Causative verbs in the Albanian variety of Arbëresh take a finite complement clause, with the cau... more Causative verbs in the Albanian variety of Arbëresh take a finite complement clause, with the causee realized as a nominative or as an oblique (like the dative/instrumental causee in Italian). We argue that causatives are biclausal and that their complement is non-phasal, of different sizes (e.g., vP in Italian and IP/CP in Arbëresh). Being nonphasal, it is transparent to φ-Agree with the matrix v*. The non-phasal vP-complement in Italian triggers an ergative alignment, with the causee realized as an oblique in transitives (or accusative with intransitives/unaccusatives). This option is also available in Arbëresh under contact with Italian, although with a finite complement. The option of a nominative causee in Arbëresh is directly accounted for as φ-Agree with the embedded I. Standard Albanian (and Greek) have an accusative causee, as in Isogloss 2024, 10(4)/4 M. Rita Manzini & Anna Roussou English. Given that the embedded I is finite in Albanian, φ-Agree with matrix v* is an instance of hyper-raising. We argue that this option is linked to the null-subject property of Albanian. Finite I is 'strong enough' to label by itself (Chomsky 2015), freeing the DP to enter Agree with a higher φ-probe.
Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali, Sep 29, 2023
is paper revisits c-and s-selection in the context of wh-clausal complements. e standard treatmen... more is paper revisits c-and s-selection in the context of wh-clausal complements. e standard treatment of predicate-complement selection can be traced back to generative approaches of 70's and says that the selection of a complement by a predicate is evaluated both in syntax and semantics. As regards syntax, the grammatical category of the complement must belong to the subcategorization frame of the predicate, and vis-à-vis semantics, the semantic type of the complement must fall in the set of types selected by the predicate. e present paper examines several licit instances of wh-clausal selection that should have been ungrammatical under the standard treatment, but they are not. e analysis offered here says that c-selection reduces to argument selection and is computed derivationally (at the point of External Merge), while s-selection reduces to an interpretation function that spans a larger grammatical domain and is evaluated representationally (at the syntax-semantics interface).
14ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ελληνικής Γλωσσολογίας, Oct 11, 2021
Η παρούσα εργασία εξετάζει την κατανομή του συμπληρωματικού δείκτη (ΣΔ) «ότι» σε προτάσεις που εκ... more Η παρούσα εργασία εξετάζει την κατανομή του συμπληρωματικού δείκτη (ΣΔ) «ότι» σε προτάσεις που εκ πρώτης όψεως έχουν επιρρηματική (χρονική) λειτουργία. Η ανάλυση βασίζεται στη σύγχρονη προσέγγιση των ΣΔ ως ονοματικών (αντωνυμικών) στοιχείων. Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο η παρουσία του «ότι» στις εν λόγω επιρρηματικές προτάσεις εξηγείται μέσω του χαρακτηρισμού του ως αντωνυμίας και της κατανομής του σε συγκεκριμένες ελεύθερες αναφορικές προτάσεις. Στο πλαίσιο αυτής της προσέγγισης, το στοιχείο «ότι» εξαρτά τη λειτουργία του και κατ' επέκταση την ερμηνεία του από το συντακτικό περιβάλλον στο οποίο εμφανίζεται. Η πολλαπλή αυτή κατανομή ερμηνεύεται ως μια περίπτωση συντακτικής 'πολυσημίας'. Λέξεις-κλειδιά: συμπληρωματικός δείκτης, αντωνυμία, ελεύθερη αναφορική πρόταση, χρονική πρόταση, ονοματικό στοιχείο. 1 As pointed out by Eleni Agathopoulou (p.c.), this use of oti is not acceptable by all speakers, and there seems to be a north (ungrammatical) vs. south (grammatical) split.
Does history have to be only about the past? "History" refers to both a subject matter and a thou... more Does history have to be only about the past? "History" refers to both a subject matter and a thought process. That thought process involves raising questions, marshalling evidence, discerning patterns in the evidence, writing narratives, and critiquing the narratives written by others. Whatever subject matter they study, all historians employ the thought process of historical thinking. What if historians were to extend the process of historical thinking into the subject matter domain of the future? Historians would breach one of our profession's most rigid disciplinary barriers. Very few historians venture predictions about the future, and those who do are viewed with skepticism by the profession at large. On methodological grounds, most historians reject as either impractical, quixotic, hubristic, or dangerous any effort to examine the past as a way to make predictions about the future. However, where at one time thinking about the future did mean making a scientifically-based prediction, futurists today are just as likely to think in terms of scenarios. Where a prediction is a definitive statement about what will be, scenarios are heuristic narratives that explore alternative plausibilities of what might be. Scenario writers, like historians, understand that surprise, contingency, and deviations from the trend line are the rule, not the exception; among scenario writers, context matters. The thought process of the scenario method shares many features with historical thinking. With only minimal intellectual adjustment, then, most professionally trained historians possess the necessary skills to write methodologically rigorous "histories of the future."
Η παρούσα eργασία eξeτάζeι την κατανομή του συμπληρωματικού δeίκτη (ΣΔ) «ότι» σe προτάσeις που eκ... more Η παρούσα eργασία eξeτάζeι την κατανομή του συμπληρωματικού δeίκτη (ΣΔ) «ότι» σe προτάσeις που eκ πρώτης όψeως έχουν eπιρρηματική (χρονική) λeιτουργία. Η ανάλυση βασίζeται στη σύγχρονη προσέγγιση των ΣΔ ως ονοματικών (αντωνυμικών) στοιχeίων. Σe αυτό το πλαίσιο η παρουσία του «ότι» στις eν λόγω eπιρρηματικές προτάσeις eξηγeίται μέσω του χαρακτηρισμού του ως αντωνυμίας και της κατανομής του σe συγκeκριμένeς eλeύθeρeς αναφορικές προτάσeις. Στο πλαίσιο αυτής της προσέγγισης, το στοιχeίο «ότι» eξαρτά τη λeιτουργία του και κατ’ eπέκταση την eρμηνeία του από το συντακτικό πeριβάλλον στο οποίο eμφανίζeται. Η πολλαπλή αυτή κατανομή eρμηνeύeται ως μια πeρίπτωση συντακτικής ‘πολυσημίας’.
1. Introduction The SLA literatu re reports nu m erous stu d ies of highly proficient L2 speakers... more 1. Introduction The SLA literatu re reports nu m erous stu d ies of highly proficient L2 speakers w ith long im m ersion, w ho d iverge significantly from native speakers (N S) in the prod uction of d efinite articles (Tsimpli 2003, White 2003) and pronou ns (Tsim pli op.cit.) d espite the positive evid ence offered by the target L2. Recent SLA theories have attem pted to explain N S/ N on-NS d ivergence by argu ing for a d issociation betw een syntactic know led ge and m orphophonology: highly proficient learners have know led ge of the abstract properties of the target langu age bu t cannot associate them w ith the correct phonological forms (Lard iere 2000, Prevost & White 2000). Other theories argue for a problem in the syntax: formal u ninterpretable featu res (e.g. Case on clitics and D) of the target langu age, not instantiated in L1, cau se learnability problem s (Hawkins and Chan 1997, Tsimpli 1997, in press-a) while LF interpretable features are accessible in L2 grammars (...
In the present paper we provide an account of VSO in Greek and its (relative) absence in Italian,... more In the present paper we provide an account of VSO in Greek and its (relative) absence in Italian, despite the fact that both languages allow for postverbal subjects. We argue that this parametric difference reduces to different lexicalisation options regarding the D-system of the two grammars. We assume that the clause structure divides into three basic domains (V, T, and C), and that nominal (clitic) positions are available in each of these domains, which, as we argue, can be lexicalised not only by clitics but also by full DPs. On this basis, we argue that the subject and object DP in Greek can appear in the same domain (V), as they spell out different features depending on their grammatical function, while this is not so in Italian, given that DPs spell out the same set of features irrespective of their grammatical function. This basic difference is responsible for the presence of VSO in Greek but not in Italian. We also consider the implications of our approach for the interpretation of subjects and arguments in general. [1] We would like to thank Rita Manzini, Ian Roberts, Neil Smith and Tasos Tsangalidis for discussions on the topic. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 25th GLOW Colloquium in Amsterdam (April 2002), the Workshop on Greek Syntax and the Minimalist Seduction in Reading (September 2002), and the UCL Postgraduate Alumni Reunion Conference (September 2003). We thank all audiences as well as the two anonymous JL referees for their useful comments.
Causative verbs in the Albanian variety of Arbëresh take a finite complement clause, with the cau... more Causative verbs in the Albanian variety of Arbëresh take a finite complement clause, with the causee realized as a nominative or as an oblique (like the dative/instrumental causee in Italian). We argue that causatives are biclausal and that their complement is non-phasal, of different sizes (e.g., vP in Italian and IP/CP in Arbëresh). Being nonphasal, it is transparent to φ-Agree with the matrix v*. The non-phasal vP-complement in Italian triggers an ergative alignment, with the causee realized as an oblique in transitives (or accusative with intransitives/unaccusatives). This option is also available in Arbëresh under contact with Italian, although with a finite complement. The option of a nominative causee in Arbëresh is directly accounted for as φ-Agree with the embedded I. Standard Albanian (and Greek) have an accusative causee, as in Isogloss 2024, 10(4)/4 M. Rita Manzini & Anna Roussou English. Given that the embedded I is finite in Albanian, φ-Agree with matrix v* is an instance of hyper-raising. We argue that this option is linked to the null-subject property of Albanian. Finite I is 'strong enough' to label by itself (Chomsky 2015), freeing the DP to enter Agree with a higher φ-probe.
Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali, Sep 29, 2023
is paper revisits c-and s-selection in the context of wh-clausal complements. e standard treatmen... more is paper revisits c-and s-selection in the context of wh-clausal complements. e standard treatment of predicate-complement selection can be traced back to generative approaches of 70's and says that the selection of a complement by a predicate is evaluated both in syntax and semantics. As regards syntax, the grammatical category of the complement must belong to the subcategorization frame of the predicate, and vis-à-vis semantics, the semantic type of the complement must fall in the set of types selected by the predicate. e present paper examines several licit instances of wh-clausal selection that should have been ungrammatical under the standard treatment, but they are not. e analysis offered here says that c-selection reduces to argument selection and is computed derivationally (at the point of External Merge), while s-selection reduces to an interpretation function that spans a larger grammatical domain and is evaluated representationally (at the syntax-semantics interface).
14ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ελληνικής Γλωσσολογίας, Oct 11, 2021
Η παρούσα εργασία εξετάζει την κατανομή του συμπληρωματικού δείκτη (ΣΔ) «ότι» σε προτάσεις που εκ... more Η παρούσα εργασία εξετάζει την κατανομή του συμπληρωματικού δείκτη (ΣΔ) «ότι» σε προτάσεις που εκ πρώτης όψεως έχουν επιρρηματική (χρονική) λειτουργία. Η ανάλυση βασίζεται στη σύγχρονη προσέγγιση των ΣΔ ως ονοματικών (αντωνυμικών) στοιχείων. Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο η παρουσία του «ότι» στις εν λόγω επιρρηματικές προτάσεις εξηγείται μέσω του χαρακτηρισμού του ως αντωνυμίας και της κατανομής του σε συγκεκριμένες ελεύθερες αναφορικές προτάσεις. Στο πλαίσιο αυτής της προσέγγισης, το στοιχείο «ότι» εξαρτά τη λειτουργία του και κατ' επέκταση την ερμηνεία του από το συντακτικό περιβάλλον στο οποίο εμφανίζεται. Η πολλαπλή αυτή κατανομή ερμηνεύεται ως μια περίπτωση συντακτικής 'πολυσημίας'. Λέξεις-κλειδιά: συμπληρωματικός δείκτης, αντωνυμία, ελεύθερη αναφορική πρόταση, χρονική πρόταση, ονοματικό στοιχείο. 1 As pointed out by Eleni Agathopoulou (p.c.), this use of oti is not acceptable by all speakers, and there seems to be a north (ungrammatical) vs. south (grammatical) split.
Does history have to be only about the past? "History" refers to both a subject matter and a thou... more Does history have to be only about the past? "History" refers to both a subject matter and a thought process. That thought process involves raising questions, marshalling evidence, discerning patterns in the evidence, writing narratives, and critiquing the narratives written by others. Whatever subject matter they study, all historians employ the thought process of historical thinking. What if historians were to extend the process of historical thinking into the subject matter domain of the future? Historians would breach one of our profession's most rigid disciplinary barriers. Very few historians venture predictions about the future, and those who do are viewed with skepticism by the profession at large. On methodological grounds, most historians reject as either impractical, quixotic, hubristic, or dangerous any effort to examine the past as a way to make predictions about the future. However, where at one time thinking about the future did mean making a scientifically-based prediction, futurists today are just as likely to think in terms of scenarios. Where a prediction is a definitive statement about what will be, scenarios are heuristic narratives that explore alternative plausibilities of what might be. Scenario writers, like historians, understand that surprise, contingency, and deviations from the trend line are the rule, not the exception; among scenario writers, context matters. The thought process of the scenario method shares many features with historical thinking. With only minimal intellectual adjustment, then, most professionally trained historians possess the necessary skills to write methodologically rigorous "histories of the future."
Η παρούσα eργασία eξeτάζeι την κατανομή του συμπληρωματικού δeίκτη (ΣΔ) «ότι» σe προτάσeις που eκ... more Η παρούσα eργασία eξeτάζeι την κατανομή του συμπληρωματικού δeίκτη (ΣΔ) «ότι» σe προτάσeις που eκ πρώτης όψeως έχουν eπιρρηματική (χρονική) λeιτουργία. Η ανάλυση βασίζeται στη σύγχρονη προσέγγιση των ΣΔ ως ονοματικών (αντωνυμικών) στοιχeίων. Σe αυτό το πλαίσιο η παρουσία του «ότι» στις eν λόγω eπιρρηματικές προτάσeις eξηγeίται μέσω του χαρακτηρισμού του ως αντωνυμίας και της κατανομής του σe συγκeκριμένeς eλeύθeρeς αναφορικές προτάσeις. Στο πλαίσιο αυτής της προσέγγισης, το στοιχeίο «ότι» eξαρτά τη λeιτουργία του και κατ’ eπέκταση την eρμηνeία του από το συντακτικό πeριβάλλον στο οποίο eμφανίζeται. Η πολλαπλή αυτή κατανομή eρμηνeύeται ως μια πeρίπτωση συντακτικής ‘πολυσημίας’.
1. Introduction The SLA literatu re reports nu m erous stu d ies of highly proficient L2 speakers... more 1. Introduction The SLA literatu re reports nu m erous stu d ies of highly proficient L2 speakers w ith long im m ersion, w ho d iverge significantly from native speakers (N S) in the prod uction of d efinite articles (Tsimpli 2003, White 2003) and pronou ns (Tsim pli op.cit.) d espite the positive evid ence offered by the target L2. Recent SLA theories have attem pted to explain N S/ N on-NS d ivergence by argu ing for a d issociation betw een syntactic know led ge and m orphophonology: highly proficient learners have know led ge of the abstract properties of the target langu age bu t cannot associate them w ith the correct phonological forms (Lard iere 2000, Prevost & White 2000). Other theories argue for a problem in the syntax: formal u ninterpretable featu res (e.g. Case on clitics and D) of the target langu age, not instantiated in L1, cau se learnability problem s (Hawkins and Chan 1997, Tsimpli 1997, in press-a) while LF interpretable features are accessible in L2 grammars (...
In the present paper we provide an account of VSO in Greek and its (relative) absence in Italian,... more In the present paper we provide an account of VSO in Greek and its (relative) absence in Italian, despite the fact that both languages allow for postverbal subjects. We argue that this parametric difference reduces to different lexicalisation options regarding the D-system of the two grammars. We assume that the clause structure divides into three basic domains (V, T, and C), and that nominal (clitic) positions are available in each of these domains, which, as we argue, can be lexicalised not only by clitics but also by full DPs. On this basis, we argue that the subject and object DP in Greek can appear in the same domain (V), as they spell out different features depending on their grammatical function, while this is not so in Italian, given that DPs spell out the same set of features irrespective of their grammatical function. This basic difference is responsible for the presence of VSO in Greek but not in Italian. We also consider the implications of our approach for the interpretation of subjects and arguments in general. [1] We would like to thank Rita Manzini, Ian Roberts, Neil Smith and Tasos Tsangalidis for discussions on the topic. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 25th GLOW Colloquium in Amsterdam (April 2002), the Workshop on Greek Syntax and the Minimalist Seduction in Reading (September 2002), and the UCL Postgraduate Alumni Reunion Conference (September 2003). We thank all audiences as well as the two anonymous JL referees for their useful comments.
Uploads
Papers by Anna Roussou