We examine the properties of where in English along with its counterparts in Korean, Mandarin Chinese, and Eastern Tamang. Despite a number of lexical differences among the four languages, many similarities fall into place if we analyze where as containing the null noun PLACE along with an interrogative wh-morpheme and an r- pronoun in the sense of Kayne (2010). Notably, we observe a cross-linguistic tendency in the four languages surveyed for where to behave differently when it has an ablative interpretation. There are certain environments in which an adposition can be dropped with a locative or allative interpretation, but not an ablative interpretation. Even in situations where it cannot be dropped (such as Mandarin Chinese), the locative and allative uses employ one adposition, while the ablative uses employ another. We follow Barrie and Yoo (2017) and assume that English place has an inherent θ -role but that this is subject to cross-linguistic variation, explaining the properties found in Korean, Mandarin Chinese, and Eastern Tamang.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Barrie, Michael, Heeryun Chung, and Duk-Ho An. 2022. Numeral classifiers in Korean-ki nominalizations. Linguistic Research 39(3): 499-518. This paper discusses the structure of numeral classifiers in two types of Korean -ki nominalizations. In the first type (NOM-ki), the object is a full KP, and the properties of numeral classifiers are identical to those of any full KP nominal. In the second type (GEN-ki), the object is a bare nP, and is missing the functional structure necessary for hosting numeral classifiers. As such, the numeral classifier simply adjoins to nP and gives rise to idiosyncratic or culturally relevant readings only. We argue that the Div head is part of the functional spine in Korean. Div is responsible for making the nP countable and able to semantically compose with the numeral classifier. In a full KP object (in NOM-ki), Div is present, and the numeral classifier composes Div+nP, giving rise to standard counting semantics. In a bare nP object (in GEN-ki), Div is absent. The numeral classifier cannot semantically compose with nP. We argue, following Harley (2009), that a non-compositional meaning can arise akin to compounds. (Sogang University center dot Konkuk University)

We describe and analyze a novel pattern of locative inversion, passivization, and object clitics in Xitsonga, a Bantu language of South Africa. We note that, unlike in most Bantu languages, locative inversion can take place with intransitives, transitives with active voice, and transitives with passive voice. While subject marking is obligatory, object marking is optional and indicates emphasis, although the semantic details are unclear. An interesting pattern emerges with locative inversion. Object marking is possible only with passive voice. We present an analysis in which the subject and object markers are clitics that are inserted post -syntactically. The subject clitic is triggered by agreement between T and the grammatical subject. The object clitic is triggered by theta assignment by V (which raises to Asp) to the thematic object. In locative inversion, the external argument remains in situ and serves as an intervenor between V (housed on Asp) and the object. In the passive, the external argument is suppressed or appears in a by-phrase, and the object can trigger the appearance of the object clitic on Asp.

This article provides a preliminary investigation of pseudo noun incorporation in Nepali, investigating scope, object-verb adjacency, case-marking, the availability of demonstratives, and number marking/number neutrality. We show that caseless objects have many of the typical properties of PNI as has been discussed in other languages. We make some tentative remarks regarding the precise characterization of number, suggesting that Nepali projects a NumP. We show that, despite an unclear understanding of number, there is strong evidence that PNI is found in Nepali and can be understood structurally by positing a reduced structure for the PNI object. Specifically, the PNI object is a bare NumP, while a full object is a KP.

Bruening et al. (2018) present a reanalysis of the DP Hypothesis, arguing that nominal phrases are NPs and that functional elements such as number and determiners appear in the specifier of NP. We take issue with a number of their claims, arguing that the DP Hypothesis (re-named here as the DP/KP Hypothesis) is in fact not in jeopardy. We review their discussion and present our counter arguments. First, we address their discussion of the development of the DP Hypothesis, and include several critical references they did not include in their overview. Their claim that the DP Hypothesis largely rests on an architectural parallel with the extended verbal projection ignores a large body of literature in which morphological, syntactic, and semantic evidence is adduced for an articulated nominal structure. They discuss several lines of evidence based on selection in support of their claim that nominal phrases are headed by N. We show that their claims fail for empirical and theoretical reasons. Specifically, once the assumption of another layer of structure above DP (namely KP) is acknowledged, their arguments against the functional architecture in nominal phrases no longer hold. We conclude that the DP/KP Hypothesis is still the best explanation for the cross-linguistic facts on nominal phrases.

Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Phonology in the twentieth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt. Joseph, John. 2012. Saussure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lehmann, Winfred P. (editor and translator). 1967. A reader in nineteenth century historical Indo-European linguistics. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 2004. Saussure and Indo-European linguistics. In The Cambridge companion to Saussure, ed. Carol Sanders, 9–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osthoff, Hermann and Karl Brugmann. 1878. Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen I [Morphological investigations in the sphere of the Indo-European languages]. Leipzig: S. Hirzel . Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt Brace. de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1879. Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: Teubner. Seuren, Pieter A.M. 2018. Saussure and Sechehaye: Myth and genius. A study in the history of linguistics and the foundations of language. Leiden: Brill. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie I [Principles of phonology I]. Prague: Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague. Wenker, Georg. 1877. Das Rheinische Platt mit einer autographischen Karte [The Rhenish dialect with an autographic map]. Düsseldorf: Schulte.

This chapter discusses the Iroquoian family. We begin with a discussion of the historical development of the Iroquoian family. We then discuss the phonological and morphological properties of Iroquoian languages. Next, we discuss lexical categories and noun incorporation, followed by a discussion of syntax. The Iroquoian family is split into the Northern and the Southern branch. This split occurred some time ago as the two branches differ widely. Southern Iroquoian consists only of Cherokee. Northern Iroquoian languages are remarkably similar to one another, suggesting a much later split. This chapter discusses the properties common to both the Northern and the Southern branches, as well as those properties unique to each branch.

This article deals with insertion of the semantically dummy verb got after certain occurrences of have and head movement of have in such situations in English. It argues that head movement in English is a postsyntactic morphological movement (rather than a narrow-syntactic operation). Got insertion in the have got construction is determined by prosodic weight of the phonological material between the subject DP and the VP. This inserted got subsequently induces movement of have, now as an auxiliary verb. This auxiliary verb moves to T° and then, in the case of questions, to C° via head movement. Thus, this paper identifies head movement in English as a PF phenomenon. This result is consistent with properties of postsyntactic head movement proposed in a recent dichotomy by Harizanov and Gribanova (2019). An interesting consequence of the current analysis is that at the point of application of got insertion and head movement, both morphosyntactic structure and prosodic structure coexist in the component of PF.

We claim that across-the-board (ATB) and right node raising (RNR) constructions in English should be analyzed in a uniform way, but neither of them can be on a par with parasitic gap (PG) constructions. To support this claim, we demonstrate that only the former two can license additive coordination (AC) and interwoven dependency (ID). We then offer a novel derivational analysis of the (un)availability of AC and ID in the three constructions. Specifically, we propose that cross-clausal conjunction via External Remerge (ER) constructs parallel coordinate structure in ATB and RNR while illegitimate linear ordering in the resulting multidominance structure is constrained by PF constraints; by contrast, ER does not yield the same kind of coordinate structure for PGs since subordination is required for the PG construction.

This chapter discusses the properties of polysynthesis and noun incorporation in the languages of North America. Starting with the Humboldtian tradition, it discusses the history of the interrelation between polysynthesis and noun incorporation, especially in the context of North American languages. It also discusses the kinds of concepts that are encoded morphologically in polysynthetic languages, presenting details of Mattissen’s typological classification of polysynthesis. Contemporary analyses of noun incorporation and polysynthesis are discussed. In particular, we discuss Baker’s generative approaches to polysynthesis and noun incorporation, Mithun’s functionalist analysis of polysynthesis, and touch on Roberts’s microparametric approach to variation in the context of polysynthesis and noun incorporation. Central to all these discussions is the notion of whether polysynthesis and noun incorporation are obligatorily intertwined or not. While early research suggested that the two phenomena go hand-in-hand, especially in North America, more recent research shows they are not, a conclusion that has serious ramifications for the analysis of these two phenomena. The chapter ends with an outlook for future research on the topics raised here.

In Northern Iroquoian languages, a nominalizer (nlzr) is typically required to transform a verb into a noun, either for noun incorporation or to create a full DP. In some cases, the nominalizer is required only for noun incorporation and not for the formation of a DP. Interestingly, the converse is never found. That is, there are no lexical roots that require the nominalizer for the formation of a DP, but not for noun incorporation. With this asymmetry in mind, we examine the categorial properties of roots in Northern Iroquoian. We discuss three common theories of the categorization of roots: (i) the traditional theory, in which all roots are specified as nouns or verbs (or adjectives for languages that have this category), (ii) the Bare Root Hypothesis, in which all roots are acategorial, and (iii), the Roots as Nouns Hypothesis, in which all roots are nouns. We show that the Northern Iroquoian facts are not amenable to any of these theories. We propose instead that some roots in Northern Iroquoian are categorially specified (some as nouns, some as verbs), while others are truly bare.

The Routledge Handbook of North American Languages is a one-stop reference for linguists on those topics that come up the most frequently in the study of the languages of North America (including Mexico). This handbook compiles a list of contributors from across many different theories and at different stages of their careers, all of whom are well-known experts in North American languages. The volume comprises two distinct parts: the first surveys some of the phenomena most frequently discussed in the study of North American languages, and the second surveys some of the most frequently discussed language families of North America. The consistent goal of each contribution is to couch the content of the chapter in contemporary theory so that the information is maximally relevant and accessible for a wide range of audiences, including graduate students and young new scholars, and even senior scholars who are looking for a crash course in the topics. Empirically driven chapters provide fundamental knowledge needed to participate in contemporary theoretical discussions of these languages, making this handbook an indispensable resource for linguistics scholars.

This paper analyzes -ki nominalizations in Korean. We identify two types of the -ki nominalizations, NOM-ki and GEN-ki, with distinct morphosyntactic properties. We propose an analysis along the lines of Kratzer (1996) in which the nominalizer -ki selects verbal projections of different sizes (TP and vP) to account for the observed patterns. We argue against previous accounts of -ki nominalizations, showing either that important generalizations were missed or that there were flaws in the previous analyses. We propose a novel generalization for the two types of -ki nominalizations and propose an appropriate analysis. Some outstanding issues and implications are briefly discussed.

In this paper, we present data from English get-constructions and from Northern Iroquoian to challenge the recent consensus that in no languages are causatives built on inchoatives. Our data suggest the need for distinct functional projections for the causative and inchoative. We argue that while they are bundled in other situations, the functional heads for the causative and inchoative can be split as described in the present paper. This line of research follows recent trends in investigating the fine structure of the vP layer (Alexiadou et al. 2015, Harley 2013, Kim 2011, Marantz 2013, Pylkkanen 2008, Ramchand 2008, Legate 2014). We propose a syntactic mechanism for bundling and, in doing so, account for differences in the range of possible meanings with adverbs between canonical causatives and get-causatives. Briefly, get-causatives have unbundled causative and inchoative heads and have a wider ranger of adverbial meanings due to the projection of independent CausP and InchP. Canonical causatives have a bundled Caus-Inch head, projecting a single Caus/InchP, which leads to fewer sites for adverbs to adjoin and accordingly to a narrower range of adverbial meanings. (Sogang University)