We provide the first detailed description and analysis of the syntax of the understudied Greek split reciprocal reconstruction. As in other languages, the reciprocal appears to be bipartite consisting of a quantificational distributor ('the one') and a reciprocator ('the other'). We show that, in Greek, this bipartiteness runs deep: the two parts are syntactically independent, with the reciprocator having the syntax of a Condition A anaphor, and the distributor behaving as a floating quantifier. Once we turn to how these elements establish relations between themselves and their antecedent, we find that Greek reciprocals resist a movement- or Agree-based analysis, since both elements can occur in positions inaccessible to movement/Agree. Given that the reciprocator can occur in embedded subject position, the Greek data also argue against recent attempts to reduce the binding domain to phases, instead supporting a more traditional definition of the binding domain in terms of the smallest XP containing the anaphor and a subject. Finally, we show that the morphosyntactic properties of the bipartite construction can be connected to independent properties of its two component parts and that these can, in turn, be related to interpretive aspects of reciprocity.
There is no consensus in the literature on the analysis of phrasal comparatives. Both reduced clause analyses, in which the standard phrase contains elided clausal structure, and direct analyses, in which the standard of comparison is a direct complement to the standard marker, have been proposed. This paper argues for a direct analysis of the phrasal comparative in Malagasy, an Austronesian language spoken on the island of Madagascar. Evidence for the direct analysis comes from the lack of overt clausal comparatives, Binding Theory, scope, and Malagasy-specific characteristics of the standard. The conclusion contributes to the rapidly expanding picture of cross-linguistic variation in comparative syntax.
Two fundamental tasks of syntactic inquiry are to identify the elementary structure-building operations and to determine what properties they have and why. This article aims to bring us closer to those goals by investigating Merge. Two recent definitions of Merge are evaluated. It is argued that both have significant strengths but also some drawbacks, and that set-theoretic definitions of Merge in general face conceptual problems. It is proposed that Merge is not set-theoretic but graph-theoretic in nature: the syntactic objects it operates on and creates are (bare-phrase-structure-compliant) phrase-structure trees. Two new formal definitions of Merge are proposed and evaluated. One obeys the No-Tampering Condition but makes it unclear why Merge(alpha,beta$$ \alpha, \beta $$) satisfies only one selectional feature of alpha$$ \alpha $$, not all of them. The other accounts for that observation but narrowly violates the No-Tampering Condition. The larger picture that emerges is one in which Merge is a graph-theoretic, not a set-theoretic, operation.
Recent research suggests that verb echo answers (VEAs) to a polar question in Japanese are derived by sluicing: the V head moves to C, and the complement of C, TP, undergoes deletion, stranding the verbal complex in C. Two pieces of evidence are provided for the view: adjunct inclusive interpretation and voice mismatch, neither of which is conclusive, as shown here. One consequence of the sluicing analysis is that VEAs reverse scope. We show that the semantic shift has nothing to do with the scope reversal. Our conclusion is that VEAs are unambiguously derived by multiple applications of argument ellipsis. We also advance an alternative explanation of the obligatory wide scope for focus phrases.
Whether syntactic head movement exists in Japanese has been hotly debated because of the strictly head-final character of the language. This paper addresses this issue, focusing on data regarding null adjuncts. We demonstrate that the head-stranding ellipsis (HSE) analysis of null adjuncts is not conclusive. To achieve this, we show that null adjuncts are more widely observed than the HSE analysis predicts. Specifically, we provide a new set of data that challenges Funakoshi's (2016) generalization regarding null adjuncts, which he claims his verb-stranding VP-ellipsis analysis explains. We also present a novel observation that some null adjuncts take scope over negation, contrary to what the HSE analysis predicts. Furthermore, we show that null adjuncts are derived even if the verb does not raise. Given these findings, we explore alternative analyses of null adjuncts that do not assume head movement. In particular, we discuss the pragmatic enrichment analysis as well as the adjunct ellipsis analysis, and suggest that the distribution of null adjuncts is better analyzed by a pragmatic account in line with Landau (2023). This paper concludes that any arguments for head movement based on the HSE analysis of null adjuncts are inconclusive at best.
