Volume 8
2012
The co-editors of the eighth volume are Lena BAUNAZ and Tomislav SOCANAC
| 1 | |
| 23 | |
| 39 | |
| 59 | |
| 77 | |
| 95 |
Tomislav Socanac (tomislav.socanac@unige.ch)
Subjunctive complements in Serbian/Croatian (SC) exhibit unusual distributional patterns because the range of predicates that select them is much wider than in most other languages. The result of this is a great semantic diversity of subjunctives in SC. I explain this diversity by demonstrating that different complements of this type exhibit significant differences in their structural make-up upon reaching the syntax-semantics interface, which produces different semantic inputs. The analysis I propose allows me to put all subjunctive complements in SC on a common semantic mood scale.
download the pdf document : click here.
Christophe Onambélé (onambelemanga@yahoo.fr)
In this paper, we aim at presenting a descriptive analysis of the morpho-syntax of agreement clitics in the Bantu language Ewondo, as displayed in imperative inclusives constructions. Pattern of agreement in Bantu languages could be highly challenging for current grammar frameworks as minimalist framework. Our analysis brings together the morpho-syntactic feature specifications and the procedure for implementing this as the core of the syntactic account provided.
Keywords : minimalism, imperative inclusive, bantu language
download the pdf document : click here.
Richard Zimmermann (Richard.Zimmermann@unige.ch)
The headedness of IP and VP is in synchronic variation in Old English. In order to measure the change towards Modern English I- and V- initial headedness accurately, elements need to be identified that never postpose. The present paper shows, firstly, that post-nominal reflexive, intensifying and pronominally reinforced self is such a non-postposing element. Secondly, it is demonstrated that using self as a diagnostic element measures the change in IP/VP headedness accurately.
download the pdf document : click here.
Sabrina Bertollo & Guido Cavallo (sabrina.bertollo@studenti.unipd.it - guido.cavallo@studenti.unipd.it)
After a brief discussion of the most influential theoretical proposals, we will consider all the possible configurations in which Italian free relative clauses can appear and we will make it clear what combinations are grammatical and what are not. Also by comparing the same construction in other languages such as German, Latin and Ancient Greek, we will try to provide a syntactic account for the different configurations. It will emerge that the only actual constraint on Italian free relatives concerns the antecedent, which must be always somehow lexicalized even if purely superficially; the morphological opacity of the Italian wh- chi allows for this.
download the pdf document : click here.
Goljihan Kashaeva (goljihan.kashaeva@unige.ch)
The Tatar language belongs to the Altaic or North Western Qypchak branch of the Turkic language family. It is a head-final language displaying the neutral SOV order. In this paper, we analyse the structural cartography of the IP-field or "Mittelfeld" of Tatar. We also discuss some facts of Tatar which reflect a similarity between the domain immediately above VP and the CP domain (the left periphery of the clause). In particular, we analyze the definiteness / specificity constraints on clause-internal scrambling. We argue that in Tatar there exists Topic/Focus configuration in IP internal low area of the clause akin to the CP domain.
download the pdf document : click here.
Keith Tse (keith.tse@balliol-oxford.com)
Roberts and Roussou (2003) and van Gelderen (2011) analyse grammaticalization in Minimalism and argue that it involves ‘structural simplification’, which explains its cross-linguistic distribution. Simpson and Wu (2002) analyse ‘lateral’ grammaticalization, also within Minimalism. Vincent and Borjars (V & B) (2010) argue that the latter is problematic for R & R and van Gelderen’s hypotheses, since it does not display an ‘upward shift of features’, yet I argue in this paper that it actually fits into their definitions of ‘structural simplification’ since Agree relations are lost in the process. Furthermore, the lack of ‘upward shift of features’ in ‘lateral’ grammaticalization correlates with the empirical differences, namely ‘phonological weakening’, ‘univerbation’ and ‘semantic bleaching’, all of which occur in grammaticalization but not in ‘lateral’ grammaticalization. Finally, V & B (2010) argue that formalism and functionalism are not mutually exclusive, which can be verified by examining the cross-linguistic examples of both grammaticalization and ‘lateral’ grammaticalization, since while they all undergo ‘structural simplification’, their ‘cues’ are also strikingly similar.
download the pdf document : click here.