Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
State-of-the-Article
Dissertations
Curt Rice on
Generative metrics
Volume 2
ISSUE
9
7
13
Book notices
Five books on Chinese
17
Conference reports
GLOW 20
by Joo Costa
20
Monthly Magazine
for Linguists
September 1996
[published September 1997]
ISSN 13813439
Reference
Page 2
Colophon
Editors
Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng
Rint Sybesma
Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics
address: Sinological Institute | Leiden University |
P.O. Box 9515 | 2300 RA Leiden | The Netherlands
| phone: +31 71 5272538 | fax: +31 71 5272615 |
e-mail: glot@rullet.leidenuniv.nl/llcheng@uci.edu
SOME DISCUSSION!
Goodies editor
Andrew Carnie
Department of Linguistics | Harvard University |
77 Dunster Street | Cambridge MA 02138 | USA |
e-mail: carnie@linguistlist.org
Correspondents/
Regular contributors
Eullia Bonet (Barcelona) | Marcel den Dikken
(Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) | Paula Fikkert
(Konstanz) | Bob Frank (Johns Hopkins University)
| Eric Hoekstra (P.J. Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam) | Helen de Hoop (Utrecht) | Sabine Iatridou
(University of Pennsylvania) | La Nash (Paris) |
Guido Vanden Wyngaerd (Brussels) | Shohei
Yoshida (Yokohama National University) | JanWouter Zwart (Groningen)
Columnists
Elan Dresher (Toronto), Neil Smith (London)
Subscription information
Glot International appears every month, except in
June and July. Subscriptions are for the printed or
the electronic (pdf) version.
Prices for Volume 3 (1998):
INSTITUTIONAL RATE
NLG 120.0
INDIVIDUAL RATE
pdf only
NLG 035.0
printed version
NLG 050.0
POSTAGE
surface mail
Netherlands
NLG 032.5
other countries
NLG 037.5
air mail
Europe
NLG 042.5
other countries
NLG 047.5
surface shipping in three batches
(MarchAugustDecember)
Netherlands
NLG 015.5
other countries
NLG 020.5
Subscriptions at the individual rate must be ordered
directly from the publisher.
Subscriptions at the institutional rate may be ordered from your bookseller or subscription agent,
or directly from the publisher.
Prices exclude 6% VAT (EC only).
Orders must be prepaid.
Payments preferably by giro, credit card (American
Express, Euro/Access/Master, Visa) or international money order. Credit card orders must include the complete cardholders address. There is
an additional charge of Dfl 17,50 for payments
by international bank cheque or bank transfer.
Publisher
Holland Academic Graphics
Julius Rntgenstraat 15 | 2551 KS The Hague |
The Netherlands | phone +31 70 4480203 |
fax +31 70 4480177 | e-mail: mail@hag.nl |
http://www.hag.nl | bank acc. ABN AMRO 49 88 22
796 | postal giro 6261107 | VAT nr. NL
0588.61.798.B01
Advertisements
Contact the publisher
Printing
Printed in The Netherlands
Dissertations reviewed
Hye-Won Choi
Department of Linguistics | University of Southern California | Los Angeles, CA 90089 | USA
hyewonc@mizar.usc.edu
Joo Costa
HIL/Leiden University | PO Box 9515 | 2300 RA
Leiden | The Netherlands
costa@rullet.leidenuniv.nl
Elan Dresher
Department of Linguistics | University of Toronto | Toronto | Ontario M5S 1A1 | Canada
dresher@chass.utoronto.ca
Helen de Hoop
Research Institute for Language and Speech |
Utrecht University | Trans 10 | 3512 JK Utrecht
| The Netherlands
helen.dehoop@let.ruu.nl
Addendum
I am grateful to David Pesetsky for drawing my
attention to the fact that I made a mistake in
my description of the Stroop Effect in
Colourful Language.
Reading colour names written in the wrong
colour is not sigificantly harder than reading
them written in the congruent colour. What is
dramatically harder is naming the colour in
which an incongruent colour word is written.
Fortunately, the theoretical argument about
modularity still goes through on the corrected
story.
Neil Smith
State-of-the-Article
GENERATIVE METRICS
Curt Rice
Generative metrics is the branch of phonology which is concerned with
metrical poetry. In the following article, Curt Rice introduces the most
salient issues in the field. Why are some lines of poetry metrically
ungrammatical? What is the monosyllabic word rule? How does OT turn
out to be useful? Thy edge should be blunter than appetite.
1.
Introduction
This article aspires to give the reader a sense
of current research in generative metrics, a research enterprise which is nearly as old as generative grammar itself, dating from the pioneering
work of Morris Halle and S.J. Keyser (1966,
1971a,b). We begin this selective overview of the
current state of the field with discussion of two
general issues relevant to conducting this research and then move on to consider a number of
cases which advance our understanding of the
grammars of metrical poetry and which have
significant implications for current research in
generative phonology.
2.
2.1. Methodology
Generative metrics applies the central perspectives of generative grammar to the study of
metrical poetry; these include a descriptive orientation regarding the nature of the data, the distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical utterances, and the importance of native
intuitions. However, there are a number of methodological restrictions constraining research on
metrical poetry. Within generative metrics, there
is a heightened awareness that the construction
of a grammar is not for the metrical poetry of
some language, but rather for the metrical poetry
of some particular poet. One consequence of this
realization is that researchers cannot resort to
their own intuitions about grammaticality. Furthermore, unlike researchers working on a natural language in which they themselves lack intuitions, those working on metrical poetry rarely
have the opportunity for field work. The situation
is parallel to that of working with a dead language, or a closed corpus. Naturally, focus on the
grammar of an individual does not preclude
theories of universal poetics, with various parametric possibilities. Indeed, among the most
important work in the field are theoretically
insightful characterizations of di(erences between the grammars of individual poets; an example of this appears in 3.1.
2.2. Grammaticality
When working under such circumstances,
the applicability of the notion of grammaticality
requires reflection. Like generative grammarians
working in other domains, the phonologist studying metrical poetry is concerned to develop a
model which not merely produces those utterances that the native speaker does, but which also
crucially fails to produce those utterances that a
native speaker does not produce. A central premise that must be accepted if generative metrics is
to have any credibility is that a grammar of a
poets metrics can be constructed on the basis of
the poetry which that poet produced. For example, the collective utterances in Shakespeares
corpus are taken to present the entire range of
his possible constructions. Furthermore, patterns
which are absent from his corpus are not so accidentally. From this methodological assumption,
there emerges an unambiguous notion of
grammaticality: patterns found in the corpus are
Page 3
State-of-the-Article
mains: lexically and metrically. (We assume with
Kiparsky 1977 that a lexical foot dominates the
entirety of the words showing inversion in the
examples in (3).)
(3)
a.
b.
The analysis under consideration here also provides insight into the treatment of a challenging
lexical stress pattern from English, namely the
initial dactyl pattern seen in words such as
justification, which have a sequence of two unstressed light syllables between two stressed
syllables. If a metrical position is occupied by a
maximum of one syllable, words with this stress
pattern are unusable by the poet since they will
necessarily incur a violation of the MWR, as in
(5).
(5)
js ti fi c tion
w sw s w
s ws w s
By expanding the possibilities for mapping between the abstract metrical template and the
actual line of poetry such that a terminal in the
template may be either a foot or a syllable, we
take a significant step forward in understanding
some crucial aspects of English poetry. As an
example, we have seen that variation between
Shakespeare and Milton with respect to restrictions on extrametricality and on the appearance
of initial dactyls are straightforward consequences following from variation in the nature of the
terminal element in the verse foot. Alongside this
increase in our understanding of the poetry, the
analyses can be taken as evidence for the existence of the foot in the prosodic hierarchy. (The
present discussion ignores many details from
Hanson 1995 and Hanson & Kiparsky 1996 and
deviates from others for expository reasons; the
interested reader is referred to the original resources for a more thorough discussion.)
4.
Optimality theory
Readers of this journal are familiar with the
impact that Optimality Theory (McCarthy &
Prince 1993; Prince & Smolensky 1993) has had
in selected spheres of linguistic research (cf.
Burzio 1995, or even Dresher 1996). It comes as
no surprise, then, that current work in generative metrics also bears the mark of OT. As elsewhere, the most interesting examples of this
influence are claims that OT o(ers new insights,
especially insights which in principle cannot be
replicated in derivational approaches. In this
section, I present three di(erent issues from
recent papers, all of which achieve their results as a
consequence of adopting OTinspired strategies.
4.1. Typology
The characterization of a set of metrical patterns as following from a hierarchy of violable
constraints introduces the possibility of evaluating individual patterns as more or less optimal.
In this sense, such a strategy formalizes a typology. Statistical studies of a corpus might then be
undertaken; a case in which the typological characterization of most to least optimal is reflected
in the statistical frequencies of these types is a
case which reveals the superiority of a constraintbased analysis. As an example, consider an analysis of classical Arabic meters (Golston & Riad
1996).
Our presentation of Golston & Riads (1996)
study stays at a somewhat abstract or idealized
level. Readers interested in the detailed analysis
of various types of lines, or in examples thereof,
are referred to the literature on Arabic metrics,
extensive references to which can be found in
Golston & Riad (1996), Maling (1973), and Prince
(1989).
Ancient Arabic meters are traditionally divided into eleven di(erent types. Studies of the
relative frequencies of these types reveal that the
four most common ones account for as much as
8090% of the poetry. Of these four, the single
most common one, known as the t awl, accounts
Page 4
State-of-the-Article
METER
METRA
t awl
[LH.sH]
kaml
[fH.LH]
wafir
[LH.fH]
bast
[sH.LH]
CLASH-FT
LAPSE-MTN
CLASH-MTN
Verse which makes the quatrain salient is selected as optimal when SALIENT(QUATRAIN) is highly
ranked. The unity of the quatrain is emphasized
by having three equally long lines and then truncating the fourth, for example, 4443, as seen
here.
One little, two little, three little Indians,
Four little, five little, six little Indians,
Seven little, eight little, nine little Indians,
Ten little Indian boys.
Page 5
PHON
Sonnet LXV
*
*!
PHON
SYNT
SYNT
*
*!
State-of-the-Article
5.
Conclusion
The examples given in 34 illustrate selections from the state of the art of research in
generative metrics. Each of these examples is of
interest from both of the perspectives mentioned
in the introduction. We get a greater understanding of the formal structure of poetry, whether it
be variation between Shakespeare and Milton,
Page 6
Column
Prince, A. (1989). Metrical forms. In Phonetics and phonology, Kiparsky & Youmans
(eds.).
Prince, A. & P. Smolensky (1993). Optimality
theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Unpublished manuscript.
Rutgers University and University of
Colorado, Boulder.
Redford, M. (to appear). Four-beat rhythm
and the metrical hierarchy. In Phonology in progress progress in phonology.
Proceedings of HILP3., G. Booij and J.
van de Weijer (eds.). The Hague: Holland
Academic Graphics.
Rice, C. (to appear). Ranking components:
the grammar of poetry. In Phonology in
progress progress in phonology. Proceedings of HILP3., G. Booij and J. van
de Weijer (eds.). The Hague: Holland
Academic Graphics.
Rice, C. & I. Mseide (1997). Metrically motivated variation in the Chaucerian past
participle. Manuscript, University of
Troms.
Rice, C. & P. Svenonius (1997). Prosodic V2
in Northern Norwegian. Paper presented
at the Hopkins Optimality Theory Workshop and Maryland Mayfest, Baltimore.
Manuscript, University of Troms.
Russom, G. (1987). Old English meter and
linguistic theory. Cambridge University
Press.
Russom, G. (1996). Purely metrical replacements for Kuhns laws. In English historical metrics, McCully & Anderson
(eds.), 3041.
Schlerman, B. (1984). The meters of John
Webster. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Standop, R. (1975). Metric theory gone
astray. Language & Society 8, 6077.
Stockwell, R. (1997). On recent theories of
metrics and rhythm in Beowulf. In English historical metrics, McCully & Anderson (eds.), 7394.
Stockwell R. & D. Minkova (to appear). Old
English metrics and the phonology of
resolution. Nowele.
Suzuki, S. (1985). The role of syllable structure in Old English poetry. Lingua 67,
97119.
Tarlingskaja, M. (1993). Strict stress-meter in
English poetry. University of Calgary
Press.
Yip, M. (1980). The metrical structure of
regulated verse. Journal of Chinese
Linguistics 8, 107125.
Yip, M. (1984). The development of Chinese
verse: a metrical analysis. Language,
Sound, Structure, M. Arono( & R.
Oehrle (eds.), MIT Press.
Youmans, G. (1982). Hamlets testimony on
Kiparskys theory of meter. Neophilologus 66, 490503.
Youmans, G. (1983). Generative tests for
generative meter. Language 59, 6792.
Youmans, G. (1989). Miltons meter. In Phonetics and phonology, Kiparsky &
Youmans (eds.).
Youmans, G. (1996). Reconsidering Chaucers
prosody. In English historical metrics,
McCully & Anderson (eds.), 185209.
Wimsatt, W. (1970). The rule and the norm:
Halle and Keyser on Chaucers meter.
College English 31, 774788.
Zec, D. & S. Inkelas (1990). Prosodically
constrained syntax. In The phonology
syntax connection, S. Inkelas & D. Zec
(eds.), University of Chicago Press.
Page 7
10.
VP is q-marked by I.
Only lexical categories are L-markers, so that VP is not
L-marked by I.
q-government is restricted to sisterhood without the
qualification (35).
Only the terminus of an X0chain can q-mark or Casemark.
Head-to-head movement forms an A-chain.
SPEC-head agreement and chains involve the same
indexing.
Chain coindexing holds of the links of an extended
chain.
There is no accidental coindexing of I.
I-V coindexing is a form of head-head agreement; if it is
restricted to aspectual verbs, then base-generated structures of the form (174) count as adjunction structures.
Possibly, a verb does not properly govern its q-marked
complement.
handicapping racehorses, all of which are understood to some extent by millions of amateurs?
I dont think so. I think that the passage
from Barriers quoted above, to continue with this
example, is di+cult for two reasons. The more
trivial one is that the terminology is unfamiliar
to many people. If you dont know what a zerolevel or lexical category is, or what proper government and q-marking are, you cant begin to
make sense of the passage.
Terminology aside, I submit that the main
reason why the concepts of linguistic theory appear di+cult is because they are abstract. If
these ideas were made concrete, they would seem
relatively simple compared to many other things
people deal with every day. Here, then, follows
my proposal for how to make linguistic theory
accessible to a wider audience.
w
Do you love language but hate grammar? Do you
wonder why you can understand chaos theory but
not the logic of markedness? Has I-language
always been not-for-me-language to you? Help is
on the way! In a unique joint venture, MIT Press
is teaming up with Home Hardware and the
Public Broadcasting System to create a set of
instructional videos designed to complement
their monograph series. Here is a preview of a
portion of the video that will accompany Barriers:
Welcome to another installment of the Olde
Yankee Grammarian. Were outside our grammar
workshop here in Wellfleet on Cape Cod, and
were all set to begin an exciting new project.
Well, Norm, what are you going to show us today?
Hi, Howard. After our programs on Whmovement, when we built chains to derive sentences like (1), a lot of viewers wrote in asking
why (2) is bad:
(1)
*Which car do you believe that he stole?
(2)
*Which car did you cry when he sold?
References
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Cowper, E. (1992). A concise introduction to
syntactic theory: the government-binding
approach. Chicago, Ill.: The University of
Chicago Press.
Editors of Sunset Books (1995). Basic Woodworking. Menlo Park, Calif.: Sunset
Publishing Corporation.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: how
the mind creates language. New York:
William Morrow and Company.
Send my issues by
I will pay by
I am an
until cancellation
one volume
two volumes
My subscription lasts
home page:
department:
current issue
volume 3
volume 2
volume 1
fax:
institute:
phone:
address:
individual subscriber
institutional
e-mail:
name:
Page 8
(3)
a.
which letter we choose, but experienced grammarians usually start with i, then go on to j and k
in order. It helps keep things straight in complicated constructions, believe me! We nail one
index to the Wh-word, like so. Howard is nailing
another one to a trace. There we go. Now, the
moved constituent has to govern its trace, and it
does that by being attached to it. Youll notice
that every index has a little eyehook to which Im
fastening a lightweight nylon cord. You can use
any sort of string or wire, as long as its sturdy
and wont get frayed. Make sure you cut it long
enough to reach the front of the sentence, and
fasten one end to each of the indices. Now we
move the Wh-phrase to the front and slot it into
place. I like to pull the cord taut by wrapping any
slack around the trace.
Well, thats a nice looking chain, Norm. And
once weve done the necessary work on the auxiliary well be done with sentence (1). But how do
we block (2)?
Good question, Howard. The problem is that
the Wh-word cant govern its trace across the CP.
So were going to build a barrier right there. CP
is a maximal projection. If you look closely, youll
see that every maximal projection has a big
square bracket. Were going to fit a blocking
frame right onto that bracket.
Where do we get blocking frames,
Norm?
You can make them yourself, or, if you
want to save time, you can get them in the
Barriers section of any participating Home
Hardware dealer. I like to use a hardwood for
the blocking frame, something that wont warp
in the damp New England weather. But you
can use any wood that suits your climate. You
need a three-sided frame, open at the top, with
grooves in the sides. Well screw the bottom of
the frame to the bracket of the maximal projection.
So now we have a wood frame sticking up
from the maximal projection. But the trace
can still go right through the middle of the
frame, Norm.
Thats right, Howard, as long as nothing
is there. But now were going to slide a panel
into the grooves. Plywood will do fine. Plane it
down so that it slides easily. And this is
very important dont glue it, but leave it
free to slide. This is called the blocker.
I see, Norm, when the blocker is inserted
into the blocking frame, it forms a barrier over
the maximal projection, so the trace cant get
through, and thats how we block (2). Of
course, now that weve got barriers on every
maximal projection, Im sure the viewers at
home are wondering how the trace gets
through in (1). We appear to have lost our
account of that sentence. But you viewers who
have followed the show for a number of years
wont be surprised if the Olde Yankee Grammarian has a few more tricks up his sleeve,
and Ill bet its got something to do with that
sliding blocker, Norm!
Right you are, Howard. Lets get (3a)
back on the workbench:
pl147
Column
Dissertations
OPTIMIZING STRUCTURE IN
CONTEXT: SCRAMBLING AND
INFORMATION STRUCTURE
This dissertation examines the relationship between syntactic structure and discourse-contextual meaning of language focusing on the scrambling phenomena in German and Korean. I pursue this issue from the perspective that di(erent
ordering possibilities are motivated and constrained by interactions among syntactic, semantic, and discourse principles of these languages.
In particular, I utilize Optimality Theory (Prince
& Smolensky, in press; Grimshaw, in press) to
demonstrate how these principles interact and
resolve conflicts among one another to yield the
optimal output, i.e., a sentence with a particular word order, in a given context.
Taking the various scrambled variants of a
sentence as competing candidates, I derive each
scrambled structure as the best matching or
optimal output to the given input, which contains discourse-contextual information as well as
syntactic and other grammatical information.
The discourse-contextual information is represented in terms of information structure
(Vallduv 1992; Lambrecht 1994). As a particular
model of information structure, I propose one
based on two crossclassifying discourse features
[New] and [Prom] (short for prominent). To
capture the complex interactions of topic and
focus e(ects on word order in German and Korean, I identify four discourse functions, i.e., topic,
tail, completive focus, and contrastive focus, each
of which is represented with the binary features
[New] and [Prom], as demonstrated in (1).
(1)
Prom
New
Topic
Contrastive
Focus
Tail
Completive
Focus
+
+
y=dem Schler;
+New
Prom
z=das Buch;
New
Prom
tense=Past
(4)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
da Hans
dem Schler das Buch
gegeben hat
da Hans
das Buch
dem Schler gegeben hat
da dem Schler Hans
das Buch
gegeben hat
da das Buch
Hans
dem Schler gegeben hat
da dem Schler das Buch
Hans
gegeben hat
da das Buch
dem Schler Hans
gegeben hat
Korean
PROM >>
(12) gives an example of the constraint interaction in the current OT account. The discourse
context in (10) provides the information structure
such as the one in (11). Given this input, the
scrambled variant (12b), which is equivalent to
(10b), wins over the unscrambled variant (12a)
for example, because the former does not violate
the higher constraint PROM, which the latter
does, although the former violates the lowerranked CN2 and NEW, which the latter does not.
(11)
dem Schler
[New,-Prom]
das Buch
[+New,+Prom]
(12)
CANDIDATES
PROM
a. Hans
dem Schler
das BUCH
b. Hans
das BUCH
dem Schler
c. dem Schler
Hans
das BUCH
d. das BUCH
Hans
dem Schler
e. dem Schler
das BUCH
Hans
f. das BUCH
dem Schler
Hans
b.
(10)
a.
WAS hast du dem Mann
gegeben? Die Zeitung?
the newspaper
what have you the man-DAT given
WHAT did you give the cashier? The newspaper?
b.
Ich habe das BUCH dem Mann
gegeben (nicht die
(not the
I have the book-ACC the man-DAT given
ZEITUNG).
newspaper
I gave the book to the man (not the newspaper).
Hans
[New,+Prom]
(7)
Semantic Constraint on Discourse Feature Assignment:
SPECIfiCITY: A nonspecific phrase should not be [New].
(8)
a. German
PROM >> CN1 >>
b.
by Hye-Won Choi
Reviewed by Helen de Hoop
Summary
by the author
Page 9
NEW
CN2
NEW
CN1, CN2
CN1
NEW
CN2
Dissertations
ther specific nor unfocused. This problem disappears in the current OT analysis: the internal
conflict of a contrastively focused indefinite
phrase is systematically dealt with by the ranked
competition between PROM and NEW with the
further restriction by SPECIfiCITY.
As shown above, the analysis of scrambling
proposed in this dissertation provides a way to
simultaneously consider various constraints from
di(erent modules of grammar. This interface
approach not only o(ers a systematic account of
why and how a certain syntactic variation of
structure concurs with a certain semantic or
discoursal variation in interpretation, but also
makes it predictable how the semantic and discoursal e(ects influence each other. Furthermore, this OT approach to scrambling attempts
to explain why variation such as word order
freedom ever happens in language: it is due to
the interest conflict among the constraints in
di(erent components of grammar. Interestingly,
grammar also provides a way of resolving the
conflict. That is why variation is never really free
either.
References
Abraham, W. (1986). Word order in the middle
field of the German sentence. In Topic, focus,
and configurationality, W. Abraham & S. de
Meij (eds.), 1538.
Bresnan, J. (1995). Lexical-functional syntax.
Ms., Stanford University.
Bresnan, J. (1996). Optimal syntax: Notes on
projection, heads, and optimality. Ms., Stanford University.
De Hoop, H. (1992). Case configuration and noun
phrase interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Groningen.
Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, J. (in press). Projection, heads, and
optimality. To be published in Linguistic
Inquiry.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and
sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lenerz, J. (1977). Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tbingen: Gunter
Narr.
Moltmann, F. (1990). Scrambling in German and
the specificity e(ect. Ms., MIT.
Prince, A. & P. Smolensky (in press). Optimality
theory: Constraint interaction in generative
grammar. To be published by MIT Press.
Vallduv E. (1992). The informational component.
New York: Garland.
Webelhuth, G. (1992). Principles and parameters
of syntactic saturation. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Review
by Helen de Hoop
Chois dissertation results from an exciting hypothesis, namely that various word orders are
motivated and constrained by interactions among
syntactic, semantic, and discourse principles.
This hypothesis led Choi to develop a clear and
unambiguous theory which is convincingly presented in a well-balanced dissertation. I enjoyed
reading the book very much. In Chois approach,
the unmarked or canonical word order is the
order which is not contextually restricted or constrained. In other words, the unmarked order is
context neutral. The canonically ordered structure is the one which is chosen as the optimal
output over all other possible phrase structural
descriptions, purely based on sentence-internal
information. CN1 and CN2 have the e(ect of favoring the canonical order [SUIODO] over other
scrambled structures, other things being equal. If
CN1 and CN2 were all constraints involved in
phrase structural descriptions and word order,
scrambling would never occur. In chapter 3, Choi
develops a set of information structuring constraints (NEW and PROM), which she argues to be
Page 10
1.
b.
(1)
a. *?weil ich selten die Katze streichle
since I seldom the cat
pet
b.
weil ich die Katze selten streichle
since I the cat
seldom pet
since I seldom pet the cat
b.
c.
(3)
a.
c.
(4)
a.
b.
Dissertations
scramble is a stronger condition than that new
elements do not scramble, and in this way Choi
accounts for the scrambling of contrastively focused NPs as in (5) and (4b) above.
Clearly, there should be no di(erence between definite or strong NPs and indefinite or
weak ones in this respect. Weak or indefinite NPs
can also bear contrastive focus, in which case
they scramble (Chois (16a), p.85):
(6)
weil
Hans ein BUCH dem Mann gegeben hat (nicht eine
because Hans a book the man given
has (not a
Zeitung)
newspaper
because Hans gave a book to the man (not a newspaper)
Page 11
However, we also find contrastively focused elements in scrambled positions. I think this can be
explained if we take into consideration the following information packaging universal:
(14)
b.
Focused elements ([+new information]) are not topics
and vice versa
Dissertations
as well. Assuming the two universal constraints
as in (14a) and (14b) and the ranking between
the two, we account for the observation that intonation seems to be more relevant for the (discourse) interpretation of constituents in Dutch
than syntactic position (see also Zwart 1995). If
there are two well-formed syntactic structures, a
scrambled one and an unscrambled one, then
there are certain tendencies for interpretation
related to default intonational patterns, but actual focus distribution can overrule these tendencies. Furthermore, the cumulative e(ect of topicality will go hand in hand with a cumulative
markedness or heaviness of the intonation that is
needed to let (14b) win from (14a). That seems to
give the correct result, namely that one has to
stress the direct object in (15a)(15d) more and
more in order to get the focus interpretation for
the direct object correct; in (15d) the use of a
focus-attracting determiner like ZULKE seems
to be necessary to save the focus-reading, as
scrambling over subjects is even more marked in
Dutch than it is in German (see also Neeleman
1994):
(15)
a.
Ik had nooit gedacht dat een student Petra vandaag
I had never thought that a student Petra today the
het boek zou geven
the book would give
b.
Ik had nooit gedacht dat een student Petra HET
I had never thought that a student Petra the
BOEK vandaag zou geven
book today
would give
c.
Ik had nooit gedacht dat een student
I had never thought that a student
It will be clear from this example that the scrambled NP in (17b) is not to be characterized as a
topic or as contrastively focused here. Actually, I
do not know whether Choi would agree that it is
surprising that the definite in (17) does not behave like the informationally dependent indefinite in (16) with respect to scrambling. In De
Hoop (1997) I attempt to account for this surprising di(erence between indefinites and definites
and argue that the di(erence cannot be reduced
to general discourse or intonation principles;
instead the di(erence must be sought in a di(erence
in the semantics between the two types of NPs.
Conclusion: scrambling and
interpretation
On the basis of some potential counterexamples to Chois theory as discussed above I
reject one of the main ideas of the thesis, namely
that scrambling should be viewed as optimizing
structure for a certain context. I have tried to
show that if some word order variants are wellformed, they are well-formed in all possible contexts. In other words, when there is a conflict
between context on the one hand, and word order
on the other, context wins (at least as long as we
are dealing with grammatical word order). This
means that the right intonation must be chosen
that can overrule syntactic position to guarantee
the right interpretation that fits the context. I
have no doubt that an OT-framework can handle
this most elegantly and probably the best. As for
me, I was definitely inspired by Chois dissertation and impressed by the many scrambling data
her theory captures, in particular the link between topicality and contrastive focus cross-linguistically.
Page 12
4.
Acknowledgement
The research for this review was supported by
the Foundation for Language, Speech, and Logic,
which is funded by the Netherlands Organization
for Scientific Research, NWO (grant 300-75-020).
References
Adger, D. (1995). Functional heads and interpretation [dissertation summary]. Glot International 1(1), 89.
Burzio, L. (1995). The rise of optimality theory.
Glot International 1(6), 37.
Cinque, G. (1993). A null theory of phrase and
compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24,
239297.
Diesing, M. and E. Jelinek (1995). Distributing
arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3,
123176.
Farkas, D. (1996). Dependent indefinites and
direct scope. Ms., UCSC.
Geenhoven, V. van (1996). Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions. Semantic
and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation
in west Greenlandic. Ph.D. dissertation,
Tbingen.
Advertisement
Zero Semantics
A Study of the Syntactic Conception
of Quantificational Meaning
by
Gertjan Postma
diss. Leiden University|Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics|HIL Diss 13
V E R S I O N
A V A I L A B L E
[ d o c u m e n t ]
p r o c e s s i n g ]
e-mail: mail@hag.nl
http: www.hag.nl
fax: +31 70 4480177
Dissertations
Page 13
3.
(2)
a.
b.
b.
(4)
a.
b.
Het ei brak.
The egg broke.
Inge breekt het ei.
Inge broke the egg.
Het ei brak.
The egg broke.
Inge liet het ei breken.
Inge let the egg break.
The event type of a predicate is crucial in determining a particular verb frame. Two generalizations emerge: (i) a telic event type requires an
(underlying) argument in direct object position;
(ii) a causative event type requires two arguments, one in subject and one in direct object
position.
2.
A critique of argument-centered
mapping approaches
In the past three decades, the issue of what
determines in which verb frame(s) a verb occurs,
has focused on the verbs arguments: how many
arguments and of what kind. This approach has
been implemented in various models that refer to
a verbs lexical specification as thematic relations (Gruber 1965), case roles (Fillmore 1968),
q-roles (Chomsky 1981; Baker 1988; Grimshaw
1990), arguments (Williams 1981; Zubizarreta
1987) or LCS-variables (Jackendo( 1990). The
mapping system links an argument of a particular kind to a particular syntactic position (e.g.,
Chomskys 1986 Canonical Structural Realizations rules, Bakers 1988 Uniformity of Theta
Assignment Hypothesis, Jackendo(s 1990 Hierarchical Argument Linking).
Arguing against such argument-centered
mapping approaches, I raise several descriptive
and methodological problems with their lexical
primitives and the lexical rules that account for
verb frame alternations. Moreover, I point out
that these accounts cannot generalize across
di(erent alternations, since they do not take into
account the fact that the event type determines
how an argument is mapped onto syntax. A maximally strong theory should derive the telicity and
the causative mapping generalizations and explain why particle and prefixed variants occur in
di(erent verb frames than their root verbs and,
moreover, why they di(er in the particular ways
they do.
Learning verbs
After modeling the lexicon-syntax interface
in event-semantic terms, I turn to acquisition
data that confirm some of the claims of the
CHESS model. I present two case studies of verb
learning. One study concerns so-called light
verbs. Assuming that verbs are characterized in
the lexicon with their event types, I argue that
light verbs (e.g., geven give in een kus geven give
a kiss) are easy verbs to acquire, because they
are pure event type denoters without any further
semantics. In a longitudinal study of four Dutch
children, I find support for this prediction. From
early on, these children produce a great variety of
light verb constructions, also including some
overgeneralized ones. Looking at their light
verb usage and evaluating the nature of their
overgeneralized constructions, I conclude that
child Dutch presents evidence for a basic claim of
the CHESS model, namely that verbs are lexically characterized in terms of their event types.
Furthermore, I discuss the acquisition of
intransitive verbs and the split into unergatives
versus unaccusatives. Intransitive verbs pose an
intriguing acquisition problem: how can a child
find out that there are two di(erent subclasses
Dissertations
when they look so similar at the surface? How
does she determine to which subclass a new verb
belongs? The results of an experimental study
aimed at finding out whether two semantic factors, telicity and agentivity, determine unaccusativity in Dutch, show that subjects (4 and 5 yearolds, 7 and 8 year-olds and adults) are able to
divide novel intransitive verbs in two subclasses.
Even the youngest children distinguish two classes, which is evidence in favor of the Strong Continuity hypothesis on language development.
Interestingly, the split is defined by telicity;
agentivity does not play a role. These results
present evidence for another claim made by the
CHESS model, namely that mapping is defined
on the event-semantic properties of predicates.
5.
Conclusion
The research presented in my dissertation
draws on data from adult and child Dutch, but
the claims that are made are suggested to represent more generally the way in which Universal
Grammar organizes the lexicon of the language
and the mapping system that links a verbs lexical features with its syntactic projections.
References
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of
grammatical function changing. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Borer, H. (1994). The projection of arguments. In Functional projections, E.
Benedicto & J. Runner (eds.). University
of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17,
1947. Amherst: GLSA.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government
and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language,
its nature, origin and use. New York:
Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program
for linguistic theory. In The view from
Building 20: Essays in linguistics in
honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale &
J. Keyser (eds.), 152. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Carrier, J. & J. Randall (1993). Lexical mapping. In Knowledge and language, E.
Reuland & W. Abraham (eds.), 119142.
Davis, H. & H. Demirdache (1995). Agents
and events. Paper presented at GLOW
18, University of Troms, Norway.
Emonds, J. (1991). Subcategorization and
syntax-based theta-role assignment.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
9, 369429.
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In
Universals in linguistic theory, E. Bach
& R. Harms (eds.), 188. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, J. & S. Vikner (1993). Obligatory
adjuncts and the structure of events. In
Knowledge and language, E. Reuland &
W. Abraham (eds.), 143155.
Gruber, J. (1965). Studies in lexical relations.
Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Republished in
J. Gruber 1976, Lexical structures in
syntax and semantics. Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
Jackendo(, R. (1990). Semantic structures.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav (1995).
Unaccusativity: At the syntaxlexical
semantics interface. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Perlmutter, D (1978). Impersonal passives
and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of BLS 4, 157189. Berkeley:
University of California.
b.
b.
c.
(2)
a.
[SU ]
[ DO OBL]
c.
(5)
a.
b.
[ DO]
(7)
a.
[SU ]
Jan schreef.
Jan wrote.
Jan schreef zijn boekje.
Jan wrote his book.
Jan schreef aan zijn boekje.
Jan worked on his book.
b.
reminds one of Everaert (1986) Van Hout categorizes the major types of lexical-syntactic flexibility which occur in Dutch into three basic semantic natural classes. One of these groupings,
which includes relationships such as those exemplified in (4) and (5), Van Hout characterizes as
alternations with different foci on the
event. This sort of lexical-syntactic flexibility is
only very briefly discussed, its proper analysis set
aside for future research.
(4)
a.
Review
by William Philip
Page 14
b.
[SU DO]
[SU OBL]
V1
S1
V2
S2
V3
[SU_DO]
schrijven
[SU_OBL]
[SU_]
lopen
[_DO]
[_DO OBL]
Vm
Sn
After a well-written introduction and very informative chapter 2 the empirical rigor of which
(8)
a.
b.
John ate.
Agent(John) eat
John ate a sandwich.
Agent(John) eat theme(sandwich)
John ate something.
John kicked.
John kicked someone.
Dissertations
P
<walking>
T
P
<walking>
determined once and for all by the basic expressions it is made up of. Discussing the type of
alternation in (1a, b), van Hout observes that
the telicity of the predicate is due to an additional goal argument [e.g. naar het station] that
makes the predicate telic or to a telic goal particle such as weg away (p.93). In other words,
Van Hout adopts the standard bottom-up view
of how aspectuality is determined (cf. Pustejovskys (1991) event composition; Verkuyls
(1993) aspect composition), according to which
the aspectual value of a sentence is determined
by a number of di(erent elements and e(ects,
only one of which is the verbs basic event type
(p.91). But now, if the aspectuality of the predicate is compositionally determined in a bottomup fashion, it cannot also be the case that the
contents of the predicate, including its structure,
is determined top-down by a semantic operation
of event type-shifting. The chicken can come
before the egg, or vice versa, but both cannot
come before both. The solution to this apparent
paradox it becomes apparent by chapter 4 is
Van Houts CHESS model of the lexiconsyntax
interface. This is essentially the very interesting
thesis that the syntax of a particular predicate is
licensed just in case its compositionally determined aspect type bears a possible event typeshifting relation to the lexically specified aspect
type of the verb heading this predicate. Thus,
event type-shifting is not really an operation, but
rather a filter or checking mechanism. It is a
semantic constraint on the set of syntactically
distinct complements that a given verbal lexical
entry can be associated with by dint of its ability
to contribute to the determination of di(erent,
related, event types for the predicate as a whole.
In this regard, it will be noted that event typeshifting is quite distinct from Bachs (1986)
packaging. It will also be noted that the question of whether event type-shifting is a part of
grammar is left somewhat open. It could easily be
the case, it would seem, that certain kinds of
events may readily be taken to be subevents of
larger kinds of events simply because of nonlinguistic categories of perception. For example,
the event type-shifting relation between atelic
(1a) and telic (1b) may obtain simply because it is
very easy to imagine a walking event as the subevent of an event of spatial displacement. Thus,
Van Houts notion of the event type-shift may
have the theoretical status of, say, Dowtys (1991)
proto-theta roles, or a Greenburgian linguistic
universal. It may be a meta-grammatical notion
pretending to shed light on why certain types of
alternations frequently occur in natural
language. The same can be said, I believe, of the
other two operations on event structure which
van Hout posits i.e. that underlying causative
alternations and that underlying alternations of
di(erent foci on the event.
Van Houts dissertation is interesting and
well worth reading to those interested in argument structure and argument selection because
of the many questions it raises and the fresh
perspective it o(ers on the organization of lexicon
and on the relation between the lexicon, the computation of syntactic form, and the assignment of
meaning. However, it is hard not to be sceptical
about its principal claim that all forms of lexicalsyntactic flexibility can be reduced to the filtering
e(ect of properties of event structure. Consider
again the alternations in (1) and (2). While the
atelic/telic dichotomy may seem to provide a neat
account of the contrasts in complement structure
observed in (a) and (b) cases, it cannot in principle provide an explanation of the other alternations in (1) and (2). In the case of the syntactic
contrasts between (1b) and (1c) and between (2a)
and (2c), two di(erent types of complement structure have the same aspectual interpretation: (1b)
and (1c) are both telic; (2a) and (2c) are both
atelic. (For Van Hout, the preposition naar in
(1b) heads the predicate, taking the verb as an
argument, so in a trivial sense both verbs map
onto an unaccusative frame (p.94). The fact
Page 15
[SU_DO]
[SU_DO]
Dissertations
telic. But is this self-evident? Couldnt it alternatively be the case that the fundamental di(erence between (1a) and (1b) is that they denote
two di(erent kinds of events which happen to be
able to co-occur, i.e. a walking event and a
going-somewhere-on-foot event and that this
basic di(erence in meaning results in a di(erence in aktionsart? After all, verbs typically di(er in aktionsart as a consequence of the kind of
events they denote, not because there is any
necessary intensional or extensional relation
between them e.g. consider drink versus die.
This could also be what is going on in the a and b
cases of (1), (2), (7) and (8). If so, it is not the
contrast in aspectuality in the a and b cases of
(1), (2), (7) and (8) that determines the contrasts
in complement structure, as Van Hout claims,
but rather that just the opposite: the contrasts in
aspectuality are indirect e(ects of the contrasts
in kind of event denoted by the respective predicates. This meaning-determines-aspect view of
the situation is not only the standard view, it is
also more consistent with other facts. For example, in support of the meaning-determines-aspect
view, consider the contrast between (13a) and
(13b). On Van Houts account, the only di(erence
between these two sentences is one of aktionsart;
they both denote the same kind of event.
(13)
a.
John squirmed. (=moved like a worm on a fishhook)
b.
John squirmed o( the stage. (=left the stage, squirming
the whole way.)
c.
John moved from location A to location B.
d. #John squirmed as fast as his legs would carry him.
e.
John squirmed o( the stage as fast as his legs would
carry him.
(14)
a.
Er zijn de hele dag jongetjes naar het station gelopen.
(cf.(1b))
Boys walked/were walking to the station all day long.
b.
Jan schreef boekjes het hele jaar.
(cf. (2b))
Jan wrote books all year long.
prompt a new and highly productive line of research on this topic. The ideas need considerable
further development, however. In my view, the
most interesting idea the CHESS model
would be much improved if all reference to event
type shifting were dropped, along with the extended Pustejovskian event structure analysis
of aspectuality. In addition, as it stands, it is not
clear that the CHESS model presupposes an
event-based model theory. Its claims could just
as easily be reformulated, it would seem, in a
model-theoretical account of aspectuality that
did not treat events as individuals in the universe of discourse e.g. Dowty (1979) or
Verkuyl (1993). (Those working in event semantics will hope that when Van Hout does tie her
theory more closely to model-theoretic semantics
she will be able to show how an event-based
model theory is preferable.) Finally, I must also
caution the reader that the reading of this dissertation calls for some patience and some charity. The text has a great number of little problems. The argumentation is often quite poor or
incomplete. There are scholarly and factual inaccuracies. There are irrelevant and confusing
digressions that sometimes seem to wander o(
into incoherence. There are misused terms and
unnecessary and poorly defined neologisms.
Semanticists will be appalled, for example, to
hear Van Hout repeatedly characterize the
many-many relation in (3) as a function. Looking past such minor defects, though, the reader
will find the dissertation highly intriguing. The
one word that characterizes Van Hout (1996) is
inspired.
Page 16
References
Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 516.
Borer, H. (1994). On the projection of arguments. In Functional projections, E.
Benedicto & J. Runner (eds.), 1947.
UMOPS 17, Amherst, Mass.: GLSA.
Carlson, G.N. (1984). Thematic roles and
their role in semantic interpretation.
Linguistics 22, 259279.
Dowty, D. (1972). Studies in the logic of verb
aspect and time reference in English.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas.
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and
Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Dowty, D. (1989). On the semantic content of
the notion of thematic role. In Properties, types and meaning, volume II, G.
Chierchia, B.H.Partee & R. Turner
(eds.), 69129.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and
argument selection. Language 67,
547619.
Everaert, M. (1986). The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event
structure. Cognition 41, 4781.
Tenny, C. (1987). Grammaticalizing aspect
and a(ectedness. Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Van Valin, R.D. Jr. (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66,
221260.
Verkuyl, H. (1993). A theory of aspectuality,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Advertisement
Now in paperback
The Current State of
Interlanguage
Edited by L. EUBANK, L. SELINKER
and M. SHARWOOD SMITH
This state-of-the-art volume presents an outstanding collection of 22 studies on current
issues facing research in second-language
acquisition (SLA). The topics covered range
from the role of universals at various levels of
second-language (L2) knowledge; the way
that linguistic knowledge is represented by
L2 learners; the changing nature of linguistic
theory itself; and the definition of usage phenomena like style shifting and code switching. The introduction to The Current State of
Interlanguage gives a concise yet detailed
overview of research in the field over the past
10 years, and focuses on the present growing
concensus on a number of issues that were
at one point highly controversial.
Pb: 1995. viii, 301 pp.
Europe: 90 272 2165 0
Hfl. 60.
US:
1-55619-519-2
$
29.95
Noun-Modifying
Constructions in Japanese
A frame semantic approach
YOSHIKO MATSUMOTO
This study examines the clausal noun-modifying construction (NMC) in Japanese, a muchdiscussed construction that embraces what
have usually been called relative clause and
noun complement constructions. Drawing
upon a broad range of naturally-occurring
NMCs, including types that fall outside the
domains of relative clause and noun complement constructions, Matsumoto argues for
an analysis of NMCs that gives an important
role to semantics and pragmatics. The framework in which this approach is presented
draws from, and further refines, concepts of
frame semantics.
Studies in Language Companion Series, 35
Hb: 1997. viii, 204 pp.
Europe: 90 272 3038 2
Hfl. 130.
US:
1-55619-846-9
$
74.00
Studies on Universal
Grammar and Typological
Variation
Edited by A. ALEXIADOU and
T. ALAN HALL
The articles of the present volume consist of
generative analyses dealing with several current topics of discussion and debate in syntactic theory, such as clitics, word order,
scrambling, directionality, movement. The
data in the volume are drawn from a number
of typologically diverse languages (e.g. Arabic, Berber, Dutch, Gaelic, Greek, Malagasy).
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 13
Hb: 1997. viii, 252 pp.
Europe: 90 272 2734 9
Hfl. 130.
US:
1-55619-232-0
$
78.00
Book notices
BOOK NOTICES
FIVE BOOKS ON CHINESE
by Rint Sybesma
Shizhe Huang, Quantification and predication
in Mandarin Chinese: A case study of dou.
University of Pennsylvania doctoral dissertation. 1996.
[IRCS report 9636. University of Pennsylvania, 3401
Walnut Street, Suite 400A, Philadelphia, PA
191046228, USA; sdeysher@cis.upenn.edu.] 193 pp.
This is an important book. It makes original
claims and contains many other fresh ideas. It is
mainly concerned with dou but in order to explain
the use and semantics of dou, it also delves deeply
in the semantics of mei every and in the structuring of (Davidsonian) events.
The Mandarin element dou is generally regarded as a universal quantifier, but Huang shows
that that is only part of the story, one of the problems being that dou may also occur in contexts
with no universal quantification. On top of that,
the alternative view that dou is a distributor, i.e.,
more like each in English (see Xu Dings dissertation below), does not cover the whole array of facts
either.
Huangs dissertation starts out from the observation that Mandarin mei every cannot stand
alone in the sense that it only occurs felicitously in
case it cooccurs with an indefinite phrase, a reflexive or dou:
mei-ge chushi zuo yi-ge cai
every-CL cook make one-CL dish
every cook prepares one dish
mei-ge haizi you ziji-de chuang
every-CL child have self-DE bed
every child has his own bed
mei-ge ren
*(dou) kan-le
zhei-ben shu
every-CL person *)DOU read-PERF this-CL book
every person read this book
So what does dou do there and why can it be omitted in case the sentence contains a reflexive or an
indefinite? Phrased di(erently, what do indefinites, reflexives and dou have in common such
that they can somehow license the occurrence of
mei every?
Huang links this question to other distributional facts of dou, which, as noted above, often
expresses universal quantification, while conveying distributivity at other times. But it can also
occur in sentences with no universal quantification at all. In addition, in some cases dou is optional and in specific contexts, it can be replaced
by other elements like ye also and hai still. (And
I repeat the comment I made in the review of the
dissertation of Shyu Shu-ing in Glot International
2/4 that in contexts in which these elements are
interchangeable they must all be unstressed, an
observation which is not taken into account by
Huang either.)
Huangs first step towards an answer lies in
the analysis of mei every. Huang adopts what is
called the skolemized definition of EVERY. A
skolem function links two variables by making the
choice of the value of the one depending on the
choice of the value of the other. If EVERY is a
skolemized phenomenon, EVERY needs a variable
in its scope (it needs to c-command it). For mei
every, being an instantiation of EVERY, this
requirement is met when it has either an indefinite or a reflexive in its scope, both elements, as is
generally assumed, introducing variables. (This
approach also explains the fact why NPs with mei
generally do not occur in object position: from
there it is impossible for them to c-command a
variable.)
Page 17
Book notices
al approaches to Chinese (44pp.) by Yung-O Biq,
James Tai and Sandra Thompson, also belongs to
the first group. It consists of nine sections. After
an introductory section on the ideas behind Functional Grammar (section 1) and two short sections,
mainly consisting of lists of publications (section 2
on the history of functional grammar and Chinese
and section 3, Semantic studies) we get to section 4, one of the two longer sections of this chapter, entitled A cognition-based functional approach to Chinese grammar. It gives an interesting overview of the way a functional approach
throws an explanatory light on how Chinese expresses notions like time and space and deals with
phenomena like noun categorization and iconicity.
Following two other short sections (on syntax and
pragmatics), we find the other main section of the
chapter, section 7 on Discourse approaches to
Chinese which deals with the Chinese sentence
final particles and discourse markers. Section 8
outlines directions for future research and the
last section, section 9, is a short conclusion, pointing out (p.121) that discourse and functional
approaches to the study of Chinese resulted in a
deeper understanding of how Chinese grammar
arises from and is related to the cognitive and
social systems within which it functions.
Thomas Hun-Tak Lees chapter 9, Theoretical issues in language development and Chinese
child language (64pp.) is one of my favourite
chapters. Quite admirably, Lee
manages to summarize the acquisition literature on phonology, syntax and morphology, and
semantics and pragmatics for
both Mandarin and Cantonese,
without, however, glossing over
the details. As to the phonology,
Mandarin consonants, Mandarin
vowels, Cantonese vowels, Mandarin tones, Cantonese tones,
the discrepancies, the things
they have in common when they
are acquired, everything is taken
care of. In the acquisition of semantics and pragmatics section
Lee discusses the subjects binding, quantifier scope, deictic expressions (personal pronouns, but
also expressions of relative time
and space), aspect, classifiers,
questions and sentence final particles. The syntax and morphology
section deals with word order, null
subjects and objects, relativization, complementation and conjunction, and compounding.
Chapter 10, Neurolinguistics: A Chinese perspective
(23pp.) by Daisy L. Hung and Ovid T.-L- Tzeng, is a
very interesting chapter too. It is concerned with
aphasia and the use of cross language comparative
aphasia research. The starting point is quite
straightforward. It is well known that some aphasic
disorders lead to the drop or the incorrect use of
morphology and function words the Indo-European languages come out as Chinese. As the authors
write (p.364), the fact that Chinese grammar has
virtually no flectional morphology like verb conjugation and noun declension and that the word
order is quite flexible (e.g., topicalization)
raise[s] some fascinating questions concerning grammatical impairment in Chinese aphasics: since it is possible to produce
sentences with no grammatical markers of any kind, how can
we identify the symptom patterns that characterize Brocas and
wernickes aphasia in other languages? Thus, by examining the
patterns of language breakdown from a comparative viewpoint,
we can learn a great deal about the relationship between brain
and language.
Page 18
Book notices
Sinitic, or Han, varieties, largely ignoring the, lets
say, more than fifty non-Han languages spoken by
the non-Han ethnic minorities in China. He goes
on to remind us that the present day dialects of
China result from an interaction between the
language of the Han (the Chinese) and the substratum languages of the people living in the areas the Han settled down in. Wang continues
stating that the Han (the Chinese) cannot be defined racially. He quotes from immunological studies, which make it clear that the people who call
themselves Han are often genetically more closely
related to neigboring minorities than to far away
people who also call themselves Han. (Wang concludes that Han Chineseness is an ethnic
concept, based on culture.) It comes as no surprise,
then, that we find words in the Sinitic languages
of a non-Sinitic origin even words as basic as
those for the great rivers of China, jiang [Yangtze,
R.S.] and he [Yellow River, R.S.] are not Han in
origin (p.242).
In the second part of the chapter, Wang concentrates on the Sinitic dialects and the studies
that have been conducted since the beginning of
this century. He discusses several aspects of dialect studies (like, migration) as well as several
research methods, quantifying methods like
Chengs (see above) and parsimony methods which
allow for the incorporation of heterogeneous aspects of language in their computation.
where the strict adherence to word order principles to determine what is the subject and what is
the object clashes with certain other intuitions.
The other camp took the intuitions about agenthood and patienthood as their point of departure
and would have pointed at ren in the sentence
above as the subject. But what to do with sentences in which there is no agent not a clear one? To
complicate matters, Chinese has been branded a
topic prominent language by Charles Li and
Sandra Thompson for a good reason, and, again, in
the absence of any type of morphology it is not
always an easy matter to distinguish between the
two. In short, Zhaos task is not simple and I dont
think that her solutions are definitive. But her
discussion of these matters, both in chapter 2
(review of earlier literature) and chapters 4 and 5
is very useful and very thorough. And, as before,
everything is abundantly illustrated with Mandarin data.
Page 19
with realization or perfectivity. There is an intriguing suggestion in this chapter, but regretfully, Xu has not worked it out in any detail. The
suggestion is that bu will always have some modal
or aspectual element following it and that in some
cases this element may be null. So in sentences
like the following, we have an aspectual/modal
element meaning something like habituality or
non-realization:
Zhang San bu he
jiu
Zhang San not drink alcohol
Zhang San does not drink alcohol
Kluwer
academic publishers
The Journal of
Comparative
Germanic Linguistics
Editor:
Ken Safir
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Gert Webelhuth
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
http://www.wkap.nl
Conference reports
CONFERENCE REPORTS
GLOW 20
by Joo Costa
GLOW 20, Rabat, 1921/3/97
Argument Structure Interface) presented evidence that by-phrases are not adjuncts, and explored the hypothesis that they are to be represented in the normal position for subjects.
Luis Lpez (Univ. of Missouri at Columbia,
Ellipsis: Logical Form and Discourse) related
ellipsis with D-linking and negation, suggesting
that ellipsis is only licensed within the checking
domain of a discourse-linking functional category.
VP-ellipsis, according to him, is licensed in the
checking domain of SigmaP.
Anders Holmberg (Univ. of Troms, Phonological Feature Movement) analyzed Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting in terms of phonological
feature movement. His proposal was that in these
constructions all that is necessary is that some
phonological matrix occupies the Specifier position
of TopP, making a parallel between this construction and expletives, and explaining why stylistic
fronting only occurs when the subject position is
not filled in.
Maria-Teresa Guasti and Marina Nespor
(Milano and Univ. of Amsterdam, Syntax-Phonology Interactions) looked at certain syntax-phonology interactions, arguing that phonology influences syntax only in the part of the phonological component that may have such an influence (if there
are two options, phonology will decide). They also
argued that the prosodic hierarchy is superior to
recent theories of the influence of syntactic structure on phonology, reinforcing the view on phonology claiming that it is syntax-free.
Angela Ralli (Univ. of Athens, Inflection
Features and the Morphological Component Hypothesis) proposed that certain inflectional features are to be handled within a morphological
component of grammar. She claimed that two
things may happen to features: either they are
checked within morphology or they percolate,
becoming visible to syntax (+interpretable).
Rita Manzini and Anna Roussou (Florence/
UCL and Bangor, Interpretation as Feature Calculus: F-Movement and F-Control) reanalyzed
control in terms of F-movement, proposing that
PRO may be reduced to theta-relations between
Asp(ect) and DP, established in terms of Asp-feature-checking.
Richard Kayne (CUNY, invited speaker) proposed a review of certain constructions, resorting
to VP-preposing as a general mechanism, challenging the traditional view on constituent structure, and suggesting that all movement is overt.
Giuseppe Longobardi (Univ. of Venice, Case
Theory and the Minimalist Program) proposed an
elaboration of Case theory under the minimalist
program, maintaining the traditional distinction
between Spec-head and head-complement and
relating the two types of case-relation to interpretability and locus of checking (PF or LF). His
analysis permitted to avoid certain shortcomings
of Case theory and explain the di(erence between
inherent and abstract case.
K. Scott Ferguson (Univ. of Geneva, Deducing the Invisibility of PP Nodes from Case Checking and Full Interpretation) suggested that the
apparent invisibility of PP nodes for binding could
be derived in a framework assuming that PPs are
dominated by an Agr node which is deleted at LF.
Ian Roberts and Anna Roussou (Univ. of
Stuttgart and Univ. of Wales,Bangor, Interface
Interpretation) proposed a parametrization of
features in terms of +/-p (meaning, whether it
Page 20
Functional Categories
in Mandarin Chinese
by
Ding Xu
diss. Leiden University|Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics|HIL Diss 26
V E R S I O N
A V A I L A B L E
[ d o c u m e n t ]
p r o c e s s i n g ]
e-mail: mail@hag.nl
http: www.hag.nl
fax: +31 70 4480177