condition that enforces faithfulness between the lexical items present in the numeration and the lexical items present in the PF output.
Variation in dative resumption among and within Alemannic varieties of German strongly favors an Evaluator component that makes use of optimality-theoretic evaluation rather than filters as in the Minimalist Program (MP). At the same time, the variation is restricted to realizational requirements. This supports a model of syntax like the Derivations and Evaluations framework (Broekhuis 2008) that combines a restrictive MP-style Generator with an Evaluator that includes ranked violable (interface) constraints.
Say hello to markedness
(2009)
In this paper, it will be shown that Bi-directional Optimality Theory (BOT) runs into problems of undergeneration when confronted with a certain class of partial-blocking phenomena. The empirical problem used to illustrate this is the cross-linguistic variation of one-step past-referring tenses. It will be argued that the well-known ‘present perfect puzzle’ is a sub-problem of it. The solution to the cross-linguistic variation of these tenses involves blocking of the marked tense. The relevant notion of ‘markedness’, while underivable synchronically, is argued to be linked to diachronic learning processes similar to those investigated by Benz (2006).
Aspect splits can affect agreement, Case, and even preposition insertion. This paper discusses the functional ‘why’ and the theoretical ‘how’ of aspect splits. Aspect splits are an economical way to mark aspect by preserving or suppressing some independent element in one aspect. In formal terms, they are produced in the same way as coda conditions in phonology, with positional/contextual faithfulness.This approach captures the additive effects of cross-cutting splits. Aspect splits are analyzed here from Hindi, Nepali, Yucatec Maya, Chontal, and Palauan.
In this paper I argue that both parametric variation and the alleged differences between languages in terms of their internal complexity straightforwardly follow from the Strongest Minimalist Thesis that takes the Faculty of Language (FL) to be an optimal solution to conditions that neighboring mental modules impose on it. In this paper I argue that hard conditions like legibility at the linguistic interfaces invoke simplicity metrices that, given that they stem from different mental modules, are not harmonious. I argue that widely attested expression strategies, such as agreement or movement, are a direct result of conflicting simplicity metrices, and that UG, perceived as a toolbox that shapes natural language, can be taken to consist of a limited number of markings strategies, all resulting from conflicting simplicity metrices. As such, the contents of UG follow from simplicity requirements, and therefore no longer necessitate linguistic principles, valued or unvalued, to be innately present. Finally, I show that the SMT does not require that languages themselves have to be optimal in connecting sound to meaning.
The most recent trend in the studies of LF intervention effects makes crucial reference to focusing effects on the interveners, and this paper critically examines the representative analyses of the focus-based approach. While each analysis has its own merits and shortcomings, I argue that a pragmatic analysis that does not make appeal to syntactic configurations is better equipped to deal with many of the complex and delicate facts surrounding intervention effects.