Transitivity and Prototype Parameter - a cross-linguistic perspective -

This paper investigates the relationships between transitivity and prototype constructions from a cross-linguistic perspective. The focus of this paper is to show how the degree of semantic intensity in transitivity in a given language is correlated with the parameter of various prototype constructions with respect to force-dynamic profiles. It is demonstrated that the proposed prototype parameter captures the cross-linguistic regularity regarding the semantic intensity between verbs and grammatical arguments. This principle is also shown to constrain the applicability of some rules that change grammatical relations in German, English and Korean. This comparative perspective explains why there are cross-linguistic differences of transitive constructions with respect to the force-dynamic profiles.OAIID:oai:osos.snu.ac.kr:snu2014-01/102/0000047388/2SEQ:2PERF_CD:SNU2014-01EVAL_ITEM_CD:102USER_ID:0000047388ADJUST_YN:NEMP_ID:A077064DEPT_CD:709CITE_RATE:0FILENAME:ijglsafinal(3)shseong.pdfDEPT_NM:독어교육과SCOPUS_YN:NCONFIRM:YCONFIRM:

Voice Syncretism Crosslinguistically: The View from Minimalism

Voice syncretism is widely attested crosslinguistically. In this paper, we discuss three different types of Voice syncretism, under which the same morpheme participates in different configurations. We provide an approach under which the same Voice head can convey different interpretations depending on the environment it appears in, thus building on the notion of allosemy. We show that, in all cases under investigation, allosemy is closely associated with the existence of idiosyncratic patterns. By contrast, we notice that allosemy and idiosyncrasy are not present in analytic passive and causative constructions across different languages. We argue that the distinguishing feature between the two types of constructions is whether the passive and the causative interpretation comes from the Voice head, thus forming a single domain with the vP or whether passive and causative semantics are realized by distinct heads above the Voice layer, thus forming two distinct domains.Peer Reviewe

터키어 결과 구문의 구조

학위논문(석사)--서울대학교 대학원 :인문대학 언어학과,2019. 8. 고희정.본 연구에서는 개별 언어 별로 상당한 변이성을 보여주는 결과 구문의(Eckardt, 2003; Legendre, 1997; Nakazawa, 2008; Napoli, 1992) 여러 언어의 형태 대조를 통하여 터키어 결과 구문의 형태를 밝히고 이들의 통사적 특징들을 파악하려 하였다. 특히, 영어 결과 구문에 대한 연구는 폭넓게 이루어져 왔지만, 터키어의 결과 구문에 초점을 둔 연구는 매우 드물었다. 선행 연구 Turgay (2013)을 바탕으로 이 논문은 터키어에 동사-AsIyA 형과 형용사 (AP) 형, 두 가지 형태의 결과 구문이 존재함을 강조한다. 그러나 이전 연구와 달리 두 형태 모두가 소절 구조를 갖는다는 통합적인 주장을 한다. 하지만 본 논문에서는 동사-AsIyA 형을 부가소절로 보고 형용사 (AP) 형은 보어 (complement)로 분석하고자 한다. 결과 구문의 한 종류로서 동사 -AsIyA 형의 구조는 한국어의 -게 형 결과 구문과 비슷하게 술어의 주어가 취한 격에 따라 통사적 특성을 나타낸다. 이에 따라 본 논문에서는 Ko(2015)의 부가 소절 분석을 터키어의 결과 구문의 형태에 적용하여 이 유형의 통사적 도출에 대한 새로운 제안을 하고자 한다. 이와 관련하여 3.1절에서는 -AsIyA 형의 구조적 성격의 분석을 제시하고 있다. 또한, 터키어는 Talmy(2000)의 어휘화 유형 이론에서 제안한 동사형 언어에 속하지만, 본 연구에서는 터키어에서 형용사가 결과 상태를 가리키는 보어 유형이 될 수 있다고 지적한다. 그러나, 주목할 점은 터키어 형용사 결과구문은 목적어의 상태 변화를 함의하는 동사의 보어로만 사용된다는 것이다 (Washio, 1997). 이 유형은 또한 한국어의 pound-형 -로 결과 구문과 같이 술어 전치, 우측 전위, 좌측 전위, 술어 생략 현상에 있어서 유사한 특징을 보여준다. 따라서 Ko (2015)의 분석에서처럼 술어의 주어는 주절 동사의 목적어에 해당하며 이를 통제하는 PRO 와 형용사가 소절을 이룬다. 결론적으로 본 연구는 터키어의 두 가지 유형의 결과 구문에 대한 통합적인 분석을 제공한다.Although resultative constructions have been widely studied cross-linguistically, especially in English grammar (Bowers, 1993; Carrier and Randall, 1992; Hoekstra, 1988; Radford, 2009; Rappaport Hovav & Levin, 2001; 1974; Simpson, 1983), research focusing on Turkish resultative constructions is very scarce. This study investigates the availability of the resultative constructions, especially adjectival ones, in Turkish and examines their syntactic natures. Turkish RCs are discussed, and their syntactic structures are analysed. In the light of previous studies (Turgay,2013;Ko, 2015), the main argument is that Turkish has two types of resultatives; -AsIyA and AP type and considering the semantic relation between the DPs and result XP, both have small clause structures (Aarts, 1992; Hoekstra, 1988; Stowell, 1981, 1983). First, it was investigated if AP types RCs are available in Turkish. Although it is considered as v-framed language and does not allow DMCs, it was concluded that Turkish has AP type RCs but only the weak ones (Washio, 1997). As for –AsIyA structures, it is shown that the subject of the result XP can be either accusative or nominative marked and that these two different marked constructions exhibit different structural features like Korean –key resultatives. Thus, it is illustrated that adoption of Kos adjunct small clause analysis captures their properties well. Considering the similarities between Korean pound-type –lo RCs and Turkish AP- type RCs such as predicate fronting, predicate right-dislocation and predicate omission, it is presented that Turkish AP type RCs pattern with Korean pound-type –lo RCs and adoption of complement small clause analysis including PRO, argued by Ko (2015), on this type works well. In conclusion, small clause structures with different merge nodes; adjunct small clause and complement small clause, account for both types of Turkish RCs; -AsIyA and AP-type respectively. This analysis also captures the differences between the NOM and ACC cased –AsIyA constructions. Thus, the present study provides a unified analysis for both types of resultatives in Turkish.I. INTRODUCTION . 1 1.1 The Motivation and Purpose of the Study . 4 1.2 Organization of Thesis . 4 II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5 2.1 Language Variation in RCs 5 2.1.1 English 5 2.1.2 German 17 2.1.3 Romance Languages . 20 2.1.4 Chinese 23 2.1.5 Japanese 25 2.1.6 Korean . 26 2.2 Summary and Conclusion 35 III. TURKISH RESULTATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS . 36 3.1 Previous Study on Turkish RCs. 36 3.2 The Proposal . . 49 3.3 Analysis 51 3.3.1 -AsIyA type . 51 3.3.2 AP type 61 3.4 Implications 71 IV. CONCLUSION 77 4.1 Summary 77 4.2 Limitations and Issues for further Research 80 References 83 Abstract (Korean) . 88Maste

Movement and Intervention Effects:Evidence from Hindi/Urdu

The purpose of this dissertation is to explore the nature of intervention effects seen in various constructions like Wh-scope marking, raising and passivization. In particular, this dissertation argues in favor of a movement account for all these cases and supports the idea that (syntactic) movement is inevitable and sufficient enough to provide a unified account of various structural relations (Hornstein, 2009). It further argues that movement always happens in narrow syntax, even when it isn't visible. For some of these invisible cases, this dissertation suggests head movement as an alternative to LF movement and Agree. The second aim of this dissertation is to explain intervention effects in terms of relativized minimality (Rizzi 1990, 2004). In this consideration, this dissertation sides with Boeckx & Lasnik (2006) view that not all minimality violations are derivational: some are repairable, indicating that they must be treated as representational constraints, while others are not, indicating that they are derivational. In this study, the dissertation not only reviews cross-linguistic facts from languages like English, German, Chinese, Japanese, and Icelandic but also provides novel empirical data from Hindi/Urdu. This way, the dissertation focuses on cross-linguistic as well as language specific investigation of intervention effects. The third aspect of this dissertation therefore is to relate cross-linguistic variations in intervention effects to the difference in the nature of the phase heads among languages. For instance, the cross-linguistic difference in the properties of various constructions (such as Wh-scope marking and double object construction) is reducible to the availability of an escape hatch with the relevant phase head (C or v). In this exploration, this dissertation also makes two language specific claims about Hindi/Urdu; (a) the basic word order in this language is SVO, and (b) this language involves Wh-movement in overt syntax. The first claim contributes to the long standing debate about the basic word in Hindi/Urdu, a language which shows a dichotomy in its word order by exhibiting both SOV and SVO word order. The second claim adds to the covert vs. overt Wh-movement debate for Wh in-situ languages like Hindi/Urdu. The dissertation attributes both these aspects to the phasehood of little v in Hindi/Urdu

OV and VO variation in code-switching

This monograph is intended as a contribution to the field of bilingualism from a generative syntax perspective at a variety of levels. It investigates code-switching between Korean and English and also between Japanese and English, which exhibit several interesting features. Due to their canonical word order differences, Korean and Japanese being SOV (Subject-Object-Verb) and English SVO (Subject-Verb-Object), a code-switched sentence between Korean/Japanese and English can take, in principle, either OV or VO order, to which little attention has been paid in the literature. On the contrary, word order is one of the most extensively discussed topics in generative syntax, especially in the Principles and Parameter’s approach (P&P) where various proposals have been made to account of various order patterns of different languages. By taking the generative view that linguistic variation is due to variation in the domain of functional categories rather than lexical roots (e.g. Borer 1984; Chomsky 1995), this monograph investigates word order variation in Korean-English and Japanese-English code-switching, with particular attention to the relative placement of the predicate (verb) and its complement (object) in two contrasting word orders, OV and VO, which was tested against Korean-English and Japanese-English bilingual speakers’ introspective judgments. The results provide strong evidence indicating that the distinction between functional and lexical verbs plays a major role in deriving different word orders (OV and VO, respectively) in Korean-English and Japanese-English code-switching, which supports the hypothesis that parametric variation is attributed to differences in the features of a functional category in the lexicon, as assumed in minimalist syntax. In particular, the explanation pursued in this monograph is based on feature inheritance, a syntactic derivational process, which was proposed in recent developments the Minimalist Program. The monograph shows that by studying diverse and creative word order patterns of code-switching, we are at a better disposal to understand how languages are parameterized similarly or differently in a given domain, which is the very topic that generative linguists have pursued for a long time

On Japanese Desiderative Constructions

PACLIC / The University of the Philippines Visayas Cebu College Cebu City, Philippines / November 20-22, 200

A lexicalist account of argument structure: Template-based phrasal LFG approaches and a lexical HPSG alternative

Currently, there are two prominent schools in linguistics: Minimalism (Chomsky) and Construction Grammar (Goldberg, Tomasello). Minimalism comes with the claim that our linguistic capabilities consist of an abstract, binary combinatorial operation (Merge) and a lexicon. Most versions of Construction Grammar assume that language consists of flat phrasal schemata that contribute their own meaning and may license additional arguments. This book examines a variant of Lexical Functional Grammar, which is lexical in principle but was augmented by tools that allow for the description of phrasal constructions in the Construction Grammar sense. These new tools include templates that can be used to model inheritance hierarchies and a resource driven semantics. The resource driven semantics makes it possible to reach the effects that lexical rules had, for example remapping of arguments, by semantic means. The semantic constraints can be evaluated in the syntactic component, which is basically similar to the delayed execution of lexical rules. So this is a new formalization that might be suitable to provide solutions to longstanding problems that are not available for other formalizations. While the authors suggest a lexical treatment of many phenomena and only assume phrasal constructions for selected phenomena like benefactive and resultative constructions in English, it can be shown that even these two constructions should not be treated phrasally in English and that the analysis would not extend to other languages as for instance German. I show that the new formal tools do not really improve the situation and many of the basic conceptual problems remain. Since this specific proposal fails for two constructions, it follows that proposals (in the same framework) that assume phrasal analyses for all constructions are not appropriate either. The conclusion is that lexical models are needed and this entails that the schemata that combine syntactic objects are rather abstract (as in Categorial Grammar, Minimalism, HPSG and standard LFG). On the other hand there are constructions that should be treated by very specific, phrasal schemata as in Construction Grammar and LFG and HPSG. So the conclusion is that both schools are right (and wrong) and that a combination of ideas from both camps is needed