On adjoined possessors

External and internal possessors differ from each other in several properties. In contrast to internal possessors, external possessors do not form a constituent with the possessed noun and can participate in clause-level processes such as verb agreement and switch-reference. In this squib, we discuss “intermediate” possessors with both internal and external properties. In Tundra Nenets (Uralic), such possessors form a syntactic constituent with the possessed noun but show different types of clause-level behavior. They can bind and control out of their host DP and participate in an obviation system, a consequence of the possessor being adjoined to the host DP

Focus as a morphosyntactic and morphosemantic feature

A typology of grammatical features offered in Corbett (2012) and Kibort & Corbett (2008, 2010) makes a crucial distinction between two types of interface features reflected in morphology: (i) morphosemantic features, which affect semantics but do not participate in syntax, (ii) morphosyntactic features, which are both semantically charged and relevant to syntax. In neutral terms, for a feature to be relevant to syntax means that at least some of its values must be determined through a syntactic relation with another word. Although focus was listed as a possible candidate for a grammatical feature, its status within this typology remained unspecified. If it is a feature, it is an interface feature since it tends to affect syntax and carries an instruction to phonology and semantics, but for most languages the focus feature is purely abstract and irrelevant for morphology. If focus is expressed by a dedicated morphological marker, there is typically no evidence that it is relevant for agreement or government, so at best we can view focus as a morphosemantic feature. This paper contributes to the typology of grammatical features by analysing how focus works in Tundra Nenets (Uralic). I argue that this language has a dedicated marker of exclusive focus which is fully integrated into the morphology of the word of which it is a part. It appears to be the exponent of two different features which do not necessarily overlap: a morphosemantic focus and a morphosyntactic focus. The latter participates in ‘focus spreading’, i.e. some kind of feature transmission partly similar to the phenomenon of ‘definiteness spreading’. Focus spreading shows at least some canonical properties of grammatical agreement. Based on this, I will conclude that Tundra Nenets comes as close as possible to a language in which postulating a marginal morphosyntactic feature ‘focus’ may be justifiable

Constructional analogy and reanalysis in possessive applicatives

Although possessors internal to an argument DP do not qualify as canonical controllers of verbal agreement, in some languages an internal possessor may be cross-referenced on an applicative verb. The aim of the paper is to propose a historical scenario for the emergence of this pattern, following the basic insights of the constructional approach to language change. The paper argues that this pattern is a historical innovation. It emerged when the external possessor was reanalysed as internal, a process that has parallels in some languages with dative possessors. The change was motivated by cross-constructional analogy, namely, formal and semantic assimilation to the class of internal possessive constructions. When constituency was reanalysed, the location of agreement remained intact creating a non-local configuration

Systemic Polyfunctionality and Morphology-syntax Interdependencies

International audienceno abstrac

Centrality measure for positive elements of W*-algebras

In this article we propose two measures one that gives an answer "How far is an element from central" and the other "How far a linear functionalis from tracial?" As we see from the article the measure of centrality incase of positive bounded operators has a tight connection with the conceptof invertibility

Possessors in switch-reference

Some languages with switch-reference use same-subject markers in structures where the internal possessor of one subject corefers with another subject, but the subjects do not corefer with each other. We analyse such patterns as a type of non-canonical switch-reference (Stirling 1993; de Sousa 2016) and show that languages differ in what types of possessive relations license same-subject marking. Languages that allow alienable possessive relations in switch-reference also allow inalienable relations to license same-subject marking, but not vice versa. In addition, alienable, but not inalienable possessive relations, must be morphosyntactically expressed when licensing same-subject marking. Adopting a modified version of Stirling’s (1993) approach, we derive these implicational relations from anaphoric conditions licensing non-canonical switch-reference