The paper argues for the existence of the (NP-level) mass-count distinction in Tashkent Uzbek, an obligatory classifier dialect. Evidence is provided based on the distribution and interpretation of modifiers, classifiers, quantificational suffixes of different types, as well as properties of object mass nouns and granular aggregates. A formal analysis within Landman’s (2020) Iceberg Semantics is further provided that treats classifiers as sensitive to the mass-count distinction but not uniformly serving as ‘individuators’ of otherwise mass nouns.
This paper investigates the role of light verbs as verbalizers within the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM). Drawing on empirical evidence from Mandarin Chinese, we argue for an independent verbalizing head, distinct from other functions traditionally attributed to little v. We show that Mandarin light verb dǎ is highly productive in dǎ+X formations and functions independently of transitivity, Voice, Aktionsart, aspect, and tense, resembling verbalizing affixes in other languages. In structural terms, we propose that dǎ heads an independent functional layer vcat, positioned below vcaus and Voice; and as a categorizer, it is inserted rootless and defines the First Phase for interpretation. Based on separability asymmetries in dǎ+N and dǎ+R constructions, we argue for two distinct structures: a modificational structure involving root adjunction in dǎ+R, and a denominal structure in dǎ+N. A broader potential for identifying other light verbs as verbalizers, as well as further implications on verb formation and denominal structures are further explored.
A growing body of evidence suggests that whether or not attitude predicates may combine with question complements is determined at least in part by some of their semantic properties. Zooming in, nonveridical preferential predicates (NVPs) such as hope and fear have been claimed not to combine with questions, but this empirical generalization as well as its proposed explanation have been challenged by a number of counterexamples, whose properties—beyond the fact that they have the predicate combining with embedded questions—remain ill understood. By taking a closer look at the combinatorial and semantic properties of different NVPs from English, Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, and Turkish, this work narrows down the semantic properties of attitude predicates that determine their combinatorial properties in a crosslinguistically informed and predictive way. We propose a new classification of NVPs based on two empirical properties: C(lausal)-distributivity and valence, and show that non-C-distributive NVPs (e.g., worry) as well as evaluatively negative and C-distributive NVPs (e.g., fear) can in fact combine with questions.
We propose a formal syntactic analysis of the Latin construction at the origin of Romance perfect tenses with a have-auxiliary, arguing that the Latin construction ‘habere + NP.acc + PaPa.acc’ is a grammatically passive structure in which habere ‘have’ is the main verb, selecting a small clause with the accusative NP as subject and the participle as predicate. Drawing on Myler’s (2016) analysis of have and insights from the literature on stative passives and the internal structure of participles, we show that the participles in these constructions may denote event and state tokens, and that different semantic readings of the construction correspond to a single syntactic structure. On the basis of this analysis, we develop a new account of the rise of analytic perfect tenses in Romance. We argue that the trigger for reanalysis was an independent change in the nominal domain—the emergence of a D-layer and in particular the grammaticalization of definite articles—which forced reanalysis specifically in contexts involving inalienably possessed direct objects. Once established in this critical context, the construction spread to new environments, including, for the first time, intransitive verbs.
Across the world’s languages, one of the most common clausal complementation strategies involves a form of the verb ‘say.’ Most research in this area assumes ‘say’ to be equivalent to the English complementizer ‘that.’ The present paper argues that an element in Lubukusu (Bantu, Kenya) that was formerly treated as an agreeing complementizer is actually a stative verb meaning ‘say.’ This ‘say’ predicate is the head of a clausal adjunct that merges at the VP level of the matrix clause, reasonably mimicking a complementizer. However, we demonstrate a number of reasons to think it is a verb. As a consequence of this analysis, an otherwise complex agreement system is reduced to run-of-the-mill subject-verb agreement both within the matrix clause and within a clausal adjunct. A central part of the argument is claiming that the verb ‘say’ introduces two arguments, a source argument and a communicated content argument; this argument structure explains a broad range of properties of ‘say’ cross-linguistically and correctly predicts a range of otherwise unexpected patterns in Lubukusu. If correct, this proposal advances our understanding of complementation structures and solves a standing agreement puzzle. We introduce a broad range of new Lubukusu patterns relevant to the argument structure of this verbal element, with implications for complementation, multiple-verb constructions, and agreement. In the course of the argument, we also address common objections to this kind of approach by showing that ‘say’ in English has a number of previously under-appreciated properties that parallel the Lubukusu facts. We conclude with some brief comments on the implications for a theory of selection.
