Sandhi Sans Derivation: Third Tone Patterns in Mandarin Chinese

Traditionally represented as “T3--\u3eT2/__T3”, a categorical tone change from a low–dipping tone (T3) to a high–rising tone (T2), the well-studied phenomenon of Mandarin third tone sandhi has been somewhat of a theoretical thorn. Most analyses of third tone sandhi are derivational in nature and non–derivational accounts, often based on ad–hoc constraints and dubious assumptions regarding sandhi domains, quickly run into problems. This paper proposes a non–derivational OT account rooted in a toneme deletion analysis which appeals to well–established principles of tonal markedness and their interaction with the OCP. In addition, a new observation is presented. Mandarin third tones do not undergo sandhi in prosodically prominent environments

German Passives and English Benefactives: The Need for Non-canonical Accusative Case

In both English benefactive constructions (John baked Mary a cake) and German kriegen/bekommen-passives (Er kriegte einen Stift geschenkt ‘He got a pen gifted’), the theme argument is accusative-marked but has no way of getting structural accusative case. In English benefactive constructions, this is because the beneficiary argument intervenes between the voice head and the theme, and in German kriegen/bekommen-passives, it is because there is no active voice head. This paper proposes that, in both languages, the applicative head introducing the beneficiary/recipient (more generally, the affectee argument), comes with an extra case feature that can license case on the theme argument. In English, this non-canonical accusative case feature comes with the regular applicative head introducing the beneficiary argument. In contrast, in German, it comes with a defective applicative head which introduces the recipient but is unable to assign to it the inherent dative case that normally comes with the Affectee theta-role. The paper offers a unified analysis of English and German double object constructions and also of German werden (‘be’) and kriegen/bekommen (‘get’)-passives

Binding German (in)direct objects: Spell-out strategies for disambiguation

Despite Grewendorf's (1988) well-known German binding data with the double-object verb zeigen 'show', which suggests that the direct object (DO) is generated higher than the indirect object (IO), this paper argues for the canonical surface order of IO>DO as base order. Highlighting the exceptional status of Grewendorf's examples, building on Featherston & Sternefeld's (2003) quantitative acceptability rating study, and exploiting the fact that zeigen can also be used as inherently reflexive with idiomatic meaning, and we appeal to Bruening's (2010) theory of idiom formation as well as the Encyclopedia within Distributed Morphology (Marantz 1997, Embick & Noyer 2007) and propose a flexible Spell-Out mechanism within a derivational approach to binding (e.g. Hornstein 2001 and Zwart 2002) that can override narrow syntactic case licensing by realizing nominals with different morphological case

Passivization possibilities in double-accusative constructions

Based on a diachronic corpus search, this paper proposes that dative rather than accusative-marking on the first object of German double-accusative verbs like lehren 'teach' (as also discussed in Lang 2007) and the corresponding passivization possibilities stem from the first object being interpreted as Recipient (sympathy-invoking co-participant, see Lehmann et al. 2004) rather than animate Patient and the second object being interpreted as inanimate Patient rather than adverbial accusative. In addition, a formal case-based account of German active and passive (di)transitive constructions is offered, making a three-way distinction between (i) structural, (ii) predictable inherent, and (iii) idiosyncratic lexical case (in line with Woolford 2006)

The Pragmatics and Syntax of German Inalienable Possession Constructions

Not available

The Syntax, Semantics, and Prosody of German "VP"-fronting

The Syntax, Semantics, and Prosody of German "VP"-frontin

Object Coreference in German: The Reflexive sich as a Problem for Derivational Approaches to Binding

Despite Grewendorf’s well-known German binding data with the double-object verb zeigen ‘show’, where one object reflexively binds the other and which suggests that the direct object (DO) is generated higher than the indirect object (IO), this paper argues for the canonical surface order of IO > DO as base order. We highlight the exceptional status of Grewendorf’s examples, build on scope facts as well as a quantitative acceptability rating study, and exploit the fact that zeigen can also be used as inherently reflexive with idiomatic meaning. Appealing to the base configuration of the pieces of idiomatic expressions and considering different Spell-Out possibilities of coreferential objects in German, we show that the case, number, and gender underspecification of the anaphor sich poses a previously unnoticed problem for derivational approaches to binding

Object Coreference in German: The Reflexive <i>sich</i> as a Problem for Derivational Approaches to Binding

Despite Grewendorf’s well-known German binding data with the double-object verb zeigen ‘show’, where one object reflexively binds the other and which suggests that the direct object (DO) is generated higher than the indirect object (IO), this paper argues for the canonical surface order of IO > DO as base order. We highlight the exceptional status of Grewendorf’s examples, build on scope facts as well as a quantitative acceptability rating study, and exploit the fact that zeigen can also be used as inherently reflexive with idiomatic meaning. Appealing to the base configuration of the pieces of idiomatic expressions and considering different Spell-Out possibilities of coreferential objects in German, we show that the case, number, and gender underspecification of the anaphor sich poses a previously unnoticed problem for derivational approaches to binding

Passivization possibilities in double-accusative constructions

Based on a diachronic corpus search, this paper proposes that dative rather than accusative-marking on the first object of German double-accusative verbs like lehren 'teach' (as also discussed in Lang 2007) and the corresponding passivization possibilities stem from the first object being interpreted as Recipient (sympathy-invoking co-participant, see Lehmann et al. 2004) rather than animate Patient and the second object being interpreted as inanimate Patient rather than adverbial accusative. In addition, a formal case-based account of German active and passive (di)transitive constructions is offered, making a three-way distinction between (i) structural, (ii) predictable inherent, and (iii) idiosyncratic lexical case (in line with Woolford 2006)