The Syntax of Prominence

The standard view on discourse pronoun resolution is that determining the antecedents of discourse pronouns is typically a function of extralinguistic reasoning. In contrast, Stojnić (2021) argues that pronoun resolution is a function of linguistic facts. In this article we offer what we take to be a friendly amendment to the technical aspects of Stojnić’s proposal. Our point of departure will be with our idea that prominence is not determined by the position of the candidate antecedent within a stack, but rather by its position within standard syntactic tree structures, extended to include discourse-level trees. Our proposal leans on the notion of p-scope, a proof-theoretic accessibility relation among tree nodes which we develop in Ludlow and Živanović (2022), and the notion of closeness built on standard accounts of syntactic locality. The key idea is that a pronoun’s antecedent resolves to its closest p-scoper; specifically, p-scope determines the potential antecedents, and the closeness relation orders these by prominence. Coherence relations, which we provisionally represent as syntactic heads, can be then seen as affecting accessibility and prominence indirectly, in virtue of their position in traditional LF tree structures

Kvantifikacijski vidiki logične oblike v minimalistični teoriji jezika

The monograph ('Quantificational Aspects of Logical Form in Minimalist Program') argues that it is possible to view the Logical Form (LF) of the Minimalist Program and Semantic Form (SF), (implicitly) introduced by virtually all semantic theories, as identical. It does this by (i) defining language L*, a plural-logic extension of the first-order predicate logic, which is rich enough to express the meaning of English superlative determiner (SD) ‘most’, and (ii) constructing an isomorphism between LF and L*-encoded SF.Empirically, the introduction of L* is supported by an original cross-linguistic prediction claiming that a language having an English-like SD also has a definite determiner (DD), like English ‘the’. The prediction is most strongly corroborated by Macedonian/Bulgarian, which is the only Slavic language having the DD.The main features of the constructed isomorphism are the following. Variables of L* correspond to sequences of functional projections in head-complement relation. Predicates of L* correspond to (conceptual and) formal features of LF. Feature projection in LF is predication in L*. There are no explicit quantifiers in LF/L*: the scope of quantifiers is predictable from the occurrences of variables.Finally, the monograph provides the syntactic/semantic analysis of a wide range of constructions, the emphasis being on superlative and comparative constructions, and focus.Monografija dokazuje, da sta skladenjska ravnina minimalistične teorije jezika, imenovana logična oblika (LF), in pomenska ravnina, ki jo (implicitno) uvajajo skoraj vse pomenoslovne teorije, ena in ista ravnina. To stori tako, da (i) definira logični jezik L*, pluralno razširitev predikatne logike prvega reda, ki ima dovolj izrazne moči za zapis pomena angleškega presežniškega določilnika ‘most’, ter (ii) izdela izomorfizem med LF in pomensko ravnino, temelječo na jeziku L*.Empirično je uvedba jezika L* podprta z izvirno medjezikovno napovedjo, ki trdi, da vsak jezik s presežniškim določilnikom angleškega tipa pozna tudi določni določilnik (v angleščini ‘the’). Napoved najmočneje podkrepita makedonščina in bolgarščina, ki sta edina slovanska jezika z določnim določilnikom.Glavne značilnosti izdelanega izomorfizma so naslednje. Spremenljivke jezika L* ustrezajo zaporedjem funkcijskih projekcij v razmerju jedro – dopolnilo. Predikati jezika L* ustrezajo (pojmovnim in) formalnim oznakam LF. Projekcijo oznak v LF enačimo s predikacijo v jeziku L*. Monografija prinaša razčlembe širokega obsega jezikovnih zgradb, s poudarkom na presežniških in primerniških zgradbah ter žariščenju

GP 2, and Putonghua too

The article illustrates some of the salient features of Government Phonology (GP) 2.0 by axiomatising (a subclass of) the set of possible Putonghua forms.We show that a phonological theory can profit by assuming that phonological representations are hierarchical, just like syntactic representations. A structural relation of c++command, a relative of the well-known c-command, is used heavily. The similarity with syntax is further underlined by the introduction of a phonological Binding Theory: illicit representations are prohibited by the LUxI Principles, the phonological counterpart of Principles A, B and C

Conjunctive and prepositional comparatives in Slovenian

The paper deals with the distribution of conjunctive and prepositional comparative structures in Slovenian. They are introduced by the complementiser kot and the preposition od, respectively. Comparative structures are categorised along three dimensions: (i) the morphological environment of the comparative morpheme (yielding amount and quality comparatives); (ii) the syntactic environment of the comparative morpheme (eight syntactic environments are discussed: (nominative) subject, (accusative) direct object, (dative) indirect object, prepositional object, locative adverbial, temporal adverbial, some other adverbial, and predicate); (iii) the syntactic environment (the same environments as above are discussed) of the associate (the non-elided phrase in the comparative complement is the remnant; its counterpart with the same grammatical function in the matrix clause is the associate). The comparison of conjunctive and prepositional comparatives shows that the distribution of the latter is more restricted and also exhibits more inter-speaker variation than the former. Conjunctive comparatives are acceptable in virtually all combinations of the above-mentioned parameters, the only exception being quality comparatives withan adverbial or predicate associate where the comparative morpheme is embedded in the associate. The only absolute generalisation that can be made about prepositional comparatives is that the associate must be either a subject or a direct object; all other generalisations are merely tendencies