Syntax and Morphology Multidimensional

Syntax and Morphology Multidimensional
Interface Explorations 24
Editors
Artemis Alexiadou
T. Alan Hall
De Gruyter Mouton
Syntax and Morphology
Multidimensional
edited by
Andreas Nolda
Oliver Teuber
De Gruyter Mouton
ISBN 978-3-11-023874-7
e-ISBN 978-3-11-023875-4
ISSN 1861-4167
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Syntax and morphology multidimensional / edited by Andreas Nolda,

Oliver Teuber.
p. cm. (Interface explorations; 24)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-3-11-023874-7 (alk. paper)
1. Grammar, Comparative and general Syntax. 2. Grammar,
Comparative and general Morphology. 3. Structural linguistics.
I. Nolda, Andreas. II. Teuber, Oliver.
P291.S95624 2011
415 dc23
2011028427
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin/Boston

Cover image: iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Typesetting: Asco Typesetters, Hong Kong
Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Gttingen
f Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Contents
Introduction: Multiple dimensions in syntax and morphology 1

Andreas Nolda and Oliver Teuber
The Parallel Architecture and its place in cognitive science 17

RayJackendoff
A phono-syntactic template for Turkish: Base-generating free word

order 45
Ash Goksel
A coanalysis approach to Polish past tense agreement 77

BertholdCrysmann
Optimal specifications: On case marking in Polish 101

Bernd Wiese
Case competition in Russian: Genitive vs. accusative and nominative.

An integrational account 129
Hans-Heinrich Lieb and Svetlana Friedrich
How can the polysemy of syntactic categories be conciliated with

semantic coherence? Syntactic and lexical factors for the emergence
of a global signification of the imparfait in French 187
Marie-Helene Viguier
On lexical and syntactic licensing of category mixing 217

TatianaNikitina
AUTO- and INTER- versus (?) SE: Remarks on interaction and

competition between word formation and syntax 239
KatrinMutz
The interaction between morphology and syntax exhibited by the

German writing system 259
NannaFuhrhop
Subject index 289

Introduction:
Multiple dimensions in syntax and morphology
Andreas Nolda and Oliver Teuber
The present volume collects papers that approach theoretical and empirical
problems in syntax and morphology from a multidimensional point of view. In
such an approach to syntax or morphology, syntactic phrases, morphological
words and the like are conceived of as syntactic or morphological constructs
with multiple, interrelated components, each representing morphosyntactic
properties of different kinds. Thereby one can describe, say, hierarchical struc-
ture and linear order, or morphosyntactic categories and functions in their own
right, without neglecting their interrelations.
The aim of this introductory article is to clarify what we mean by "multi-
dimensionality" and to provide an overview of the volume. We proceed as fol-
lows. Section 1 discusses the distinction between multidimensionality and
monodimensionality. Section 2 exemplifies monodimensional approaches by a
Government and Binding analysis. Section 3 characterizes multidimensional
frameworks insofar as they are represented in this volume. Section 4 finally
shows how the papers of the volume relate to its general topic.
1. Multidimensionality vs. monodimensionality
Morphosyntactic objects such as syntactic phrases or morphological words are

conceived of in different ways by different theoretical approaches. They are
modeled as constituent structures, dependency structures, feature structures.
etc. or as combinations thereof, i Assume, for instance, that in a certain theo-
retical framework morphosyntactic objects are modeled jointly by a constituent
structure - representing, say, hierarchical structure, linear order, and phono-
logical form - and a feature structure - representing morphosyntactic categories
and functions. Then we shall take the pair consisting of the constituent structure
and the feature structure to be a two-dimensional morphosyntactic construct. If.
1. Note that constituent structures, dependency structures, and feature structures

can themselves be formalized in different ways, e.g., by set-theoretical or graph-
theoretical means.
2 Andreas Nolda and Oliver Teuber
however, all of those properties are represented by a constituent structure only.

the latter is a one-dimensional morphosyntactic construct.
In more general terms, then, morphosyntactic constructs are multidimen-
sional if they are composed of several components, each representing morpho-
syntactic properties of (at least partially) different kinds. Otherwise morpho-
syntactic constructs are mono dimensional. By extension, we shall say that a
theoretical framework is multidimensional itself if it models morphosyntactic
objects by multidimensional constructs. Similarly, a framework is monodimen-
sional if it models morphosyntactic objects by monodimensional constructs.
From a metatheoretical point of view, monodimensional frameworks may
appeal because of the uniformity and ontological parsimony of their morpho-
syntactic constructs. The number of their components is reduced to the bare
minimum: one. By contrast, morphosyntactic constructs in multidimensional
frameworks are more complex. They are composed of several components, that
do not only represent different kinds of morphosyntactic properties, but often
also differ with respect to their type (constituent structure, dependency struc-
ture, feature structure, etc.). In addition, multidimensional frameworks have to
provide means for relating corresponding parts in different components of a
given morphosyntactic construct.
On the other hand, monodimensional frameworks tend to posit rather intri-
cate structures for their morphosyntactic constructs because the latter have to
represent, and distinguish, properties of various kinds. In multidimensional
frameworks, however, the individual components of morphosyntactic con-
structs can have relatively simple structures, which are specifically adapted to
the one or few kinds of morphosyntactic properties they represent.
Another advantage of multidimensional frameworks is that different kinds
of morphosyntactic properties can be described in their own right, such that
mismatches between them are accounted for easily. Assume, for instance, that
in a given multidimensional framework hierarchical structure and linear order
are represented by different components of morphosyntactic constructs. Then
discontinuous constituents can be directly represented (instead of being 'simu-
lated' by movement operations or other technical devices).
As a matter of fact, monodimensional frameworks are often multistratal
ones. In a multistratal framework morphosyntactic objects are modeled by se-
quences of denvationally related constructs. In such a sequence all constructs
are of the same type (e.g. constituent structures) and represent morphosyntactic
properties of (at least partially) identical kinds. Typically, though not necessar-
ily, they are assigned to different 'descriptive levels' or 'derivational stages'
(such as 'deep' and 'surface structures'). Multidimensional frameworks, how-
ever, normally happen to be monostratal ones. Due to the multidimensional
Introduction 3
nature of their morphosyntactic constructs there arises no need for assuming

more than a single'descriptive level'.
2. A monodimensional example
A well-known monodimensional, and multistratal, framework is the Govern-

ment and Binding (or Principles and Parameters) incarnation of Generative
Grammar (Chomsky 1981, 1986). Ouhalla (1999: 136-137), for example,
models clause (1) in this framework by a sequence of constituent structures
with (2) as the S-structure (roughly, 'surface structure') member:
(1) {that) this problem, I can solve
(2)
Spec
/ can V
V NP
solve ti
(2) is a monodimensional syntactic construct, representing at the same time

hierarchical structure, linear order^ syntactic categories, and - to a certain
degree - syntactic functions. In addition, it contains a coindexed trace ?,, linking
(2) with the D-structure (roughly, 'deep structure') member of the sequence
(another constituent structure, not given here).
As a rule, syntactic objects are modeled by constituent structures with a root
constituent of a phrasal category XP, and morphological ones by constituent
structures with a root constituent of a lexical category X According to X-bar
theory, the syntactic functions head, complement, adjunct, and specifier are
relations between positions in local tree configurations. In a local tree of cate-
gory X', for example, the relation of a YP daughter to an X daughter counts as a
complement relation, while its relation to a n X daughter counts as an adjunct
relation. In a local tree of category XP, in turn, the relation of a YP daughter to
a n X daughter counts as a specifier relation, while its relation to anXP daugh-
ter counts again as an adjunct relation.
In order to represent syntactic functions in an unambiguous way,3 X-bar
theory has to assume relatively complex constituent structures. The non-
branching VP configuration in (2) is a direct consequence of representing syn-
tactic functions by means of X-bar theoretic relations between constituent
structure positions.* Regarding hierarchical structure (in terms of part-whole
relations), the non-branching configuration is redundant: both the VP node and
the V node stand for the same verbal constituent. But without the intervening
V node between the VP and the contained NP, the syntactic function of the lat-
ter could not be determined by reference to X-bar theoretic principles.
The joint representation of hierarchical structure, linear order, and syntactic
functions by the same constituent structure can lead to further complexity, since
Chomskyan Generative Grammar does not allow for discontinuous constitu-
ents. In (1) this problem is a complement (the direct object) of solve, that is
2. In the Minimalist Program of current Generative Grammar, syntactic structures do

not directly represent linear order. According to Chomsky's (1995) 'bare phrase
structure' conception, syntactic structures are unordered sets. Their linearization is
delegated to the phonological component.
3. As a matter of fact, functional ambiguities can occur mX-bar theoretic tree struc-
tures despite their relative complexity. This is the case in adjunction configurations
where mother and daughters are of the same category XP. Unless further principles
are stipulated for the distinction between head and adjunct (such as then relative
linear order; cf Kayne 1994), the direction of the adjunct relation cannot be umquely
determined.
4. By giving upX-bar theory, the Minimalist Program avoids non-branching structures
(cf. Chomsky 1995).
Introduction 5
topicalized for mformation-structural reasons. In order to represent the comple-

ment function of this problem in accordance wrth X-bar theory, solve and this
problem would have to form a n X constituent wrth solve as an X daughter and
this problem as a YP daughter. Due to the totalization of this problem, t h a t X
constituent would be discontinuous, though. In the Government and Binding
framework one resolves this sort of dilemma by representing syntactic functions
on D-structure but not necessarily on S-structure; surface linear order, in turn.
is represented on S-structure, but not necessarily on D-structure.
3. Multidimensional frameworks
We shall now characterize selected multidimensional frameworks - those

frameworks that are presupposed in papers of this volume. These are Lexical-
Functional Grammar, Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, the Parallel Ar-
chitecture, and Integrational Linguistics.^
3.1. Lexical-Functional Grammar
Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) in the original version of Kaplan and

Bresnan (1982) models morphosyntactic objects by constructs containing a
constituent structure (c-structure) and a functional structure (f-structure).
Newer versions assume additional components such as argument structure
(a-structure) (cl Bresnan 2001).
Kaplan (1995: 10-11), for instance, models sentence (3) jointly by the
c-structure (4a) and the f-structure (4b):
(3) I saw the girl.
5. Multidimensional frameworks that are not represented withm the present volume
include Construction Grammar approaches such as Berkeley Construction Grammar
(cl, inter alia, Fillmore 1999; Kay 2002).
(4) a. S
the girl
b. PRED 'pro'
SUBJ PERS 1
LNUM SG J
TENSE PAST
PRED 'see <(t SUBJ), (t OBJ))'
PRED 'girl'
DEF +
OBJ
PERS 3
L LNUM SG J J
The c-structure (4a) represents hierarchical structure in terms of constituents
and constituent categories. Since (4a) is formalized as an ordered tree graph, it
also represents linear order. The f-structure (4b) represents morphosyntactic
categories such as first person and singular, grammatical functions, and lexical
meanings. Linear order is not accounted for by (4b), being formalized as a set-
theoretic function.
C-structures and f-structures are linked by a structural correspondence func-
tion (not given here; for details cf Kaplan 1995: 15-18), mapping constituents
of (4a) to parts of (4b). Note that c-structures and f-structures need not be iso-
morphic. In (4a), for example, the constituents saw, saw the girl, and / saw the
girl all correspond to (4b) as a whole.
3.2. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar
Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) (Pollard and Sag 1987, 1994)
models syntactic and morphological objects exclusively by means of typed fea-
Introduction 1
ture structures. They are described by constraints, which are equally formulated
in terms of feature structures.
(6), for example, is a (simplified) model of sentence (5) (cf Pollard and Sag
1994: 32; type specifications are suppressed):
(5) Kim walks.
(6) PHON (Kim, walks)

SYNSEM S\fin]
PHON (walks)
HEAD-DTR
SYNSEM VP[/zw]
DTRS
PHON (Kim)
COMP-DTRS
L L SYNSEM NP[om] J]
Informally, (6) can be notated as in (7):
(7)
NP [nom] VP [fin]
Kim walks
The SYNSEM features in (6) specify, inter alia, syntactic categories (denoted
by feature structures, abbreviated here as " S [ / k ] " , "NP[ 0 m]", etc.). The
HEAD-DTR and COMP-DTRS features represent hierarchical structure and
syntactic functions, conforming to the immediate dominance (ID) schemata of
the grammar. The PHON value represents phonological form and linear order.
the latter being constrained by the grammar's linear precedence (LP) con-
straints. Since in classical HPSG LP constraints apply to sister constituents
only, discontinuous structures cannot be described
The restriction to continuous constituents, however, is lifted in linearization-
based HPSG, notably developed by Reape (1992, 1996). According to him
(1992: 17) "syntactic structure should be formulated independently of word
order and then the relation between the two investigated". To this aim, he
6. The HPSG distinction between ID schemata and LP constraints takes up the ID/LP
rule format of Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG) (Gazdar et al. 1985).
Note that in a GPSG-style ID/LP grammar, ID rules still impose some constraints on
linear order, since the domain of LP rules is restricted to sister constituents.
introduces a separate component for representing word-order - so-called order

domains, conceived as lists of domain objects.
Consider (8) as an example:
(8) (dass) der Mann versucht hat, das Buck zu lesen

that the man tried has the book to read
'(that) the man tried to read the book'
According to Reape (1996: 217-218), the unordered hierarchical structure of

(8) involves a constituent versucht das Buck zu lesen, that is discontinuously
linearized in the corresponding order domain. Using the same informal nota-
tion as in (7), the essentials of Reape's (1996) analysis can be sketched as in
(9):
(9)
versucht das Buch zu lesen
Amore formal representation is given in (10):'
(10)
TPHON {der, Mann, versucht, hat, das, Buck,zu, lesen)
SYNSEM VP
TPHON (versucht, das,Buch,zu,lesen)

SYNSEM VP
PHON (der, Mann)

COMP-DTRS ( | T | ;
SYNSEM NP
[COMPOS (H[>XM Sr^-llJ
LDOM |T]g JJ
LDOM (gssg J
7. In his version of linearization-based HPSG, Reape uses the features "SYN" and
"ARG-DTRS" instead of "SYNSEM" and "COMP-DTRS", respectively. Boxed
numerals indicate token-identical values.
Introduction 9
The PHON value of (10) now results from concatenating the PHON values
of the domain objects in the DOM list, to which LP constraints apply in
linearization-based HPSG. Note that domain objects may be immediate con-
stituents or non-immediate ones. In the latter case (as in the top-level DOM list
in (10) with the domain objects versucht and das Buck zu lesen), constituents
can be discontinuously linearized.
The classical approach to morphology in HPSG is an item-and-process one:
feature structures modeling morphological objects (e.g. stems) are mapped
onto feature structures modeling morphological or syntactic ones (stems or
words) by lexical rules (Pollard and Sag 1987: chap. 8). For a recent overview.
including also alternative item-and-arrangement approaches, cf Muller (2008!
chap. 19).
3.3. The Parallel Architecture
In the Parallel Architecture (PA) framework (Jackendoff 1997,2002; Culicover

andJackendoff2005)thegrammaticalstructureofasyntactic(ormorphological)
object is conceived as a triple containing a (morphojphonologwal structure, a
(morpho)syntactic structure, and a semantic structure. Each structure can in
turn be composed of several tiers.
Example (12) outlines the grammatical structure of sentence (11) (cf. Culi-
cover and Jackendoff 2005: 193):
(11) Pat gave Dan a book
(12) a. Pat2 gave, Dan, a book,

b. [NP^vpVxNPsNPJJ,
c. GF2>GF3>GF4
d. [GIVE (PAT2, DAN 3 , [BOOK; INDEFWh
(12a) gives the phonological structure of (11) in orthographic terms, neglecting

its articulation into several tiers. (12b) represents the hierarchical structure of
(11) in form of a headed syntactic constituent structure. The grammatical func-
tion tier (12c) ranks unspecified grammatical functions. (12d) formulates the
conceptual structure of (11) (further semantic tiers are ignored).
Each structure in (12) is constrained by a separate combinatorial component
of the grammar with its own primitives and principles of combination. The
primitives of the syntactic combinatorial component, which constrains syn-

tactic constituent structures, are syntactic categories and features. Its princi-
ples of combination are principles of constituency and principles of linear
order.* Correspondences between parts of different structures - expressed by
numerical indices in (12) - are constrained by interface components of the
grammar.
The multidimensionality of the grammar architecture allows Culicover and
Jackendoff (2005) to design a 'simpler syntax'. Syntactic constituent structures
can be as flat as possible, since they do not represent, e.g., any syntactic func-
tions beyond the head function.
3.4. Integrations! Linguistics
Ever since the seminal work of Lieb (1983),' Integration^ Linguistics (IL)
conceives structured syntactic objects as triples composed of * syntactic unit, a
syntactic structure, and a lexical interpretation. Syntactic structures in turn are
taken to consist of a constituent structure, a categonal marking structure, and
întonation structure.
(14) gives, in informal notations, the syntactic unit (14a), the syntactic into-
nation structure (14b), the syntactic constituent structure (14c), the syntactic
marking structure (14d), and the lexical interpretation (14e) of sentence (13)
(cf Nolda 2007: 153-183):
(13) Ichhabenur franzosischen Rotwein.

I have only French red wine
'I only have French red wine.'
(14) a. 1 2 3 4 5
ich habe nur franzosischen Rotwein
8. In addition to GPSG-style LP rules, Cuticover and Jackendoff (2005) make use

of 'default' LP rules, specifying the default order of sister constituents, and
'edge' LP rules, linearizing constituents at the left or right edge of the mother
constituent.
9. For recent introductions to the framework cf. Nolda (2007: chap. 7) and Sackmann
(2008). The framework is presupposed, inter alia, by Eisenberg's (2006) German
reference grammar.
Introduction 11
b. 1 2 3 4 5
L HL H LHrLL Ld L
c. VGr
Nf Vf Ptf Nf Nf
1 2 3 4 5
d. 1 2
PERS-PRON, 1PERS,. . . MAIN-V, NOM+ACC,. . .
Nom, Smg Nf ,. . . IPers, Smg vf , Pres,. . .
3 4 5
QUAL-W,. . . ADJ,. . . MASS-N, MASC, . . .
Unmptf Ace, SmgNf, Masc,. . . Ace, Smg Nf ,. . .
e. 1 2 3 4 5
I- haver c Frenehr redwing-
From a formal point of view, all of those components are set-theoretical func-
tions. Their domains consist of position numbers, or sets of such numbers, rep-
resenting linear order and linking corresponding parts of different components.
The syntactic unit (14a) is a function from positions to phonological words
(notated here as orthographic words). The intonation structure (14b) associates
the positions with one or several sets of auditive values (one set per syllable:
only pitches are considered above). The constituent structure (14c) maps sets of
positions to constituent categories such as Nf ('noun form', including substan-
tival as well as adjectival word forms) or NGr ('noun group'). Note that the
VGr ('verb group') ich habe franzosischen Rotwem is a discontinuous constitu-
ent in (14c), interrupted by the Ptf ('particle form') nur. For those position sets
that are assigned basic constituent categories, the marking structure (14d) sup-
plies further categorizations in terms of lexical word categories (e.g. ADJ) and
word form categories (Ace etc.), while the lexical interpretation (14e) assign
lexical meanings to them.io
Putting the components in (14) together yields a multidimensional con-
struct, that serves as a basis for specifying occurrences of syntactic functions
(represented by arrows in (15)):
(15) ^VGr
VGr- _
\\ 'NGT
\ tffi>^ \ <*>'
\ mod \
Nf Vf Ptf Nf-'
1 2 3 4 5
ich habe nur fremzosischen Rotwein
L HL H LULL LdL
I- haver c French] redwiner
PERS-PRON, 1PERS, MAIN-V,NOM+ACQ. QUAL-W,. ADJ,... MASS-N.MASC,.
Nom, Sing Nf ,... IPers, Singyf, Pres,... Unmptf Ace, SingNf, Masc, Ace, Sing Nf ,...
In the classical IL conception structured morphological objects were

conceived in a strictly analogous way, effectively combining an item-and-
arrangement approach with elements of the word-and-paradigm tradition (for
details, the reader is referred to Lieb 1983; for an application to German, cf
Eisenberg 2006: vol. 1). Recently, it has been proposed to replace it by an item-
and-process approach, though (Lieb 2006, 2010).
4. The papers in this volume
The contributions in this volume partly derive from papers read at the work-
shop on "Syntax and morphology multidimensional" at the annual meeting of
the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Sprachwissenschaft in Bielefeld in 2006. All of
them subscribe to a multidimensional point of view of syntax and morphology
presupposing, for the most part, one of the multidimensional frameworks pre-
sented in Section 3.
In "The Parallel Architecture and its place in cognitive science", Ray Jack-
endoff argues that multidimensional parallel architecture approaches in general.
10. In (14e), "c" denotes the empty concept. In IL, the meaning of 'particle forms' such
as nur is accounted for in sentence semantics, not lexical semantics.
Introduction 13
and his own Parallel Architecture framework in particular, integrate better with
cognitive science than mainstream Generative Grammar. This claim is justified
with reference to PA's conception of the lexicon, conceptual semantics, and
syntax. A PA lexicon includes 'stored' linguistic entities of all kinds, including
idioms, constructions, and phrase structure rules. Given the independently mo-
tivated complexity of PAs mentalistic conceptual semantics, syntax can be cut
down to the bare minimum that is needed to map between phonology and
meaning.
Ash Goksel advances a monostratal, multidimensional approach to Turkish
syntax that includes prosodic structure as a crucial part. In "A phono-syntactic
template for Turkish: Base-generating free word order", she proposes a tripartite
template for capturing general properties of linear order in Turkish sentences.
The domains in this template are defined independently from hierarchical struc-
ture solely by reference to the positions of sentence stress and the predicative
verb. It is shown that this proposal can be successfully applied to phenomena
such as functional ambiguity, quantificational dependency, and ellipsis.
In "A coanalysis approach to Polish past tense agreement", Berthold Crys-
mann discusses past tense and conditional agreement markers in Polish, that
can syntactically 'float off' to hosts on the left of the verb. He argues that the
former, but not the latter, are best analyzed as verbal affixes that are 'visible'
for syntactic linearization. This idea is implemented in a generalized ver-
sion of linearization-based HPSG that allows words to introduce more than
a single domain object into order domains.
Bernd Wiese shows in his paper "Optimal specifications: On case marking
in Polish" that the traditionally assumed multiplication of paradigms and
declensions for Polish nominal inflection can be avoided by hierarchical,
'multi-level' classification systems for gender and case. On their basis, Wiese
identifies largely unambiguous categonal specifications of noun endings. The
use of the latter is controlled by associated application conditions that specify
restrictions in formal or functional dimensions.
In their article on "Case competition in Russian: Genitive vs. accusative and
nominative. An integrational account", Hans-Heinrich Lieb and Svetlana
Friedrich investigate the semantics of the genitive case and its syntactic basis
in Russian. Presupposing the framework of Integrational Linguistics, they
identify semantic effects of the genitive for negation-independent competition
with the accusative as well as for negation-dependent competition with both the
accusative and the nominative. The semantic effects are derived by interpreting
syntactic functions in terms of semantic functions. The application of the latter
is controlled by application conditions (of different nature than those in Wiese's
paper), which make reference to various components of multidimensional
syntactic constructs, including, but not limited to, the appearance of case cate-
gories in the marking structure.
Semantic functions and their applications conditions also play a crucial role
mMarie-Helene Viguier\ paper "How can the polysemy of syntactic categories
be conciliated with semantic coherence? Syntactic and lexical factors for the
emergence of a global signification of the imparfait in French". Viguier argues
that the polysemy of the French imparfait is at least partly semantic, not prag-
matic. She shows on the example of the non-past interpretation of the imparfait
in conditional ./-clauses how such an account can be implemented in Integra-
tional Linguistics by the formulation of a 'multidimensional' application condi-
tion for the corresponding semantic function, which here directly interprets a
syntactic category.
In her paper "On lexical and syntactic licensing of category mixing" Tatiana
Nikitina provides an LFG account of conditions on grammatical function real-
ization in deverbal noun constructions in Italian and Wan (a Mande language.
spoken in Cote d'lvoire). Nikitina proposes to explain the (non-)blocking of
grammatical functions in such 'mixed-category' constructions by distinguish-
ing two independent, and possibly conflicting, licensing mechanisms for gram-
matical functions (encoded in f-structure) and for their syntactic realization
(encoded in c-structure).
The paper on "AWV- and INTER- versus (?) SE: Remarks on interaction
and competition between word formation and syntax" of Katrin Mutz studies
the 'division of labor' between syntax and morphology on the example of
syntactic reflexive markers and their morphological counterparts in Romance
languages. The comparison of their functions is cast in a multidimensional
representation that includes 'levels' such as conceptual semantic structure,
argument structure, and morphosyntactic realization structure.
In her paper on "The interaction between morphology and syntax exhibited
by the German writing system", Nanna Fuhrhop shows how the dimensions of
morphology and syntax have independent impact on the spelling system of
German. The discussion is led along two phenomena, capitalization of nouns
and juxtaposition of compound words. It is shown that the graphematic system
falls back on morphological principles as well as on syntactic principles. Cases
of doubt arise from conflicts between these independent sets of principles.
References
BresnatUoan
2001 Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Introduction 15
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Chomsky, Noam
1986 Barriers. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 13.) Cambridge, Mass, MIT
Press.
Chomsky, Noam
1995 Bare phrase structure. In Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory.
Hector Campos and Paula Kempchmsky (eds.), 51-109. Washington:
D.C, Georgetown University Press.
Cuhcover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff
2005 Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eisenberg, Peter
2006 Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Metzler
Fillmore, Charles
1999 Inversion and constructional inheritance. In Lexical and Construc-
tional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, Gert Webelhuth, Jean-Pierre
Koemg, and Andreas Kathol (eds.), 113-128. Stanford: CSLI Publica-
tions.
Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan H. Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ivan A. Sag
1985 Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell
Jackendoff, Ray
1997 The Architecture of the Language Faculty. (Linguistic Inquiry Mono-
graphs 28.) Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray
2002 Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, Ronald M
1995 The formal architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Formal
Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, Mary Dalrymple, Ronald M.
Kaplan, John T. Maxwell, and Annie Zaenen (eds.), 7-27. (CSLI Lecture
Notes 47.) Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Kaplan, Ronald M , and Joan Bresnan
1982 Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical repre-
sentation. In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Joan
Bresnan (ed.), 173-281. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Kay, Paul
2002 An informal sketch of a formal architecture for Construction Grammar.
Grammars 5: 1-19.
Kayne, Richard S.
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 25.) Cam-
bridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Lieb,Hans-Heinrich
1983 Integration* Linguistics. Vol. 1. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory
17.) Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lieb,Hans-Hemnch
2006 Wortbildung auf morphologischer und Wortbildung auf syntaktischer
Grundlage. Paper presented at the 28th Jahrestagung der Deutschen Ge-
sellschaft filr Sprachwissenschaft in Bielefeld on February 23.
Lieb,Hans-Hemnch
2010 Word formation: morphological and syntactic: A unified process view
based on a Word and Paradigm model. Ms., Freie University Berlin.
Miller, Stefan
2008 Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar: Fine Einfuhrung. 2nd ed.
(StauffenburgEmfilhrungen 17.) Tubingen: Stauffenburg.
Nolda, Andreas
2007 Die Thema-Integration: Syntax und Semantik der ,gespaltenen Topika-
lisierung' im Deutschen. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 72.) Tubin-
gen: Stauffenburg.
Ouhalla,Jamal
1999 Introducing Transformational Grammar: From Principles and Parame-
ters to Minimalism. 2nd ed. London: Arnold.
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan Sag
1987 Information-based Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 1: Fundamentals. (CSLI
Lecture Notes 13.) Stanford: CSLI Publications.
1994 Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications
and Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Reape,Mike
1992 A formal theory of word order: A case study in West Germanic. Ph. D.
Diss., University of Edinburgh.
Reape,Mike
1996 Getting things in order. In Discontinuous Constituency, Harry Bunt and
Arthur van Horck (eds.), 209-253. (Natural Language Processing 6.)
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
SackmannRobm
2008 An introduction to Integration^ Linguistics. In Explorations in Integra-
tional Linguistics: Four Essays on German, French, andGuarani, Robin
Sackmann (ed.), 1-20. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 285.) Am-
sterdam: Benjamins.
The Parallel Architecture and its place
in cognitive science*
Ray Jackendoff
It has become fashionable recently to speak of linguistic inquiry as brolmgws-

tics, an attempt to frame questions of linguistic theory in a biological context.
The Minimalist Program (MP; Chomsky 1995, 2001) is of course the most
prominent stream of research in this paradigm. However, an alternative stream
within the paradigm, the Parallel Architecture, has been developing in my own
work over the past 3 0 years; it includes two important subcomponents, Concep-
tual Structure and Simpler Syntax (Jackendoff 2002, 2007b; Culicover and
Jackendoff 2005). The present article will show how the Parallel Architecture
is in many ways a more promising realization of biolinguistic goals than the
Minimalist Program, and that it is more conducive to integration with both the
rest of linguistic theory and the rest of cognitive science.
1. Parallel architectures, broadly conceived

The Parallel Architecture can be explored at two levels: First, what is a parallel
architecture in general? Second, what distinguishes "the" Parallel Architecture
from other theories within this genre? In both cases, the basic question is:
(1) What is the best way to allocate the generative capacity of language, so as
to account for the observed relations between sound and meaning?
Traditional generative grammar, from Syntactic Structures (Chomsky 1957)
through the Minimalist Program, has answered:
(2) Syntactocentric architecture:
The recursive rules of the syntactic component provide the generative
capacity of language. The relation between sound and meaning arises
through mapping syntactic structures into phonetic form (PF) (or the
"sensorimotor interface") on one hand and logical form (LF) (or the
"conceptual-intentional interface") on the other.
* This chapter was published previously in The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic

Analysis, Bernd Heme and Heiko Narrog (eds.), 583-605, Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press. We thank OUP for permission to include this chapter here. (The editors.)
18 RayJackendoff
However, theoretical developments as early as the 1970s showed that pho-

nological structures have then own primitives and principles of combination
that cannot be reduced to syntactic terms. For instance, rules of syllabification,
prosody, and morphophonology are stated in terms of units that are thoroughly
comfortable in phonological terms but often quite uncomfortable in syntactic
terms. The same is true of meanings: semantic notions like event, manner,
quantification, and focus cut across syntactic categories but are charactenzable
in independent semantic terms. In particular, it has been a staple of linguistic
theory and psycholinguists to distinguish semantic ill-formedness ^Color-
less green ideas sleep furiously) from syntactic ill-form edness (M good ideas
am rare), which depends on the distinction between semantic and syntactic
combinatorial^
Within the syntactocentnc approach, mismatches between syntax and pho-
nology have been either incorporated into syntax (e.g. "Spell-Out") or ignored.
at least by syntacticians. Moreover, there has been a constant tendency to ac-
count for apparent mismatches between syntax and semantics by building more
and more aspects of semantics into syntactic structure - as is required by an
architecture in which all combinatonality is a consequence of syntax. The in-
evitable result is a syntactic component rich with invisible structure, in which
many constituents move multiple times. Differences of opinion arise as to
whether this is a Good Thing or not.
A parallel architecture answers question (1) like this:
(3) Parallel architecture:
a. The generative capacity of language is invested in multiple components
- at the very least, autonomous generative components for phonological.
syntactic, and semantic structure. Each component has its own distinc-
tive primitives and principles of combination, and generates its own
structure.
b. The relation between sound and meaning is mediated by a set of inter-
face components, which establish optimal linkings among the various
structures and their parish
c. The structure of a sentence is therefore an -tuple of structures, one for
each appropriate component, plus the linkages established among
them by the interface components.
1. "Syntactic" is sometimes used to mean 'combinatorial in any sense', including

music, phonology, and semantics. I am using the term here in the narrow sense of
'combinatorial^ whose units are things like Noun and Verb.'
2. Note that in this theory, an interface is not a level of structure, but rather a connec-
tion between/wo levels of structure.
The main points of (3) can be illustrated by the following "W-model" of the
language faculty.
(4) Phonological Syntactic Semantic

Formation Formation Formation
Rules Rules Rules
1 1 1
Phonological Syntactic Semantic
Structures Structures Structures
\ * Interface
Interface
A prion, the traditional approach (2) seems simpler, since it has only one
"generative engine" and fewer components overall. But, to paraphrase Chom-
sky (1972, 125-129) (who is responding to Postal's (1972) "The Best Theory"
without citing it), architectures must be judged not only on their formal ele-
gance, but also on their affordance for describing the data of language in full
detail (descriptive adequacy), in explaining language variation and the possibil-
ity of language acquisition (explanatory adequacy), and in explaining how the
system can arise from more general cognitive and biological principles ("be-
yond explanatory adequacy", to use the term of Chomsky 2001). In particular,
formal elegance must not be conflated with biological or cognitive elegance.
which might be quite different.
Pursuing the goal of going beyond explanatory adequacy, consider which
sort of architecture conforms more closely to what is known about the brain.
For instance, the visual system is known to contain numerous areas specialized
to different aspects of visual perception: detection of contour, detection of mo-
tion, detection of color, several independent mechanisms for constructing the
perception of depth, possibly face perception, and many many others. Each of
them accounts for a relatively limited aspect of visual understanding; the total-
ity of visual understanding arises from their combined efforts. In order for their
efforts to combine, they must communicate, linking their respective representa-
tions in an optimal fashion (Koch 2004). At the moment, we don't know a lot
about the formal details of representations computed by various visual areas,
20 RayJackendoff
and there is still much dispute about what brain areas are responsible for differ-
ent aspects of linguistic understanding. Nevertheless, the overall flavor of the
visual system is far more compatible with a parallel architecture, with its mul-
tiple independent but linked components, than with a syntactocentnc one.
There seems to be no part of visual perception/cognition from which all other
parts can be derived; rather each part has its own special character.
There is one cognitive capacity other than language for which formal details
of the representations have been explored in some detail: music. Here it proves
impossible to generate musical structures from a single component. Lerdahl
and Jackendoff (1983) (see also Jackendoff and Lerdahl 2005) develop a paral-
lel architecture for music containing four components linked by interface rules.
One of these structures, grouping, is a general-purpose cognitive capacity that
also plays an important role in vision. Another, metrical structure, bears strong
similarities to the metrical systems that determine stress and prosody in lan-
guage. The other two structures are, so far as we know at the moment, particular
to music.
One of my original motivations for a parallel architecture in language (Jack-
endoff 1997, 2002) was the existence of multiple independent tiers in phonol-
ogy, such as syllabic structure, metrical structure, prosody, and tone, also linked
by correspondence or interface rules. Similarly, it is now fairly clear that se-
mantic structure can be dissected into semi-independent structures - at least
propositions structure (who did what to whom) and information structure
(topic vs. focus vs. common ground). Finally, the relation of language to vision.
such that we can talk about what we see, has to be mediated by a set of princi-
ples that link linguistic representations of some level to visual representations
of some level - it cannot be accounted for through further derivation from syn-
tactic structure (Jackendoff 1987). Thus a parallel architecture can easily be
scaled down to the internal structure of individual components, and scaled up
to the relation of language to other faculties.
A parallel architecture for language and other cognitive faculties displays a
version of modularity. This is not modularity in Fodor's (1983) sense, which
seals off various capacities from each other, but what could be called represen-
tational or structure-based modularity. Each separate form of representation
has its own particular autonomous (i.e. domain-specific) structure, and its own
interfaces to other structures. One form of representation is relatively informa-
tionally encapsulated from another to the degree that they can influence each
other only through a series of interfaces, or through a narrowly specialized in-
terface. For example, phonological structure is relatively encapsulated from
visual representations, because in order to speak about what one sees, one
has to pass from high-level visual understanding through linguistic semantic
structure and syntactic structure in order to influence phonology - i.e. through

a series of interfaces. However, there is also a narrowly circumscribed vision-
to-phonology interface that subserves reading, and this aspect of vision is
rather tightly yoked to phonology. (For more detail, see Jackendoff 1987.
chapter 12; 2002, section 7.5.)
In short, the spirit of parallel architectures is in overall accord with what is
known about (a) the brain, (b) the structure of other cognitive capacities, (c) the
interior structure of linguistic components, and (d) the interaction of language
with other cognitive capacities. The syntactocentnc architecture, including the
Minimalist Program as one realization, is not*
Many different theories of grammar employ parallel architectures in this
broad sense. As noted above, phonological theory since the mid-1970s has been
thoroughly parallel in conception. Among syntactic theories, the most prominent
parallel architecture is Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan 2001), where the
work of syntax is divided between f-structure, c-structure, and the interface
between them. Autolexical Syntax (Sadock 1991) has parallel components for
morphosyntactic structure and phrasal syntactic structure, with the possibility
of further subdivision. Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin and LaPolla
1997) subdivides syntax into morphosyntax and phrasal syntax, and semantics
into propositions and information structures, with interfaces running in all
directions. Construction Grammar (Fillmore 1988, Goldberg 1995) is not for-
mally laid out as a parallel architecture, but it acknowledges the independence
of semantics from syntactic form, in that it emphasizes the many-many map-
ping between syntactic form and meaning, possible only if semantics is autono-
mous. And the granddaddy of them all is Stratificational Grammar (Lamb
1966), which decomposes the entire grammar into a long sequence of autono-
mous levels linked by interface components.
Another fundamental question in the architecture of grammar is this:
(5) What formal operations are employed in building linguistic structure?
The mainstream architecture - along with Tree-Adjoining Grammar (TAG.

Joshi 1987) - gives the following answer:
(6) Derivation-based generation:

Syntactic trees are built algonthmically, either from the top down (as in
pre-Minimalist theories) or from the bottom up (as in MP and TAG), and
3. An advocate of Minimalism might respond that this issue is one of performance or

implementation, and so this sort of evidence is not pertinent to Minimalist inquiry. I
would consider such a response simply a rhetorical avoidance of the evidence.
22 RayJackendoff
they undergo a sequence of distortions (movements and deletions) to de-

rive sound and meaning.
In parallel architectures, the interface relation between different compo-

nents cannot be a sequenced derivation, since structures in different compo-
nents often stand in a many-to-many relation. Rather, the interface components
must be treated as constraints (possibly violable), which establish (or license)
well-formed links among different kinds of structure. In principle, the rules
responsible for each individual component of structure could be algorithmic.
But in practice, almost all parallel architectures I have encountered have
utilized a constraint-based formalism, in which each independent structure is
licensed by simultaneously applied constraints.* To sum up, the answer to
question (5) is (7).
(7) Constraint-based generation:

The structures of each component are licensed by simultaneously applied
component-internal constraints. The relationships among structures in
different components are licensed by interface constraints.
Thus a parallel derivation has no notion of logical sequence, as is essential in a

syntactocentric derivation. This has consequences for the relation of linguistic
theory to theories of processing, as we will see in the next section.
2. The Parallel Architecture: The lexicon
Having settled on a parallel architecture, the more specific question is:

What are the autonomous representational formats, and what are the interfaces
among them? What I have been calling "the" Parallel Architecture (in capitals.
or PA) incorporates specific proposals about semantics, phrasal syntax, and the
interface between them, plus less specific proposals about morphology and
phonology.
A leading question in the Parallel Architecture is the structure of the lexicon.
The question is stated in essentially psycholinguists terms:
(8) What linguistic material does a speaker have to store in memory - i.e.
What is in the lexicon? What structures can be built online in the course
of speaking and understanding?
4. An exception is Synchronous TAG (Shieber and Schabes 1991).

Traditionally, the lexicon is thought of as consisting of words (or mor-

phemes), a distinct component of the language from the rules of grammar.
Thinking in terms of question (8) leads to quite a different conception, as we
will now see.
A typical word - in any theory - is a triple of phonological, syntactic, and
semantic information. In syntactocentric theories, a word is inserted into a syn-
tactic derivation (by lexical insertion or Merge), and it is carried through the
derivation to the points where its phonological and semantic properties are
"read off." In the Parallel Architecture, the picture is quite different. The struc-
ture of a word suits it perfectly to function as a part of the interface compo-
nents: It establishes a correspondence between small chunks of phonological,
syntactic, and semantic structures. The correspondences among larger chunks
are accomplished by other interface rules.
There is no "point in the derivation" where a word is inserted. Rather, one
can think of the word being "inserted" into all three structures at the same time.
along with the links among them. Or one can think of the word as licensing the
connection among preexisting structures. Alternatively, one can think in terms
of processing. Given a perceived phonological structure, the word licenses the
building of a connection to corresponding pieces of syntactic and semantic
structure; given a piece of meaning to be expressed, the word licenses connect-
ing it to appropriate pieces of syntactic and phonological structures. This last
view suits PA to serve directly as a component of a theory of sentence process-
ing (Jackendoff 2002, chapter 7; 2007a). PA itself is nondirectional, but its
constraints can be implemented in an order suited to particular processing tasks.
One aspect of the information coded in a lexical item is its contextual re-
strictions. Syntactic contextual restrictions include subcategonzation features
on syntactic arguments; semantic contextual restrictions include selectional
restrictions on semantic arguments. Often these two are partly redundant
with each other, but not always (see Jackendoff 2002, section 5.9).
Not every word has to connect all three components. English contains a
small collection of "defective" words such as (9a). These have phonology and
meaning, but no syntactic properties that allow them to combine into larger
phrases (aside from within direct quotes, where anything at all is allowed).
There are also a few words that have phonological and syntactic properties but
no meaning, such as (9b).
(9) a. Phonology and meaning, no syntax:

hello, ouch, upsy-daisy, allakazam, wow, shhh, gee whiz,. . .
b. Phonology and syntax, no meaning:
do (Jo-support), it (pleonastic), o/(N o/NP)
24 RayJackendoff
A lexicon conceived in terms of question (8) must contain more than single
words. Most obviously, it must contain the thousands of idioms and other fixed
expressions in the language such as (10), all of which are units known by native
speakers.
(10) a. Idioms:
kick the bucket, a breath of fresh air, right on the money, the jig is up.
day in day out, clean as a Whistle,pie in the sky,...
b. Fixed expressions (cliches, etc.):
baby-blue eyes, home sweet home, take it from me, weapons of mass
destruction, no money down, leave a message at the tone,. . .
Including these items in the lexicon (as they must be - where else would they
be in the language?) leads to two important conclusions.
First, lexical items cannot be conceived of as syntactic atoms, since many
items in (10) have internal syntactic structure. Kick the bucket is a transitive VP.
clean as a whistle is an AP with a comparative complement, weapons of mass
destruction is a complex NP, and so on. Thus they cannot be inserted by a pro-
cess like MP's Merge, which builds structure out of syntactic atoms. However.
treated as interface constraints, they pose no problem: they simply link a com-
plex syntactic structure with an idiosyncratic meaning. (This approach is shared
withHPSG.)
Second, the lexicon cannot be conceived of as a nonredundant list of excep-
tions, as Chomsky has often asserted (citing Bloomfield). The lexical item
weapons of mass destruction contains four independently attested words, mean-
ing exactly what they ought to mean. It adds the information that these four
form a known unit, and adds some extra meaning or connotation. It is impos-
sible to extract the redundant information, leaving only the extra information.
and end up with something that is formally coherent. The conclusion is that the
lexicon is full of redundancy. In terms of formal elegance this is less than satis-
factory, but it is where the facts urge us. In terms of "brain elegance", though.
it seems entirely in line with the rest of the brain, which seems to favor redun-
dancy where possible, in the interests of more reliable memory and processing.
In addition to items such as (10) that are larger than a word, the PAs lexicon
also contains items that are smaller than a word. For example, the regular plural
suffix -z/-s/-3z in English establishes a correspondence between a piece of pho-
nology, a syntactic feature, and a piece of meaning. Its contextual restrictions
state that it is to be affixed to a noun (syntactic context) that is count (semantic
context); the conditions for its allomorphy depend on its phonological context.
It can be affixed to a noun of any phonological shape, including novel ones (as
in the wugs test). Thus its manner of combining with its host is formally no
different from the way a transitive verb combines with its object, except that it
combines below the word level rather than at the phrasal level.
On the other hand, irregular plurals (oxen, women, axes, etc.) have to be
learned individually and therefore have to be stored in the lexicon. Formally.
they are semantically and syntactically composite, but phonologically unitary:
They are therefore parallel in structure to idioms, which are phonologically and
syntactically composite but not semantically composed of the meanings of their
morphemes. We can therefore think of these cases as "morphological idioms.'*
The treatment of regular inflectional morphology as lexical items extends
easily to other regular morphological phenomena, including unusual ones. For
instance, English expletive inflation (manu-fuckm-facturer) is a stored mor-
pheme with a distinct (non-truth-conditional) meaning, and can be affixed to
any syntactic category. Its main contextual restriction is prosodic. Similarly.
reduplicative morphemes have meanings and syntactic contextual restrictions
just like any other affix, but their phonological shape is listed in the lexicon as
a sort of binding: "Copy such-and-such a part of the word I'm attached to"
(Ghomeshi et al. 2004).
PA's treatment of regular morphology parts company here with "lexicalist"
theories such as LFG and HPSG (Pollard and Sag 1994), which derive morpho-
logically complex words "in the lexicon", "prior to" inserting them into sen-
tences. In PA, both phrasal grammar and morphology contain processes of free
combination that can be used online, and both also include lexically listed "pre-
fabs" (idioms and irregular morphological combinations respectively). The dif-
ference between phrasal grammar and morphology is only that the units and
principles of combination for phrases are in part different from those for words.
In this framework, LFG's notion of Lexical Integrity amounts to the claim that
the two sets of principles do not interact, except through inflectional morphology.
PA's lexicon also incorporates the insight of Construction Grammar that
certain pieces of syntax can carry idiomatic meaning, with or without overt
morphemes that mark the constructional meaning. Some of these construc-
tional idioms have ordinary syntax, for instance the VP constructions in (11);
others, such as (12), have unusual syntax ("syntactic nuts" in the sense of Culi-
cover 1999).
(11) a. joke your way into the meeting

(V Pro's way PP = 'go PP while/by V-ing')
5. There may of course be subregulanties among irregular forms, but we set this aside
for purposes of the present article; see Jackendoff (2002, sections 6.2-6.4).
26 RayJackendoff
b. rumble around the corner

(V PP = 'go PP in such a way as to make a V-ing sound')
c. knit the afternoon away
(V NP away = 'spend NP[time] V-ing')
d. paint me a picture
(V NPX NP 2 = 'V NP 2 for the benefit of M Y )
(12) a. The more you eat, the fatter you get (the more S, the more S)
b. One more beer and I'm leaving (one more X and S)
c. How about some lunch? (How about HP?)
d. student after student (NPN)
Each of these constructions is listed in the lexicon as a linking between a syn-

tactic complex and a meaning; some parts of the syntactic complex may be
linked also to phonology (e.g. way). The syntactic variables in these construc-
tions correspond to semantic variables in the usual way, and the constructions
can therefore be combined with other items to form a sentence in exactly the
same way as words and other idioms are. However, notice that the verbs in
(11 a-c), though they are syntactic heads, serve semantical^/ as manner or means
modifiers.
Since the lexicon contains linked phonological, syntactic and semantic
complexes, nothing in principle prevents it from also containing phonological
and syntactic complexes that are not inherently linked to anything. For exam-
ple, a "generative" phrase structure rule such as (13a) - which, as part of one's
knowledge of English, must be stored in memory somehow - can also be stated
as a "treelet" (13b), a syntactic complex that constrains possible syntactic struc-
tures. PA treats it as a stored piece of structure; it can therefore be localized in
the lexicon alongside semantically and phonologically linked VPs such as kick
the bucket.
(13) a. V P - V - N P
b. [ V pVNP]
Thus autonomous principles of syntax - fixed head position, the availability of

ditransitive constructions, the means for forming relative clauses, and so on -
are stated in precisely the same format as constructional idioms, and they there-
fore belong in the lexicon as well. In phonology, one can view syllable structure
rules as lexical entries that specify pieces of autonomous phonology.
The upshot is that there is no principled distinction between words and rules
of grammar. Both are stored pieces of structure, lying at opposite ends of a
multidimensional continuum of idiosyncrasy and regularity. This conclusion

has been arrived at within HPSG, Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987), and
Construction Grammar as well as PA, in each case through attention to a mul-
titude of intermediate cases such as idioms and constructions. Mainstream gen-
erative grammar, partly because of its algorithmic formulation, has followed
traditional grammar in making a strong lexicon/grammar distinction. This has
made it difficult to assimilate idioms and constructions into the theory, resulting
in loss of descriptive adequacy.
In pursuit of explanatory adequacy, the MP has arrived at the conjecture that
there is actually only one rule of grammar, Merge, and that all differences
among languages are localized in the lexicon (Chomsky 2001); this conjecture
has not proven as simple in execution as in principle (particularly since MP has
no theory of the organization of the lexicon!). Within PA, HPSG, and Construc-
tion Grammar, the counterpart of this conjecture is quite straighforward. All
words and all rules of grammar are pieces of structure stored in the lexicon. The
only "procedural" part of language is the fundamental operation of Unification
(Shieber 1986), which assembles pieces of structure. Merge proves to be a spe-
cial case of Unification: it combines two given elements with a piece of tree
structure.
Unification can be generalized to combinatorial cognitive capacities other
than language, thus better satisfying the goal of "beyond explanatory adequacy."
For example, in vision it can be used to integrate evidence for depth perception
from disparate sources. It can also be used to weld lyrics to music in building
songs. Merge cannot perform either of these functions. If Unification is a gen-
eral brain mechanism for achieving combinatonality, it should be no surprise
that language uses it too. (See Jackendoff 2008 for discussion of Merge vs.
Unification.)
3. Conceptual Semantics
To work out any version of a parallel architecture, it is necessary to have theo-

ries of the individual components and the interfaces among them. Unlike other
parallel architectures in the literature, and unlike mainstream linguistic theory.
PA is grounded in a highly articulated theory of semantics, Conceptual Seman-
tics, that answers to the concerns of the biolinguistic perspective and that also
offers considerable (and continually increasing) empirical coverage. There is
space here only to list some of the highlights of the theory.
First, Conceptual Semantics (like Cognitive Grammar) is thoroughly men-
talistic: it is a theory of the information in a language user's mind/brain that is
28 RayJackendoff
involved in understanding utterances, connecting them to perceptual evidence.

and making inferences. It recasts the traditional philosophical concerns with
reference and truth in mentalistic terms:
(14) a. Traditional formulation:

i. A phrase P refers to an entity E in the world (or in a possible
world).
ii. A sentence S is true if it meets conditions Ch . . . , Cn in the world.
b. Mentalistic formulation:
i. A language user LU understands a phrase P to refer to an entity E
in the world as LUconceptualizes it.
n. LU judges a sentence S true if S meets conditions Q , . . . , C in
the world as LU conceptualizes it.
The seeming objectivity of language, stressed by traditional philosophy of lan-

guage, is a consequence of language users sharing a common (or near-common)
conceptualization of the world, so that agreement can largely be taken for
granted (Jackendoff 1983; 2002, chapters 9 and 10).
Second, Conceptual Semantics recognizes that many aspects of one's con-
ceptualization of the world are independent of language. For instance, one can
understand much of the behavior of physical objects ("naive physics") without
any language at all. Decades of research on child development, linguistic and
nonlinguistic, have shown that prelinguistic children bring a rich toolkit to the
task of understanding the physical world, and that this understanding serves as
a foundation for learning word meanings (e.g. solving Quine's gavagai prob-
lem). Thus the view of meaning espoused by Conceptual Semantics offers the
potential of explanatory adequacy, i.e. helping to explain the innate basis from
which children acquire lexicons (now including rules of grammar).
It also appears that other primates - especially apes - negotiate the physical
world in much the same way we do; humans differ only in being able to talk
about it. This provides an evolutionary underpinning for the semantic system of
language: our ancestors had thoughts - as it were, things to talk about - before
they could talk. This view of meaning, then, helps satisfy the goal of "beyond
explanatory" adequacy: it helps explain why (some part of) the semantic sys-
tem of language is the way it is, because it is built upon pre-existing primate
cognition.
Recall that within the mainstream architecture, the combinatorial properties
of the "conceptual-intentional interface" arise through derivation from the syn-
tactic component. On the face of it, this amounts to the claim that babies and
apes cannot think combinatorial^. It is possible to read certain passages of
Chomsky as endorsing such a claim, for example, "unbounded Merge provides

only a language of thought, and the basis for ancillary processes of externaliza-
tion" (Chomsky 2009). This acknowledges the combinatorial character of
thought, but it still does so in syntactocentnc terms. The basic units of Chom-
sky's 'language of thought' are NPs and VPs; and Merge, the capacity for
combinatonality, is said to have arisen in the course of human evolutionary
divergence from other primates. To my knowledge, this position has not been
defended against the copious literature on primate intelligence.
In PA, by contrast, the 'language of thought' is the combinatorial system in
terms of which one understands the world. Its units are entities such as objects,
events, properties, and trajectories. NPs and VPs are part of the combinatorial
system of (narrow) syntax, which plays a role in the mediation between thought
and sound, that is, as part of what Chomsky calls "processes of externaliza-
tion." PA takes the combinatorial system of meanings to be universal (though
use of the system can be biased by the means of expression if "Whorfian" ef-
fects prove to be genuine). It is just that meanings are not made of syntactic
units. This approach is possible precisely because of the fundamental assump-
tion of PA that language - and the mind in general - utilizes multiple sources of
combinatonality.
A third important aspect of Conceptual Semantics, again drawing on the
Parallel Architecture, is that the system of meaning or 'language of thought' is
itself bifurcated into at least two linked combinatorial systems, Spatial Struc-
ture and Conceptual Structure, each of which is responsible for part of the con-
ceptualization of the world (with or without language). The representations of
Spatial Structure are quasi-geometnc or topological in character. For a first ap-
proximation, Spatial Structure might be thought of as the highest level of the
visual system, representing objects in terms of their detailed shape. However, it
must be able to encode shapes in a perspective-independent fashion, so that
they can be recognized from any distance and angle (i.e. accomplish object
constancy). It must be possible also to represent objects schematically, so that,
say, the action of sitting can be represented in terms of a generic or schematic
human figure rather than a specific person.
In fact, though, Spatial Structure is not exclusively visual: it can also code
shape and configuration that has been derived haptically (sense of touch) and
propnoceptively (body sense), and both of these can be compared and inte-
grated with visual input. Thus Spatial Structure is more abstract and general
than a visual image - it is conceived of as a central level of cognition that codes
the physical world in a relatively modality-independent fashion. It plays a role
in word and sentence meanings, in that it encodes what things and events look
like, and it enables us to talk about what we see.
30 RayJackendoff
The second major division of meaning, Conceptual Structure, is an alge-

braic structure built up in terms of discrete features and functions. It encodes
distinctions that cannot be represented in the geometnc/topological format of
Spatial Structure, such as those in (15), which are not part of what an object or
event looks like.
(15) a. the type-token distinction, distinguishing categories from individuals

b. taxonomic relations: X i s an instance/subtype of 7 '
c. temporal relations: X i s past/future'
d. causal relations: Xcauses 7 ' , Xenables F , Ximpedes F , . . .
e. modal notions: X i s hypothetical/nonspecific/potential/nctional. . .'
f. social notions: X i s the name of F , X i s dominant to F , X i s kin to/
friend of F , X i s member of group Z\ X o w n s F , X i s obligated to
perform act F , 'action 7 is of normative value Z \ . . .
g. theory of mind notions: Xbelieves 7 ' , Ximagines 7 ' , Xintends 7 ' .
X i s committed to norm 7 ' , . . .
The overall architecture looks like this:
(16) Haptic
^ System
Phonological ^ w Syntactic ^ w Conceptual ^ ^ Spatial ^ ^ Visual
Structure Structure Structure Structure w System
N Proprioceptive
Systems
LANGUAGE PROPER CENTRAL COGNITION
Conceptual Semantics takes it that word meanings must be potentially com-
posite in order to encode relations among word meanings and in order to state
properly general rules of inference. On the other hand, it differs from classical
views of word meaning in admitting conditions other than necessary and suf-
ficient. For instance, the conditions for color words must be encoded in terms
of relative distance from central instances. In judging a hue between focal red
and focal orange, two such conditions come into competition, and the judgment
is therefore variable and to some degree context-dependent.
In addition, many word meanings contain multiple conditions interacting in
"preference rule" fashion. For instance, stereotypical climbing involves mov-
ing (i) upward, (ii) in a clambering fashion. But one can climb down a tree
(clambering but not moving upward), and an airplane can climb into the clouds
(moving upward but not clambering). On the other hand, an airplane cannot
climb down out of the clouds, because such motion is neither upward nor clam-
bering. In other words, neither condition is necessary, either may be sufficient,
and stereotypical cases satisfy both. This type of rule interaction produces so-
called "cluster concepts", of which Wittgenstein's (1953) example of game is
the most famous.
These characteristics of word meanings, even if unusual according to stan-
dard philosophical preconceptions, are totally normal within the context of
brain computation. As been observed since the gestalt psychologists of the
1920s (Wertheimer 1923), conditions based on central instances and rule inter-
actions with the characteristics of preference rules are standard in vision. They
also appear in phonetic perception and in musical cognition, and essentially
anyplace that multiple factors can either combine or conflict in producing a
judgment.
Conceptual Semantics differs from most theories of semantics (but again.
not from Cognitive Grammar) in that it denies a sharp division between linguis-
tic meaning and encyclopedic meaning (or "knowledge of the world"). Every
division that has been proposed turns out to eviscerate linguistic meaning to the
point where it cannot serve as a basis for inference (see Jackendoff 2002, sec-
tions 9.6-9.7; Bolinger 1965; Langacker 1987; Levinson 2000).
A related point is that "semantics" and "pragmatics" do not involve distinct
representations. Rather, there is a pair of mental representations, Conceptual
Structure and Spatial Structure, that are the locus of sentence understanding.
Some aspects of these representations may come from the words in the sen-
tence and their grammatical configuration; we may call these parts "semantic".
Other aspects come from nonlinguistic sources such as perception, inference.
and "world knowledge"; we may call these parts "pragmatic." But these parts
are often intricately interwoven in the representation in such a way that one
cannot do the "semantics" first and paste in "pragmatics" afterward.
In Conceptual Semantics, the taxonomy of concepts ('a poodle is a kind of
dog', 'a dog is a kind of animal', etc.) grounds out in a fundamental ontology
of concepts - the basic types of things that humans can conceptualize in the
world. Traditional philosophy of language and formal semantics attempt to
make do with an absolutely minimal ontology such as individuals and truth-
values. Perhaps this makes sense if one thinks semantics is about the nature of
reality and should ground out elegantly in fundamental physics. But if seman-
tics is about the human conceptualization of the world, its fundamental units
arise from evolution's building a brain that is equipped to guide an organism
successfully through its life. Again "brain elegance" takes precedence over for-
mal elegance.
32 RayJackendoff
One piece of evidence for the basic ontology comes from deictic expres-
sions that pick out units in the visual field. Just as it is possible to point out
objects for the hearer to identify, as in (17a), it is possible to pick out a wide
range of other entities.
(17) a. Please pick that [pointing] up. [object]

b. Please put your hat here [pointing]. [location]
c. He went that way [pointing]. [path/trajectory]
d. Please don't do that [pointing] around here anymore. [action]
e. Did you hear that? [sound]
f. / hope that [pointing] doesn 't happen again. [event]
g. The fish I caught was this long [demonstrating]. [distance]
h. There were about Ms many [gesturing] [amount/number]
people here last night.
i. Can you walk like this [demonstrating]? [manner]
Each of these ontological categories has its own conditions of individuation:

many of them (but not all) allow a type-token distinction; many permit quanti-
fication. Adopting this relatively rich system from the start affords Conceptual
Semantics a broad descriptive capacity and, to some extent, a better constrained
relation between semantic and syntactic categories. Note also that (17) lists
only ontological categories observable in the physical world; there are clearly
others, such as information and value.
Once the ontological system is laid out, it becomes possible to recognize
entities that subsist simultaneously in more than one ontological domain (the
"dot-objects" of Pustejovsky 1995). For instance, a book is simultaneously a
physical object and a body of information. These two characterizations, more-
over, are in a preference rule relation, since there are blank (i.e. information-
less) books and books stored on a computer (i.e. not laid out on paper pages).
Reading is a "dot-action", in that it involves both the physical act of scanning
the page with one's eyes and the informational act of receiving information off
the page. Dot-objects are therefore multidimensional entities within Concep-
tual Structure.
Perhaps the most important case of a dot-object is a human being, who is
conceptualized simultaneously as an animate physical object and as a person
- an entity in the social domain. The two domains correspond to the (appar-
ently) universal cultural conceptualization of people as composed of body and
mind (or soul or spirit). The fact that people have faces and hands and livers
falls into the physical domain; the social notions and theory-of-mind notions in
(15f,g) above are predicated in the social domain. Again, in traditional beliefs
at least, these two characterizations stand in a preference rule relation. For in-
stance, * zombie is an animate physical object lacking conscious personhood; a
ghost is a mind (or soul) lacking a physical body. Reincarnation and body-
switching (both amply attested in human narratives) are one mind inhabiting
different bodies in succession; multiple personality disorder is experienced as
different personalities (i.e. different individuals) inhabiting the same body in
succession (Jackendoff 2007b, chapter 5).
The combinatorial possibilities of Conceptual Structure arise from (at least)
three principles of combination: argument satisfaction, modification, and bind-
ing. In the default case, argument satisfaction is expressed by syntactic comple-
mentation, and modification by syntactic adjuncts. For instance, in (18), John
expresses an argument of sleep, and beside the rtver expresses a place modifier.
(18) John slept beside the river.
However, there are exceptions to this typical configuration. For instance, in the
sound + motion construction illustrated in (lib) and (19), the subject is a se-
mantic argument not only of the verb, but also of an unexpressed predicate of
motion. The PP is also an argument of the predicate of motion, and the verb
expresses a modifier of this predicate, i.e. 'move while rumbling'.
(19) The trolley rumbled along the nver
A mismatch in the opposite direction is illustrated by (20). Here cheap marga-

rine is syntactically an adjunct, but semantically it is an argument: it is what
Bill put on the bread.
(20) Bill buttered the bread with cheap margarine.
Such mismatches are common.

Binding, a direct connection between one conceptual constituent and an-
other, comes in two varieties: identity of reference and identity of sense. This is
reflected in two kinds of anaphoric elements in language. Identity of reference
binding is expressed by definite pronouns and also by anaphoric epithets, such
as in (21) (which does not display identity of sense).
(21) John wants to win, but the voor Suv never wtll.
Identity of sense binding is expressed by 0 e-anaphora and also by VP anaphora

with expressions like do so. These two types of binding must be distinguished
in Conceptual Structure, as they give rise to different inferences.
34 RayJackendoff
Using argument satisfaction to create semantic combinations requires func-

tions whose arguments are to be satisfied. A number of broad families of func-
tions have been investigated within Conceptual Semantics.
- Functions that encode spatial location, motion, and orientation. They all take
two arguments: a Theme (the object being located or in motion) and a
Location or Path: BE(Theme, Loc), GO(Theme, Path), STAY(Theme, Loc),
ORIENT(Theme, Path), EXTEND(Theme, Path)
- Functions that encode Locations and Paths relative to a reference object:
IN(X), ON(X), TO(X), FROM(X), TOWARD(X), NEAR(X), etc. Some of
these involve imposing a reference frame on the reference object; e.g.
BEHIND(X) must be specified as to whether one is speaking of the intrinsic
back of Xor its other side relative to the speaker. (This family has been
heavily investigated within Cognitive Grammar as well.)
- Causative functions that encode a Causer (an Agent or Event) being causally
connected to anEffect(anotherEvent): CAUSE(Causer,Effect),LET(Causer.
Effect), HELP(Causer, Effect), ENABLE (Causer, Effect), and others.
- Mereological functions that encode part-whole relations: PART-OF (legs.
handles, noses), BOUNDARY-OF (edges, surfaces, ends, etc.), MEMBER-
OF (members of aggregations), COMPOSED-OF (ingredients of mixtures)
A founding insight of Conceptual Semantics (due to Gruber 1965) is that all

of these functions can be applied to semantic fields other than physical space.
For instance, an object being owned by someone (a social relation) is often
expressed crosslinguistically as the object 'being at' the owner, and changes of
possession are often expressed as the object 'going' 'from' the previous owner
'to' the new owner. Similarly, just as we talk about the end of a rope, we can
talk about the end of a speech, a relationship, or a genealogical line. This sug-
gests that these Conceptual functions can be decoupled from their physical con-
text (where they connect with Spatial Structure) so as to apply to more abstract
domains as well. In addition to possession, they also extend to such fields as
time, event structure (such as aspectuality and telicity), ascription of properties.
and (in the case of causation) social coercion and logical entailment
Further functions that have been investigated (Jackendoff 2007b) involve
the personal domain. They include:
6. This insight is treated somewhat differently in Cognitive Grammar (Lakoff 1987).

where it is taken to show that underlying linguistic expression is an extensive and
powerful system of conceptual metaphor.
- Theory-of-mind predicates, e.g. Xperceives Y (in various modalities)', X i s

committed to proposition /' (belief), X i s committed to action A' (inten-
tion), X i s committed to norm N' (adherence to norms)
- Value predicates in various domains (affective, normative, quality, etc.): X
is of v a l u e P , X i s of value F to person F
- Predicates of exchange: X d o e s action^ in exchange/return/retaliation for Y
doing action^'
- Obligations, rights, and authority: X i s obligated to 7 to perform action^', X
has anghtto perform action^', X h a s authority over 7's performing action^'
All of these functions are involved in constructing the prepositional tier of

Conceptual Structure. In addition, sentence meaning involves an information
structure tier, which designates certain semantic constituents as topic, certain
as focus, and the rest as common ground. Further differentiation of the propo-
sitional tier has also been proposed, for which there is no space here: a referen-
tial tier in Jackendoff (2002) (involved for instance in identity-of-reference
anaphora, specificity, referential opacity, and quantification) and an action tier
or macrorole tier in Jackendoff (1990, 2007b).
In short, Conceptual Semantics aspires to the formal richness necessary to
encode the character of human concepts and their inferential affordances. It
integrates comfortably with the Parallel Architecture, in that although it is a
combinatorial system, its units and principles of combination - as well as the
resulting structures - are quite different from those of syntax. In particular, it is
a multidimensional formal system, in that it involves both Spatial Structure and
Conceptual Structure, the latter itself split into multiple tiers connected by in-
terface components. Only through looking at semantics on its own terms.
grounded in the character of nonlinguistic cognition, can the independence
of these structures from language - and their psychological and biological
grounding - be revealed. If meanings have this sort of structure, they certainly
cannot be derived from the syntax of NPs and VPs.
4. Simpler Syntax and the syntax-semantics interface
An advantage of a parallel architecture over a "single-engine" architecture is

that no single level of structure has to carry the entire informational load. In a
syntactocentnc architecture, all semantic combinatonality has to be derived
from syntactic combinatonality. Thus syntax is forced to be combinatonally at
least as complex as semantics - if not more so, since it also has to answer to its
own internal imperatives such as word order and agreement. And indeed this
36 RayJackendoff
outcome has been achieved twice in the history of generative grammar: the first
time, in the Generative Semantics movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s
(Lakoff 1971), and the second time, in Government-Binding Theory of the
1990s and the Minimalist Program. In MP, the rules of grammar and the con-
tents of UG have been reduced to a minimum (allegedly - though only through
drastic cuts in empirical coverage), but the structures and derivations have in-
creased steadily in size and complexity (see Culicover and Jackendoff 2005.
chapters 2 and 3).
In PA, the combinatorial properties of meaning are a property of autono-
mous conceptual combinatonality. From this perspective, syntax functions in
the grammar not as the fundamental generative mechanism, but rather as an
intermediate stage in the mapping between meaning and sound (in either direc-
tion). The words in a sentence are interface rules that provide small-scale map-
pings between meaning and sound. What remains to complete the mapping is
the relationships among the words: the function-argument, function-modifier.
and binding relations. Syntax can be thought of as a way of encoding the se-
mantic relationships among the words in a sentence in terms that are visible
to phonology, such as linear order, inflectional morphology, and anaphoric
elements - as well as coding the overall semantic force of a clause, such as
declarative vs. interrogative. However, there is no need for syntax to encode
any more of semantic structure than is necessary to map between phonology
and meaning.
In fact, many aspects of meaning are not supported by syntactic or lexical
expression. For instance, in (22), the underlined constituents are understood as
suggested in parentheses.
(22) a. Ellipsis:
It seems we stood and talked like this before. We looked at each other
in the same way then. But I can't remember where or when. (= 'where
or when we stood and talked like this before and looked at each other
in the same way as we're looking at each other now')
[Spoken to someone about to jump off a building] Don't!!! (= 'Don't
jump!')
b. Constructional meaning:
The trolley rumbled alonZ the river. (= 'the trolley went along the
river rumbling') (cf (19))
c. Coercion:
The ham sandwich over in the corner wants more coffee. (= 'guy with
ham sandwich')
Plato is on the top shelf. (= 'book by/bust of Plato')

Joe jumped until the bell rang. (= 'jumped repeatedly')
d. Implicature:
Are vou SomS to be SomS near a mailbox? (= 'Will you mad some
letters for me?')
Some of these are treated in mamstream theory in terms of syntactic (or PF)
deletion of unexpressed elements; others are not treated in mainstream theory
at all. Culicover and Jackendoff (2005) show that they are all best treated in
terms of elements of semantics that have no syntactic realization.
Carrying this outlook consistently through the syntactic component leads to
the approach of Simpler Syntax (Culicover and Jackendoff 2005): an attempt to
cut syntactic structure down to the bare minimum necessary to accomplish the
sound-meaning mapping. This is a "minimalist" approach to language, but with
different premises about what is to be minimized than the Minimalist Program.
The basic stance of Simpler Syntax is that the complexity of semantics is
independently necessary in order to explain inference and the relation to per-
ception. Therefore semantics and the syntax-semantics interface should play as
large a role as possible in constraining the grammatical structure of sentences.
and syntax as small a role as possible. On the other hand, the "generative
engines" of syntax and morphosyntax are still necessary to account for differ-
ences among languages in word order, case marking, agreement, handling of
long-distance dependencies, and the existence of special constructions. The
resulting syntactic theory is by no means simple, but it is far simpler than
mainstream models (whatever 'simple' means in this context).
The Simpler Syntax lexicon is as described in Section 3: it contains words.
regular affixes, idioms, constructions, and independent principles of phrase
structure. Syntactic structures are as flat (i.e. as undifferentiated) as possible.
Aside from linear order, there is no syntactic distinction between specifiers.
arguments and adjuncts, as this is already provided for in the semantics. The
result is predominantly two-layer X-bar skeleta, as in (23a-c). The exception is
S, which is a three-layer projection of V, as in (23d).
(23) a. NP b. AP c. PP d. S
One price of this structural simplification is the need for trees with multiply
branching nodes rather than strictly binary branching as in MP. Culicover and
38 RayJackendoff
Jackendoff (2005) give arguments why strictly binary branching is not an ad-
vantage, and in fact is often a disadvantage. Another price of this simplification
is that some rules of grammar have to be sensitive to linear order as well as
dominance. This is too often taken to be a disadvantage. But from a larger per-
spective it is actually an advantage. Linear order comes for free in the signal
and hierarchical structure does not. So rules that depend in part on linear order
ought actually to be easier for the child to learn.
Simpler Syntax makes use of almost no empty nodes in syntactic structure.
This is desirable in principle, because empty nodes make heavier demands both
on the learner and on processing. Most empty nodes in the classical theory are
posited either for semantic reasons or to promote syntactic uniformity. For in-
stance, the phonologically empty element PRO is posited to fill in a semantic
subject of an infinitival VP where there is none at the surface, thereby giving all
verbs a syntactic subject. Simpler Syntax instead allows infinitival VPs without
syntactic subjects, and it uses the interface to identify their "understood" sub-
jects in Conceptual Structure.
(24) a. Mainstream: [John Med [s PRO [VP to leave]]]

b. Simpler Syntax: {John Med [VP to leave]]
Similarly, ellipsis is not derived through empty nodes or deletion. Rather.

elliptical configurations, especially when they are syntactically unusual (as in
Gapping), are treated as meaningful constructions listed in the lexicon. The
interpretation of an elliptical construction is derived from the Conceptual Struc-
ture of its antecedent - or from the Conceptual Structure of the context - not
from a deleted syntactic structure. Culicover and Jackendoff show many cases
of ellipsis for which there is no plausible syntactic antecedent, such as those
in (22a).
A standard argument for syntactically derived ellipsis is that elliptical
constructions often display syntactic properties that normally can arise only
through syntactic licensing (so-called connectivity). For instance, in the
dialogues in (25), the difference in the prepositions in the replies can be
traced directly to the difference between the syntactic licensing of proud vs.
pride.
(25) a. A: Bill is very proud.

B: Yes, especially of his stamp collection. {ct proud of I* in]
b. A: Bill has a lot of pride.
B: Yes, especially in his stamp collection, [cf pride in/* of]
However, similarly licensed syntactic properties appear even in sentences

where there is no relevant linguistic context, such as (26).
(26) Do you like these? [pointing at a pair of pants],
Simpler Syntax proposes a relation of indirect licensing that accounts for these
effects.
Like other constraint-based theories, Simpler Syntax has no movement and
no covert level of syntactic structure such as Logical Form. The effects ascribed
to movement in mainstream theory are accounted for with a variety of mecha-
nisms, most of them shared with other constraint-based theories, especially
HPSG. These mechanisms include:
- Free phrase order (e.g. among adjuncts in VP, where the order is constrained
only by prosody and focus)
- Alternative argument realizations (e.g. dative alternation)
- For long-distance dependencies, operator-trace relations along the lines of
HPSG (trace is the only kind of empty node in Simpler Syntax). The con-
straints on long-distance dependencies arise from multiple sources, only
some of which are syntactic. Others arise from processing complexity and
from semantics, especially information structure and referential structure.
- Binding and control are relations over Conceptual Structure, not over syntac-
tic structure, though they may involve syntactic conditions on the relation
between anaphoric elements and antecedents.
In order to account for so-called A-movements, in particular passive and

raising, it is unfortunately necessary to introduce extra machinery. Simpler
Syntax proposes a grammatical function (GF-) tier that modulates the syntactic
realization of semantic arguments expressed as NPs, that is, subjects, objects.
and indirect objects. We are not too dismayed by this extra mechanism, as the
principles behind it appear in every substantive syntactic theory: as f-structure
in LFG, as essentially all of Relational Grammar, as the complement hierarchy
in HPSG, and as abstract case in GB/MP
The analysis is closest to that in LFG and HPSG. However, in these two
theories, passive is a rule that converts active verbs into passive verbs in the
lexicon, altering their argument structure. As mentioned earlier, this is not
an option in PA, in which the lexicon is where items are stored, and working
memory is where structures are built online. Hence, in Simpler Syntax, pas-
sive is treated as a construction in the GF-tier that alters argument realization
40 RayJackendoff
online, without altenng the verb itself. The GF-tier is of course another piece
of parallel architecture, this time a partial mediator of the syntax-semantics
interface.
(27) illustrates the linking between the various structures in an example
involving raising. The linking relations are notated as subscripts; for visual
clarity, some of them are also notated redundantly by vertical association
lines.
(27) John seems to like scotch.

[SEEM ([LIKE (JOHN 3 , SCOTCH 4 )] 2 )], Conceptual Structure
[GF3L [GF3 > GF 4 ] 2 Grammatical Function Tier

I I
[SNP3 [VP Vx [VP to 5 V 2 NP 4 ] 2 ]]! Syntactic Structure
John, seems, to, like2 scotch, Phonological Structure
In Conceptual Structure, JOHN is an argument of LIKE, just as in It seems

that John likes scotch. It links to the GF array associated with the subordinate
clause (bracketed expression subscripted 2). In turn, this GF (subscripted 3) is
linked to a GF in the main clause array (subscript 1), which is then linked to the
subject of the main clause and its phonology. The linking through the GF-tier is
the Simpler Syntax counterpart of an A-chain in classical syntax. But it is not
in syntax proper, as there is no syntactic subject at all in the subordinate clause,
only a GF-subject. (See Culicover and Jackendoff 2005 for more motivation
and detail.)
5. Concluding remarks
An abiding issue between linguists and psycholinguists has been the

competence-performance distinction. Mainstream linguistics tends to say that
the grammar written by linguists is a description of competence, but it is some-
what obscure how this is utilized in performance. This has the effect of in-
sulating linguistic theory from results in psycholinguists. By contrast, in the
Parallel Architecture, language processing consists of assembling pieces of
structure stored in the lexicon to form a triple of phonological, syntactic, and
semantic structures in working memory. As a result, there is no mystery to the
competence-performance distinction. Competence theory describes the pieces
of structure and their affordances for assembly, while performance theory

describes how these very pieces are assembled in real time, starting from either
phonetic input (perception) or conceptual input (production). Details of a per-
formance model in such a vein appear in Jackendoff (2002, chapter 7) and
Jackendoff (2007a).
The Parallel Architecture also offers an attractive vehicle for discussion of
the evolution of the language capacity. It begins with the premise that some
version of Conceptual Structure is present in apes, and therefore in our hominid
ancestors. Bickerton (1990) and Givon (1979) have proposed that, prior to the
development of modern language, there was a stage of "protolanguage", which
persists in the human language capacity and emerges in situations such as pid-
gins and agrammatic aphasia. The denning characteristics of protolanguage are
words concatenated into utterances, but lacking any syntactic organization be-
yond that afforded by linear order. A great deal of the informational load in such
an utterance is earned by pragmatics. Within the Parallel Architecture, this
form of language can be characterized in terms of a level of phonology linked
to Conceptual Structure without the intervention of syntactic structure (Jack-
endoff 2002, chapter 8).
From this stage, the evolution of a syntactic capacity can be seen as adaptive:
it is a canonical coding of semantic relationships among words for greater
accuracy and efficiency In any architecture, phonological and semantic
structures have to be relatively rich, as they code the thousands of distinctions
among words. In Simpler Syntax, syntactic structure is relatively lean: its
elements comprise only a few parts of speech and phrasal categories, as might
be expected of a relatively late evolutionary add-on. By contrast, in the
mainstream architecture, an elaborate syntax would have had to evolve first
before combinatorial phonology and semantics could be possible, a rather less
enticing scenario.
To sum up, this article has shown many ways in which the Parallel Architec-
ture, with its components Conceptual Semantics and Simpler Syntax, instanti-
ates the biolinguistic outlook better than does the Minimalist Program. In par-
ticular, it offers the prospect of integrating linguistics fully with cognitive
science. There still remain, of course, many challenges to the approach, among
which perhaps the most important are integrating phonology, morphology, lan-
guage variation, and language change into the model - as well as a range of
syntactic constructions from languages other than English - so that it covers
a broader range of linguistic phenomena. In addition, a theory of language
acquisition has been sketched (Jackendoff 2002, chapter 6), but it remains
a promissory note. It is dearly to be hoped that some of these challenges
can be undertaken by practitioners of the relevant subdisciplines.
42 RayJackendoff
References
Bickerton, Derek
1990 Language and Species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bolmger,Dwight
1965 Theatomizationofmeanmg.Lg M g e 41: 555-573.
Bresnan,JoanW.
Chomsky, Noam
1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam
1972 Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam
2001 Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics
20. Cambridge, Mass, MIT, Department of Linguistics.
Chomsky, Noam
2009 Opening remarks. In Of Minds and Language: A Dialogue with Noam
Chomsky in the Basque Country, Massimo Piattelh-Palmarim, Juan
Unagereka,andPello Salaburu (eds.), 13-43. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Cuhcover, Peter W.
1999 Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases in Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Cuhcover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff
Fillmore, Charles
1988 The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. Proceedings of the 14th An-
nual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35-55. Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Fodor,JenyA.
1983 The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Ghomeshi, Jila, Ray Jackendoff, Nicole Rosen, and Kevin Russell
2004 Contrastive focus reduplication in English (The salad-salad paper). Nat-
ural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 307-357.
Giv6n,Talmy
1979 On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Struc-
ture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gruber, Jeffrey
1965 StudiesinLexicalRelations.Ph.B.disMionMIT.PuUMmMfrey
Gruber, Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, Amsterdam: North-
Holland, 1976.
Jackendoff, Ray
1983 Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray
1987 Consciousness and the Computational Mind. Cambridge, Mass, MIT
Press.
Jackendoff, Ray
1990 Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Jackendoff,Ray
1997 The Architecture ofthe Language Faculty. Cambridge, Mass, MITPress.
Jackendoff,Ray
2002 Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff,Ray
2007a A Parallel Architecture perspective on language processing, Brain Re-
search 1146, 2-22.
Jackendoff,Ray
2007b Language, Consciousness, Culture. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Jackendoff,Ray
2008 Alternative minimalist visions of language. Papers from the 41st Annual
Meeting ofthe Chicago Linguistic Society: The Panels, 189-226. Also to
appear in Non-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models
of Grammar, Robert D. Borsley and Kersti Borjars (eds.). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Jackendoff, Ray, and Fred Lerdahl
2006 The capacity for music: What's special about it? Cognition 100, 3 3 -
72.
Joshi,Aravmd
1987 An introduction to Tree-Adjoining Grammars. In Mathematics of Lan-
guage, Alexis Manaster-Ramer (ed.), 87-114. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Koch,Chnstof
2004 The Quest for Consciousness. Englewood, Colo, Roberts.
Lakoff, George
1971 On Generative Semantics. In Semantics: An Interdiscipliniary Reader
in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology, Danny Steinberg and Leon
Jakobovits (eds.), 232-296. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lamb, Sydney
1966 Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Washington: Georgetown Univer-
sity Press.
Langacker, Ronald
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford Univer-
sity Press.
Lerdahl, Fred, and Ray Jackendoff
1983 A Generative Theory ofTonalMusic. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
44 RayJackendoff
Levmson, Stephen
2000 Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational
IffivliccitiiTC C3xnbr1cl.se !Mtiss !M!IX Press
1994 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Postal, Paul
1972 The best theory. In Goals of Linguistic Theory, Stanley Peters (ed.), 131-
170. Englewood Cliffs, N . J , Prentice Hall.
Pustejovsky, James
1995 The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Sadock,Jerxold
1991 Autolexical Syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shieber, Stuart
1986 An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. Stanford.
CA:CSLI Publications.
Shieber, Stuart, and Yves Schabes
1991 Generation and synchronous tree adjoining grammars. Journal of Com-
putational Intelligence 1:200-22%.
Van Valm, Robert, Jr., and Randy LaPolla
1997 Syntax: Structure, Meanings, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Wertheimer,Max
1923 Laws of organization in perceptual forms. Translated mA Source Book of
Gestalt Psychology, Willis D. Ellis (ed.), 71-88. London: Routledge &
KeganPaul.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
1953 Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
A phono-syntactic template for Turkish:
Base-generating free word order*
Ash Goksel
0. Introduction
With respect to the place of prosody in the syntactic description of sentences in

Turkish, the general understanding has been that there is a neutral intonation
pattern or a neutral position of focus, and that any other type of intonation
caused by focal stress or other informational^ relevant prosodic contours re-
sults in a shift from this neutral state of affairs. If a sentence happens to be un-
grammatical under such neutral intonation, the role of this intonation pattern as
a possible source of syntactic ungrammatically has often not been taken into
account, as such sentences have been considered to exemplify the unmarked
case. This paper departs from this view in hypothesizing that prosodic structure
itself can be the source of syntactic ungrammatically, and as a result, it is one
of the contributors to syntactic well-formedness. The claim put forward here is
a characterization of syntax in terms of a tripartite linear template combining
intonational (H*) and syntactic (V) categories and which is made up of the fol-
lowing domains:
(1) H* V
Pre-H*Area(Pre-H*) Focus Field (FF) Postverbal Area (PVP)'
* I would Hke to thank the audiences at the Workshop on Word Order, Bogazici Uni-
versity 2001, the 38th Annual Meeting of the Societas Lmguistica Europaea, Uni-
versity of Valencia, 2005, the 28th Annual Meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur
Sprachwissenschaft, Workshop on Morphology and Syntax, Multidimensional.
2006, Bielefeld University where earlier versions of this paper were presented:
I am grateful to Meltem Kelepir, Wilfned Meyer-Viol, Ash Untak-Tarhan and Yuji
Takano for discussing with me some the issues raised in this paper. Needless to say,
I am the only person responsible for errors or misrepresentations. This work was
supported by Bogazici University Research Foundation, BAP 07B401 and 5842.
1. "PVP" is the abbreviation for "postverbal position", the term used in the current
literature on Turkish for the area following the verb. I will keep to this abbreviation
for simplicity with the proviso that it refers to an area rather than a position, hence
the usage of the term "postverbal area".
46 AshGoksel
Positing this template as the basis of a syntactic description paves the way
for the re-examination of SOV as the 'basic' structure from which other word
orders are derived. Under the present view, all word order permutations are
base-generated, hence the template provides a basis not only for SOV sentences
but for all of the other sentence types. Following from this, one of the claims
will be that SOV is special not as the 'basic' underlying structure for word
order permutations but as the pattern of presentational focus sentences, and
then only with a particular type of intonation. Such a sentence type is not syn-
tactically special as such, but is just one of the many sentence types that occur in
the language.
If (1) turns out to be an adequate basis for describing aspects of sentence
structure in Turkish, discourse related factors will directly be expressed concur-
rently with syntactic and prosodic properties within a monostratal and multi-
dimensional view of grammar. Hence the model proposed here simultaneously
represents syntax, intonation and information structure, with none of these
being the input to the other. This paper will present a preliminary sketch of a
small portion of data along these lines.*
The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 presents an introduction to
the significance of prosody for syntax in Turkish and discusses the status of
SOV in such a 'free word order' language. In Section 2 I give a brief criti-
cal analysis of previous accounts, starting with derivational analyses of
word order variability in Section 2.1 and then turning to prosodic accounts
in Section 2.2. In Section 3 I develop the model proposed here and apply it
to a fragment of Turkish. In Section 4 I extend the investigation to other data
to see whether the tripartite representation can be the basis for syntactic do-
mainhood. The discussion concludes with implications of this model and some
further issues.
1. Word order variation
In a 'free word order' language such as Turkish the task of understanding the
position of major constituents becomes one of the primary goals of syntactic de-
2. Surnlar analyses have been put forth in the literature, most notably Steedman (2000).
A comparison of these approaches is not possible for reasons of space, however, it
is worth noting that the present work conflates intonation and categonal information
in a surface representation, while in Steedman mtonational categories are part of
lexical items.
A phono-syntactic template for Turkish 47
scnption.3 With a few exceptions (Goksel 1993; Bozsahin undated) derivational

models with mechanisms mediating between the derivational stages, be it
movement or feature-checking, have dominated syntactic analyses of Turkish. A
brief critical evaluation of these analyses will be discussed in Section 2.1. Most of
these analyses predate the studies on prosody as a formal device and its rele-
vance for syntax.* The main aim of the next two subsections will be to draw
attention to the significance of prosody and to show how it interacts with word
order.
1.1. The relevance of prosody to syntactic description
While prosody has been accepted as a key feature in the interpretation of a

sentence, its place in syntactic descriptions of Turkish has mostly been epiphe-
nomenal. Much less attention has been paid to the syntactic aspects of sen-
tences with identical word order but different prosodic patterns than to word
order differences between sentences, irrespective of their prosodic patterns. In-
stead, where the link between prosody and word order has been investigated.
the focus has mostly been on information structure. Here I shall look at several
examples that highlight the syntactic relevance of prosody and turn to particular
analyses in Section 2.2.
It should be made clear that throughout this paper only one of the compo-
nents of prosody will be taken into account. This is H*, the point of pitch accent
(Pierrehumbert 1980). This is indicated in the following examples by setting a
word in capital letters. It is clear that the model requires further development in
other prosodic factors that influence syntax and interpretation, but this is a point
I will leave to future work.5
3. Here it is not possible to give even a brief overview of the literature on word order
and its relevance to syntactic structure, see Hale (1983); Boskovrc and Takahashi
(1998); Baker (2003); Boeckx (2003) and the references in these works for a discus-
sion of (non)configurationahty, free word order and scrambling. Publications after
2007 are not included due to the pubhcauon schedule of the present article.
4. Investigations of word order (Erkii 1983; Erguvanh 1984) and intonation (Tansu
1963; Demircan 1996, 2001, among others) existed side by side without much inte-
raction. Earlier work of the present author (Goksel and Tsrplakou 1996) also suffers
from not providing a finer description of differences in intonation where a sentence
which is marked as ungrammatical is actually grammatical under an echo question
reading. I am grateful to Yuji Takano for alerting me to the relevant example (Goksel
andTsiplakoul996:(8b)).
5. More detailed analyses are given elsewhere (of. Ozge 2003 for declaratives; Goksel.
Kelepir, and tintak-Tarhan 2008, 2009 for questions).
48 Ash Goksel
1.1.1. The scope of wh-phrases

When a clause containing a ^-expression is embedded in a clause which has
a verb of cognition as the main predicate, the intonation contour is the critical
factor by means of which this sentence is identified as a declarative or as an
interrogative construction :*
(2) a. Sema-nm NE-YI iste-dig-in-i
Sema-GEN what-ACC want-NOM-3POSS.SG-ACC
diisun-ityor-uz. (falling intonation)?
think-IMP-lPL
'We are thinking about what Sema wants/
#'What do we flunk Sema wants?"
b. Semamn NEYI istedigini dusunuyoruz? (rising intonation)
#'We are thinking about what Sema wants.'
'What do we think Sema wants?'
Hence, intonation is an integral part of the syntactic description of a sentence.
given that 'declarative' and 'interrogative' are syntactic concepts (see Cheng
and Rooryck 2000, Aboh and Pfau 2011, Goksel, Kelepir, and Untak-Tarhan
2008 forvanous characterizations of intonation as a morphological and syntac-
tic category).
1.1.2. Scope reversal

The scope of quantifiers in Turkish depends on the position of the quantifiers
with respect to each other, the type of quantifier in question, and prosody-
related factors.* The sentences below demonstrate the role of prosodic factors
in inducing pairs with reverse scope:
6. Surnlar pairs are mentioned in Yarar (2006).

7. The difference between interrogates and declaratives is more than rising vs. falling
intonation at the end, but starts at the beginning (Goksel, Kelepir, and Untak-Tarhan
2009). Here we overlook this additional difference for practical reasons.
8. The abbreviations in the glosses are as follows: "ACC": accusative, "AGR": (sub-
ject) agreement, "AOR": aorist, "DAT": dative, "EV": evidential, "FUT": future,
"GEN": genitive, "IMP": imperfecta, "INS": instrumental, "NEG": negative:
"NOM": nommahzer, "OBT': object, "P": past, "PF": perfective, "PL": plural
"POS": possibility, "POSS": possessive, "PRES": present, "Q": question particle:
"SG": smgular, "SUB": subject, "TOP": topic/topicahzer
9. One or more of these issues have been discussed in Rural (1994, 1997); Goksel
(1998); Aygen-Tosun (1999); Kelepir (2000, 2001); Kennelly (2003, 2004), among
others.
(3) a. Biitiin ogrenci-ler ders-e GiR-ME-Di.>

all student-PL class-DAT enter-NEG-P
'It is not the case that all students went to class/
(adapted from Oztiirk 2005)
NEG>V
#V > NEG
b. BUTUN ogrenciler derse girmedi.
'It is true of all of the students that they did not go to class.'
#NEG>V
V>NEG
As can be sunnised, the interpretation of the operators may not be related to

their order with respect to each other and prosody alone can be the source of a
particular interpretation. An account that aims at explaining scope effects in
Turkish thus cannot eschew intonation, as this may be the only factor relevant
for the description of minimal pairs.
1.1.3. The position of bare direct objects
Apart from a handful of work (Sezer 1991, 2006; Goksel 1998; Goksel and
Kerslake 2005; Uygun 2006) bare direct objects in Turkish have been described
as obligatorily occurring in the immediately preverbal position, a description
which has been the centerpiece of analyses of derivational accounts. However,
the position of a bare object is intricately linked to the intonational contour of
die sentence:"
10. (3a) is based on Oztiirk (2005) and is also analyzed by Arslan-Kechriotis (2006).
Oztiirk describes it as having 'neutral intonation', which presumably means that it is
an out-of-the-blue sentence. This, in turn, would mean that, being a negative sen-
tence, the verb is stressed (as in (3a)). Under the same 'neutral intonation' as implied
there, the reading associated with (3b) is not possible. However, this reading (i.e.
V > NEG) is precisely what we get from the same order of constituents under a dif-
ferent prosodic pattern.
11. This is one of the areas where speakers are strongly divided with respect to the
acceptability of bare objects occurring anywhere else than in the immediately pre-
verbal position. Negative judgements may be due to the fact that such sentences
never occur out-of-the-blue and require a particular context and intonation to be
considered as acceptable.
50 AshGoksel
(4) a. Gazete hergiin ben OKU-YOR-UM.

newspaper everyday I read-IMP-lSG
'I do read newspapers everyday'
b. 1GAZETE hergiin ben okuyorum. (cf. (3 lb) and Note 27)
These data present another case where the presence of a bare direct object in the
beginning of a sentence depends on whether it is stressed or not, indicating
that intonation has to be analyzed as part of the syntactic description of that
sentence.
1.1.4. Anaphoric relation
A proper noun in a complex NP is more readily available as the referent of a

following third person pronoun if the former is unstressed and the latter stressed,
rather than the reverse stress pattern (i.e. where the proper noun is stressed and
the pronoun is unstressed):
(5) a. Sema-mn, anne-si-yle

Sema-GEN mother-3POSS.SG-INS
anlas-a-ma-ma-miz (bir tek) ON-U,
agree-POS-NEG-NOM-3POSS.SG (only) s/he-ACC
uz-uyor-du.
upset-IMP-P
'The fact that we did not get along with Sema's, mother upset only
her,,'
b. *SEMANIN, annesiyle anlaâmamamiz (bir tek) oniij uzuyordu.
(5b) is acceptable if Sema and the pronoun are not preferential. Again, a
prosodic factor is crucial for the description of the structural properties of a
sentence.
1.2. The status of SOV within free word order
Another assumption that is prevalent in most syntactic analyses of Turkish is

that free word order is restricted to the six construction types listed in (6) and
exemplified in (7):
(6) SOV OSV SVO OVS VSO VOS
(7) a. Semakurs-u bitir-di. (SOV)

Semacourse-ACC complete-P
'Sema (has) completed the course/
b. Kursu Sema bttird, (OSV)
c. Semabitirdikursu. (SVO)
d. Kursu bitirdi Sema. (OVS)
e. Bitirdi Sema kursu. (VSO)
f. Bitirdi kursu Sema. (VOS)
However, the list of construction types in (6) is incomplete and incorrect. Once
the position of stress is integrated into syntax, it turns out on the one hand that
there is a larger number of permissible word orders and on the other hand
that not all word orders are grammatical. Below the stressed constituents are
underlined:
(8) a. SOV OSV SVO OVS VSO VOS

b. SOV OSV SVO OVS *VSO *VOS
c. SOV OSV *SVO *OVS *VSO *VOS
Stress in Turkish can fall either on the verb (wherever it is located) or on any
constituent to the left of the verb, but, crucially, not on a postverbal constituent.
As can be seen, the grammaticality of some of the sentence patterns in (8) de-
pends on at least one other factor, the location of H* indicated by the under-
lined constituent.
The second assumption about Turkish word order is that although it is free.
the language is SOV. The contradiction embodied in this description - the claim
that Turkish imposes a certain ordering on its constituents and, at the same
time, that it does not - is resolved only by analyses that invoke a link (such as
movement or feature-checking) between SOV and non-SOV sentences. Thus
the latter become derived structures while SOV represents the 'basic' structure.
Even if not stated in explicit terms, traditional grammars of Turkish also take
SOV as the 'basic' word order in Turkish, although they may not be clear on the
mechanisms deriving the other orders.^ The next section will therefore look at
whether the idea that there is a 'basic' structure can be abandoned.
12. See Ergm (1962: 377), Ediskun (1963: 361), Swift (1963: 179), Lewis (1967: 240).
Banguoglu (1974: 532), Dizdaroglu (1976: 250), among others.
52 AshGoksel
2. Previous analyses of word order and prosody
2.1. Movement analyses
The following will be a brief outline which highlights the main points and
addresses some of the problems involved in derivational analyses. It is not
possible to give a fair evaluation of movement analyses in Turkish within the
space limitations of the present paper. For practical reasons, the analyses
which assume derivational stages are treated without drawing the distinc-
tion between the mediators between the stages (such as movement and fea-
ture checking), and points which are not relevant to the present analysis (such
as head movement) are left out.
The assumption that there are derivational stages in syntax amounts to the
idea that there cannot be a unique position which captures the various proper-
ties of a syntactic item hence constituents have to be relocated to satisfy various
well-formedness conditions. The literature on word order variation in Turkish
involves mainly two types of sentence where such relocation processes are
assumed to take place: sentences where the object occurs before the subject
and sentences where there is material in the postverbal position. I take each one
in turn.
2.1.1. Object fronting: OSV
The research on OSV in Turkish is centered around two issues: the position that
the object ends up in as a result of movement and the motivation for this
movement. * There are three competing analyses for the analysis of the posi-
tion of the object: an adjunction site (A'-position) on the left, an argument site
(A-position) on the left and A'-position on the right.
2.1.1.1. Movement to an adjunction site to a higher projection on the left
The preposing of an object was first addressed in Kelepir (1996). For Temurcii
(2005), this position is a higher functional category (denoted by "FP" in (9))
13. Two recent works on this topic are Oztiirk (2005) and Arslan-Kechnotis (2006).
Here I am not concerned wrth the differences between EPP motivated movement
and movement for case-checking or strong versus weak case features associated
with nominals, a point which is discussed in detail in these works. Nor am I con-
cerned with whether a nominal is an NP or a DP. The insights relating to such dis-
tinctions may very well be relevant for the present analysis, although at this point
they look like points associated with the particular models.
where the object moves to for reasons of totalization, motivated by the EPP
(following Miyagawa 1997). Similarly, for Ozsoy (2005) it is a projection as-
sociated with the topic ("TopicP" in (9)), again motivated by the EPP:
(9) [T0P1CP/FP NP(obj), [(XP). . . [IP NP(sub) ...t, VP]]]
Leaving aside the theoretical implications of the motivation for this movement.
these analyses fail to explain the conditions for a fronted object that is focalized
and seem to imply that such fronting can only be associated with topicalization.
In (10b), however, the fronted object is focused:
(10) a. DrlbrUm-r OGRENCl-LER seg-ryor-mus.

linguistics-ACC student-PL choose-IMP-EV
'STUDENTS choose linguistics.'
b. DiLBlLiMlogrencilersegiyormus.
'Students choose LINGUISTICS.'
Oztiirk, although not dealing specifically with this issue, nevertheless addresses
issues regarding the occurrence of a fronted object with or without a focused
phrase. According to her analysis, if there is a focused phrase in a sentence the
fronted object is in a topic position:"
(ID [T0 P 1 C pNP(0bj) ; [ T o p l c p N P ( s u b ) , . . . bocusP Lxpt ; t,]]]]
Again the description of a fronted object as topicalized hinges on the implicit

assumption that the sentence has preverbal stress rather than stress on the
fronted object. Moreover, the absence of a focused phrase in the sentence leads
to a radically different positioning of the fronted object, as illustrated in the
next point.
2.1.1.2. Clause-bound (TP internal) 'leftwardmovement'to an argument

position higher than the subject
This option for the positioning of a fronted object is suggested by Oztiirk for
OSV sentences without a focus phrase, and as a general mechanism by Arslan-
Kechnotis (2006):
14. Both Oztiirk (2005) and Ozsoy (2005) allow multiple 'topic' positions, which seems
to be imposed by the technical requirements of the model they use rather than being
empirically motivated by information structural considerations.
54 AshGoksel
(12) [TenseP N P ( o b j ) , [ A g e n t P N P ( s u b ) [ t, V P ] ] ]
The assumption that there are sentences without a focus phrase highlights the
problem of eschewing prosody where it may be relevant, as discussed in Sec-
tion 1.1. Furthermore, it is not clear how moving an object into that position.
which would otherwise host a moved subject, is warranted. The problem is
confounded by the fact that object-fronted sentences with focus phrases are
different from those without focus phrases (cf (11) above). In both cases, the
fronted object is non-focused and its interpretation is not altered by the other
constituents. However, this fact does not seem to grant the object a unique posi-
tion. Rather, the position of the object hinges on the presence or absence of
another phrase, resulting in two positions different in nature: one an A'-position.
the other an A-position. The ensuing movement/checking mechanisms there-
fore seem to be arbitrary."
2.1.1.3. Movement of the subject to an adjunction site at a higher projection

on the right
According to Takano (2005), OSV requires the object to remain / situ while
the subject moves to a higher (TP) projection, with the difference that this posi-
tion is on the right:
(13) [CP [TP [TP NP(sub) [vP NP(sub) NP(obj). . . ]] NP(sub)]]
Since the subject moves to the right (but remains in the preverbal position as
the verb moves higher up), it occurs to the right of the (non-moved) object.
Again, the motivation for such a movement is not clear, but what is more prob-
lematic is that this results in a constellation in which the subject should have
scope over the object, which is not always the case (cf. (33a-b) below)."
15. Also in this analysis, the movement of the subject to the specifier of TP is barred
only because there is no other focused phrase in the sentence.
16. A simpler objection might be raised against movement in OSV structures: that there
is no evidence of a trace in the assumed preverbal position. Assigning a specific
position to an object in Turkish can be traced back to earlier works on word order
(Erkil 1983; Erguvanh 1984, see Section 3.1 for an evaluation) and on the pres-
ence of a VP (Kornfilt 1988). The former discuss 'displaced' objects, but are non-
committal with respect to the derivational history of these constructions. The latter
work suggests that there is a VP in Turkish based on elliptical constructions target-
ing object + verb constructions, but the description is both too narrow (ellipsis can
2.1.2. Postverbal scrambling: SVO, OVS, and initial sentences
The occurrence of arguments in the postverbal position (PVP) was first ana-
lyzed as an instance of 'nghtward movement' by Kural (1994).
(14) [ C p[cp[iP...tJ][pvpX ; ]]
Kural bases his claim on data where postverbal constituents have unambiguous
scope over preverbal ones, thereby presenting a counterexample to the Anti-
symmetry Hypothesis (Kayne 1994). The observation that postverbal constitu-
ents have unambiguous scope over preverbal ones is based on sentences where
there is a preverbal temporal adverb which is stressed. The examples below
illustrate this point with a postverbal object, but the same facts hold for post-
verbal subjects:"
(15) a. Herkes dun ara-mis tic kisi-yi.

everyone yesterday call-PF three person-ACC
'Everyone called three people yesterday'
#V > num (# For every x there were three y such that x called y.)
num > V (There were three y such that for every x, x called y.)
(only non-distributive reading available)
also target a subject + verb, see Hankamer 1979: 82 for the absence of syntactic
rules targeting the VP in Turkish) and too broad (what is said to be a VP contains
more than a verb an object, e.g. tense, modality and agreement).
There might, on the other hand, be arguments against movement, such as the
lack of weak crossover effects. A stressed object wA-phrase can be coreferential with
a pronominal when the former precedes the latter and not vice versa, see Goksel and
Tsiplakou (1996) for details:
(i) KtM-U anne-si,,, ara-di?

who-ACCmother-3SG.POSScall-P
'Who, did his, mother call?'
Annesi,lhKlMUara-di?
'Who, did his,, mother call?'
If the direct object W/*-phrase kimi had originated left-adjacent to the verb and had
been moved, there would have been an intervening pronoun (the possessive suffix
-si) between it and its trace. Rather, when both W/*-phrase and pronoun are in the
F(ocus)F(ield) (see Section 3), co-indexation is the only option. Otherwise (that is.
when the pronoun is not in the FF), co-mdexation is not possible.
17. The glosses in some of the cited examples have been harmonized with the other
examples used in this paper and thus do not reflect the cited authors' original choice
for describing certain forms.
56 Ash Goksel
b. Of kyl dun arami^herkes.

'Everyone called three people yesterday/
V > num (For every x there were three y such that x called y)
#num > V (#There were three y such that for every x, x called y)
(only distributive leading available)
One of the problems with tins analysis was put forward by Kornfilt (1998) who
presents data showing that not all postverbal constituents behave in this way.
The internal argument of the verb can have ambiguous scope with respect to
the subject:
(16) Herhes bu yd Mtap-lar-in-i rthafet-n^ flp

everyone this year books-PL-3POSS.SG-ACC dedicate-PF three
person-DAT
'This year everyone dedicated their books to three people/
(adapted from Kornfilt 1998: 110)
Hence a universally quantified constituent which is located preverbally can

have scope of a postverbal one. The two claims are summarized below: '
(17) Kural: #V>num

num > V (only interpretation)
Kornfilt: V>num (primary interpretation)
num > V (secondary interpretation)
Another problem with Kural's analysis is that it does not take into account the
interpretation of the constituents under different stress patterns (see Goksel
1998 for examples and discussion). Finally, the postverbal position can host
multiple constituents, as discussed in Goksel (2001, see Section 4.1 below),
Kornfilt (2005) and Takano (2005). In Takano (2005), this is a result of 'right-
ward movement' analyzed as 'complement formation' followed by 'tucking in'
(in the sense of Richards 2001), rather than adjunction (as in Kornfilt 1998).
and occurs before spell-out:
(18) [ C P X1[TPX2X3]]
According to Takano both constituents are in CP in a specifier-head configura-

tion and are equidistant to each other. If this is the case, this is also similar to
claiming that there is flat structure in the PVP Kornfilt (2005) makes this claim
explicit, suggesting that this flat structure is the result of a linearization process
with intonational effects (see also Ozge 2003 and Aydiner 2006 for downstep-
ping in the postverbal area). The explanation that postverbal constituents must
be the result of a PF process, a stance taken by Temurcii (2005) and an alterna-
tive entertained by Kornfilt (2005), has the disadvantage that both treat the
postverbal area as being external to syntax. As such, PF-movement seems to
cater for the requirements of the model which the explanation is set up in and
is a mechanism resorted to just in those cases where the inter-constituent hier-
archy breaks down. The view presented in the present work, on the other hand,
takes all the visible locations of constituents as part of syntax proper. The main
question to be raised with respect to movement analyses is what evidence there
is for movement in Turkish in the first place. If a moved constituent cannot
reconstruct (i.e. cannot be interpreted in its base position), then the onus is on
the proponents of that account to explain why it is base-generated there. A
similar criticism applies to proponents of PF movement. If a constituent is
interpreted not in the postverbal position that it appears but elsewhere, an ex-
planation is required as to how the postverbal position can be filled by this
constituent at all.
2.2. Prosodic analyses of Turkish and their relevance to syntax
The idea that prosody can be integrated into a description of sentence structure
in Turkish has as its predecessor the description of sentences in linear terms, an
idea which goes back to Erguvanli (1984) who identifies three pragmatically
distinct concepts corresponding to different parts of a sentence. According to
her analysis, topic, focus, and background information are each realized in des-
ignated linear positions: topic in the initial position, focus in the immediately
preverbal position and background information in the postverbal position. ^
Contrastively focused constituents are left out of the description as these are
seen as part of marked sentences, the type that are not relevant to a description
of unmarked sentences. These assumptions are taken up by Kilieaslan (2004)
18. Kilieaslan (2004) analyzes the presence of material in the postveibal position as
extraposition from the coie domain (SOV) to the clause-external domain. Although
not advocating the type of movement typical in Chomskyan approaches, Kilieaslan
nevertheless assumes a basic SOV order, which is at odds with the proposal heie.
19. The exact description of Erguvanli (1984) is in terms of the constituents that host
these positions, not the positions per se, but the diferences between these two con-
cepts are not crucial for our purposes here.
58 Ash Goksel
and Issever (2003) who provide various accounts for the linear position of dis-
course functions.
The integration of c o n t r a s t s focus into the description of structure in terms
of linear positions in Turkish was first discussed in Goksel and Tsiplakou
(1996), followed by Goksel (1998). These two works define the postverbal po-
sition as a linear domain (as opposed to hierarchical accounts described in Sec-
tion 2.2 above). Different to what is proposed here, notions relating to prosody,
more precisely focus, come into play in terms of where the stressed constituent
occurs in the linear order of sentences.* The idea of defining a syntactic seg-
ment mprosodic terms, hence changing the role of prosody related concepts
was first suggested in Goksel and Ozsoy (2000). There, one edge of a linear
domain is defined in terms of stress. This domain hosts focus related con-
stituents (focus-phrases and wA-phrases) without making reference to the
type of syntactic constituents that marks this left edge. The right edge of this
domain is demarcated by the verb, a syntactic category. Thus the description of
this domain, the Focus Field, builds upon prosodic and syntactic categories
concurrently:
(19) ; V
" Focus Field (FF)
The present work is concerned with the expression of syntax by way of using
prosody. In the next section I build upon the implications of this claim and sug-
gest that the partitioned picture in (19) is a fundamental part of the structure of
sentences in Turkish.21
3. Proposal: A phono-syntactic template
What would the characterization of Turkish syntax be like if prosody were

integrated into it? (1), repeated below, is the skeletal structure of a sentence
under this proposal:
(20) H* V
Pre-H* Area (Pre-H*) Focus Field (FF) Postverbal Area (PVP)
20. The separation of precedence and dominance hierarchies was suggested for Turkish
earlier in Goksel (1993).
21. This claun is supported by Untak-Tarhan (2006), who discusses the freedom of
order between direct objects and adverbs in terms of prosody.
This linearly denned representation takes into account the fact that H* does not
occur to the right of V in Turkish, neither in declaratives nor in questions.*
Taking H* and V as the basic points of demarcation yields three segments:
(21) i. the Pre-H* Area (Pre-H*): the domain before stress

n. the Focus Field (FF): the domain delimited by stress and the predica-
tive verb (Goksel and Ozsoy 2000)
in. the Postverbal Area (PVP): the domain after the predicative verb*
Pre-H* is a prosodic domain which can be characterized using intonational

primitives (Pierrehumbert 1980). The PVP however, does not lend itself to such
a description since the intonation contour following H* may contain only the
PVP, the verb + the PVP, or preverbally occurring constituents + the verb + the
PVP. Hence the verb is of pivotal importance in the description of the domains.
The representation in (20) is thus a 'template' which provides locations for all
morphologically free constituents except for the verb form which is one of the
markers of domain boundaries. The only domain which is obligatorily present
is the FF. In the examples below, the domains are underlined and identified by
the corresponding abbreviation:
(22) HiCBIR oirenct buzun sinav-a Sir-me-vecek-miS.*

FF
student today exam-DAT enter-NEG-FUT-EV
'Apparently none of students will take the exam today.'
The FF can be preceded by material in Pre-H* as in (23a) or followed by mate-

rial in the PVP as in (23b). It can also be flanked by these domains as in (23c).
The pattern in (23) is illustrated in (23'):
(23) a. [ p r e H - . - H p F . . . ]
b. [FF...][PVP...]
C [preH*...][FF...][pVP...]
22. Sentences where the sequence V . . . H* is grammatical are given by Demircan

(1996). However, these and other sentences which do not conform to (20) all seem
to be instances of lexically formed sentences (in the sense of DiScmllo and Williams
1987; Cuhcover and Jackendoff 2005).
23. "Predicative verb" is a cover term for the predicates of all verbal sentences, and the
hidden or overt copula in 'nominal' sentences.
24. It may be that the FF extends as far as the copula and that the lack of stress in the
PVP is, in fact, an outcome of the lexical properties of the copula, an issue which I
leave to future work.
60 AshGoksel
(23') a. Smava BUGUNhicbir ogrenci zirmeyecekmis.

Pre-H* FF
b. HiCBlRoirencizirmevecebnis bumn smava.
FF PVP
c. Smava HJCBIR o&renci zirmeyecebnis bugim.
Pre-H* FF PVP
Note that the order of constituents is irrelevant at tins point The sentences in
(22) and (23') are naturally only a few of the permutations of the linear order of
the constituents in these examples. The question is how these domains are
structurally relevant. This is what I turn to next.
3.1. An application: The expression of grammatical functions
Certain points follow from the proposed characterization of the template. Firstly
there are no specific linear positions for arguments and adjuncts. A direct object
does not have to be based-generated left-adjacent to the verb, nor does it have
to occupy a designated position. NPs which have accusative markers are unam-
biguously interpreted as direct objects wherever they occur in the sentence.
Hence case, in the proposed way of looking at Turkish syntax, is not 'assigned^
by a verb to a specific position, nor is it checked in a particular position, forcing
an NP to have a connection with a specific location. Accusative case marking
simply acts as an instruction for an NP to be interpreted as the internal argu-
ment of a two-place predicate. Similar conditions hold for other grammatical
functions (see Goksel 1992 for details). The difficult cases are arguments with
no overt case marking, the subject and the bare direct object, and this is where
the template in (20) comes in.
Consider the sentences in (24) and (25). When two bare NPs occur in the
Pre-H* domain as in (24) or in the PVP as in (25) there are again no designated
positions for objects and subjects:*
25. The relevance of Pre-H* in the 'free' ordering of subjects and objects correspond to
the findings of Hoffman (1998) and Turan (1998), although the details have yet to be
worked out. These works discuss the role of the surface positions of subjects and
objects in Turkish in terms of discourse salience and centering, reaching the con-
clusion that both are equally accessible in these 'sentence-initial' and 'topic' positi-
ons. In the majority of the examples provided, the relevant constituents are in what
corresponds to Pre-H* in this paper. Such examples might show that the similarity
between subjects and objects is contingent to the properties of the domains, rather
than their description as topics or sentence initial conatituents.
(24) a. Kediet YE.R. (SOV)

Pre-H* FF
cat meat eat-AOR
'Cats eat meat'
b. EtkecU YER- (OSV; cf. (4a))
Pre-H* FF
'Cats eat meat/
(25) a. YE=R kecMet

FF PVP
eat-AOR cat meat
'Cats eat m e a t '
b. YER etkedi.
FF PVP
'Cats eat m e a t '
Smnlarly, there are no designated positions when one bare NP is inside the FF
and the other is in the PVP. The facts are the same whether the NP inside the FF
is itself stressed or not:
(26) a. KEDl ye-r et

FF PVP
cat eat-AOR meat
'Cats eat m e a t '
b. AC kahnca kedi ye-r et
FF PVP
hungry remain cat eat-AOR meat
'Cats eat meat when hungry.'
(27) a. ET ye-r kedi.

FF PVP
meat eat-AOR cat
'Cats eat m e a t '
b. AC kahnca et ye-r kecU.
FF PVP
hungry remain meat eat-AOR cat
'Cats eat meat when hungry.'
62 AshGoksel
However, when the subject is in the FF, the direct object is less acceptable in the
Pre-H* than when it is in the PVP, although the acceptability increases with the
distance from the edge of the FF:
(28) lEt brrtekKEDlve-r.

Pre-H* " FF
meat only cat eat-AOR
'Only cats eat m e a t '
This provides the initial positional restriction on the order of bare NPs:
(29) ?NPIobj) NPisublV

Pre-H* FF
Notice that in (29), the direct object not only precedes the subject, but is also
located outside the FF.
This characterization of facts is different from describing NP-NP-V se-
quences only in terms of the order of the constituents. One of the first examples
of such a description is found in Erguvanli (1984) where the immediately pre-
verbal position is claimed to be the basic position for the direct object. Her
examples are the following:
(30) a. Huzur mutluluk getrr-m

peace.ofmind happiness bnng-AOR
'Health brings happiness.'
h. Mutluluk huzur getinr.
'Happiness brings health.'
Erguvanli claims that these sentences are unambiguous, taking this as a basis
for describing Turkish as having SOV as the basic structure. However, describ-
ing these sentences as unambiguous is, crucially, contingent on their presenta-
tion as out-of-the-blue sentences. They are, thus, by definition, presentational
focus sentences. In presentational focus sentences stress occurs left-adjacent to
the verb (see Goksel and Ozsoy 2003), crucially rendering the direct object part
of the FF, and the subject, part of the Pre-H*.26 Recall that NP-NP-V sequences
are actually not unambiguous as demonstrated in (24a-b) by the SOV-OSV
26. Note that the FF does not necessarily coincide with the semantical^ focused part of
a sentence. For example, in a presentational focus sentence, the whole proposition
presents new information whereas the FF excludes the subject.
pair. Hence the interpretation of the immediately preverbal NP as the direct

object in (30a,b) comes not as a result of its position as the left-adjacent con-
stituent to the verb, but as a result of it being an out-of-the-blue sentence plus
the additional condition that it is located in the FF, as in (31 a), while the subject
is in Pre-H*. This is, in fact, the structure of presentational focus sentences, as
illustrated in (3 l b ) : *
(31) a. Kedi ET ye-r

Pre-H* FF
cat meat eat-AOR
'Cats eat m e a t '
b. NP(sub)NP(obi)V
Pre-H* FF
Finally, we witness constraints when both bare NPs are inside the FF. In this
case there is less acceptance by native speakers for the subject to follow the
object as in (32b):
(32) a. KEDl et ye-r.

FF
cat meat eat-AOR
'Cats eat m e a t '
b. *lETkedi yer. (cf (4b))
FF
'Cats eat meat'
Hence the FF is singled out as the position where there is a dominance hierar-
chy between a subject and an object. The Pre-H* is less structured in this sense
with respect to the FF (cf. (28)), but more so than the PVP (cf. (26)-(27)). A
bare NP cannot be interpreted as the direct object when it precedes another bare
NP in the FF (32b). These examples indicate that there is no reason to resort to
27. This may not be the only type of presentational focus sentence. See Nakrpoglu-
Demiialp (2002) for SOV sentences where V is the constituent in the FF yet the
sentences have a presentational focus reading.
28. SOV sentences where the direct object is in the FF and adjacent to the verb are am-
biguous between contrastive and presentational focus, see Goksel and Ozsoy (2003).
Whether these two focus types may be distinguished by pitch is a matter unresolved.
29. Again, the distance between the object and the subject may positively contribute to
acceptability see examples in Uygun (2006).
64 Ash Goksel
case assignment or case checking as mechanisms that link NPs to grammatical

functions.^
4. Further applications of the template
In this section I look at various syntactic phenomena in order to see whether a

characterization in terms of the template is a possible way of analyzing them.
The aim is to give a general idea about the application of the proposal here.
rather than go into a detailed analysis of particular constructions.
4.1. Quantificational dependencies
Ifirstlook at sentences with multiple quantifiers in order to understand whether

the domains behave differently with respect to the construal of the scope of
quantifiers. The two domains that will be compared are the Pre-H* and the
PVR The scope interaction between two quantified NPs in the Pre-H* will be
compared with identical NPs in the PVP." Note that in each case the verb is
stressed, hence the FF in all of these constructions comprises just the verb form.
As argued in Goksel (2001) the ordering of the quantifiers yields different
results in the two domains.^ In the examples below, both dative and accusa-
tive marked NPs are used as non-subjects to show that there are no hierar-
chical differences between these two in terms of their relation with the other
constituents.
30. Here I do not address some of the issues addressed in Oztiirk (2005, pseudo incor-
poration) and Arslan-Kechnotis (2006, word order restrictions in ECM clauses)
which are relevant to the expression of argument structure. I leave these for future
research.
31. The scope of quantifiers depends on a number of factors which affects then interpre-
tation. For reasons mentioned above, the question whether the templatic model can
characterize the data presented in these works will not be addressed. The linear
positioning of the constituents, whether they are focused or not, dominance rela-
tions, and the type of quantifiers have a role in scope construal. One or more of the
factors affecting interpretation have been addressed in various works, see Kural
(1994, 1997); Goksel (1998, 2001); Aygen (1999); Goksel and Ozsoy (2000, 2003);
Kelepir (2001); Kennelly (2003, 2004).
32. Kornfilt (2005) has similar observations but attributes the difference to that between
topics and PF-movement, see Section 2.1.2 above.
4.1.1. Quantifiers in Pre-H*: Verb-final sentences
(33) a. Birhoca her asistan-i GOREVLENDiR-Mft

a professor every assistant-ACC assign.a.task.to-PF
'A professor assigned a task to every assistant.'
(SOV;sub:V,obj:3)
3>V (non-distributive reading available)
?V>3 (distributive reading marginal)
b. Her doktor bir hasta-yi KONTROL ED-IYOR.
every doctor a patient-ACC examine-IMP
'Every doctor is treating a patient.' (SOV; sub: V, obj: 3)
V>3 (only distributive reading available)
When a subject in the Pre-H* precedes the object, it either unambiguously has
scope over it as in (33a) or the interpretation in which it is outscoped is
marginal or not salient as in (33b). Conversely, when an object in the Pre-H*
precedes the subject, the result is either ambiguous as in (34a), or the inter-
pretation in which it is outscoped by a following subject is marginal, illustrated
in (34b).
(34) a. Her hasta-ya btr doktor BAK-TI.

every patient-DAT a doctor treat-PF
'A doctor treated every patient' (OSV;sub: 3,obj: V)
V>3 (distributive reading available)
b. Bir hasta-ya her doktor BAK-IYOR.
a patient-DAT every doctor treat-IMP
'Every doctor is treating a patient.' (OSV; sub: V, obj: 3)
?V>3 (distributive reading marginal)
These examples show that for a subject in the Pre-H* to have unambiguous
scope over the object, another condition has to be satisfied, namely, that the
subject has to precede the object as in (33b). The only case where there is full
ambiguity (that is, where both readings are equally salient) is when an object
precedes the subject, as illustrated in (35). Note that the differences within each
pair are partly due to the properties of the particular quantifiers.
66 AshGoksel
(35) Linear order: Interpretation:

S...0 i. unambiguous: S > 0 (33b)
ii. ambiguity questionable: S > 0 , ? 0 > S (33a)
0...S i. ambiguity questionable: 0 > S, ?S > 0 (34a)
ii. ambiguous: 0 > S, S > 0 (34b)
This chart highlights the fact that the scope of quantifiers in Turkish is not read
off directly from their surface positions, but that prosody plays a fundamental
role in their interpretation.
4.1.2. Quantifiers in PVP: Verb-initial sentences
These results contrast sharply with sentences where both quantified constitu-
ents are in the PVP. Here, whatever order the subject and the object appear in
and irrespective of the particular quantifier, the sentences are ambiguous:
(36) a. BAK-TI bir doktor her hasta-ya

treat-PF a doctor every patient-DAT
'A doctor treated every patient.' (VSO; sub: 3, obj: V)
3>V (non-distnbutive reading available)
b. BAK-IYOR her doktor bir hasta-ya.
treat-IMP every doctor a patient-DAT
'Every doctor is treating a patient.' (VSO; sub: V, obj: 3)
3>V (non-distnbutive reading available)
(37) a. GOREVLENDlR-Mi$her asistan-i bir hoca

assign.a.task.to-PF every assistant-ACC a professor
'A professor assigned a task to every assistant.'
(VOS;sub:3,obj:V)
b. GOREVLENDiR-Mi bir asistan-i her hoca.
assign.a.task.to-PF a assistant-ACC every professor
'Every professor assigned a task to an assistant.'
(VOS;sub:V,obj:3)
These examples show that the PVP is much less structured that the Pre-H* and
the FF.
4.2. Ellipsis
Data on ellipsis show that the occurrence of a particular constituent in Pre-H*

or FF affects the grammaticality of a sentence. Hankamer (1979) and Kornfilt
(2000) point out that forward gapping is ungrammatical in the preverbal posi-
tion but grammatical in the PVP:
(38) a. *Zeynep [[Hasan-in karides-i ye-dig-m-i],

Zeynep Hasan-GEN shnmp-ACC eat-NOM-3POSS.SG-ACC
[Mehmed-in de istiridye-yi ]] duy-du.
Mehmet-GEN and oyster-ACC hear-P
intended interpretation: 'Zeynep heard that Hasan ate the shrimp
and Mehmet (ate) the oyster'
b. ZEYNEP duy-du
Zeynep hear-P
[[Hasan-in karides-i ye-dig-in-i],
Hasan-GEN shnmp-ACC eat-NOM-3POSS.SG-ACC
[Mehmed-in de istiridye-yi ]].
Mehmet-GEN and oyster-ACC
'Zeynep heard that Hasan ate the shrimp and Mehmet (ate) the
oyster.' (adapted from Kornfilt 2000)
Seen from the perspective of the present work, the description that forward
gapping is ungrammatical is not correct. The ungrammaticality of forward
gapping is contingent on the position of stress in (38a) where presumably the
preverbal constituent is stressed. If this is the case, the phrase Mehmet-m de
istiridye-yi 'and Mehmet the oyster' falls within the FF, under the current ac-
count. Placing it in the Pre-H* makes (38a) grammatical:
(39) Zeynep [[Hasan-tn karides-i ye-dig-in-i],

Zeynep Hasan-GEN shnmp-ACC eat-NOM-3POSS.SG-ACC
[Mehmed-m de istiridye-yi ]] QOKXAN bihyordu.
Mehmet-GEN and oyster-ACC for.some.time know-IMP-P
'Zeynep has known for some time now that Hasan ate the shnmp and
Mehmet (ate) the oyster'
68 AshGoksel
As expected, the grammatical^ of a sentence depends on winch domain

a particular constituent occurs in. In this case those domains are Pre-H* and
FF.33
4.3. 'Dislocated'constituents
Another piece of data which may be used for comparing Pre-H* and FF is the
phenomenon referred to as "dislocated NPs". Kural (1994) notes that disloca-
tion of a (non-subject) NP from an embedded clause to the postverbal position
of the embedded clause is ungrammatical when the whole embedded clause is
in the preverbal area of the matrix clause:
(40) *Ayse [[Ahmet-in t, konu?-tug-un]-u ogrenciler-le-A

Ayse Ahmet-GEN speak-NOM-3POSS.SG-ACC students-INS
bil-iyor.
know-IMP
intended interpretation: 'Ayse knows that Ahmet spoke with the stu-
dents.' (adapted from Kural 1994: 6)
As Kural does not mention the position of stress in (40) it is difficult to judge
the acceptability of this sentence. However, his judgements are shared by Ko-
rnfilt (1988) and Kilicaslan (2004) who also analyze similar constructions and
have similar judgements. One thing is clear, though. When the offending con-
stituent is in the FF (which is presumably how those who have analyzed it
construed this sentence), (40) is indeed unacceptable, as shown in (41a). How-
ever the important point is that (41b), where the constituent ogrencilerle 'with
the students' is placed in the Pre-H*, is acceptable*
33. It is not clear at this stage to what extent the (un)grammaticality of forward gapping
is dependent on the location of the constituents in the relevant domains. For ex-
ample, the source of the ungrammatically of sentences whh 'non-nommahzed'
embedded clauses (of. Kornfilt 2000: examples (11)-(12)) may be the result of
the non-adjacency between the embedded verb and the mam verb rather than
forward gapping. Hankamer (1972, 1979) does highlight the connection between
gapping and focus, a point which is relevant to the model presented in the present
work but an alternative explanation for many of the examples cited in these works
remains yet to be explored.
34. Noted also by Aygen (2002), however, without the particulars of the stress pattern.
(41) a. *Avse Ahmetin konustuzunu OGRENCILERLE biliyor.

Pre-H* " FF
b. AvseAhmetm konustu&unu o&rencilerle BJUYOR.
Pre-H* " FF
This shows that there is a crucial deference in how the different domains be-
have with respect to dislocation. Further, as observed by Kornfilt (1988) and
Kihcaslan (2004), the occurrence of the same constituent in the PVP is also ac-
ceptable. This is expected under the present analysis as the PVP is the domain
where constraints apply the least.
4.4. Repetition of a constituent or of a part in part-whole relations
Finally, in this section I look at repeated constituents which show that there is a
significant difference between the PVP and the other domains.
Constituents can be repeated in Turkish for discursive reasons, although the
particular function of such constructions is not clear. In (42) below, the repeti-
tion expresses surprise. When repeated, a constituent can only occur in the
PVP, showing that the verb plays an integral role in the partitioning of the
domains:
(42) a. Ahmet gel-di Ahmet.

Ahmet come-PF Ahmet
'Ahmethas come!'
b. * Ahmet, Ahmet geldi.
(ungrammatical irrespective of where domain boundaries occur)
Similar constraints apply to constituents which express a concept that is seman-

tically part of another concept expressed by another constituent in the sentence.
Bugun 'today' and bu ak?am 'this evening' are two such concepts where the
latter is a part of the former. Again, the only place that the part-expressing con-
stituent can occur in is in the PVP:
(43) a. Bugun gikahm mi, bu ak?am?

today go.out Q this night
'Shall we go out tonight?'
b. *Bu ak?am bugun gikahm mi?
(ungrammatical irrespective of where domain boundaries occur)
70 AshGoksel
The data in Sections 4.1-4.4 point out that the three domains which are
proposed as a basis for sentence structure in Turkish vary with respect to
their syntactic behaviour. The FF is more constrained in terms of the opera-
tions it allows and the Pre-H* is more structured than the PVR The PVP is
unstructured with respect to dominance and precedence hierarchies and is
furthermore a domain which cannot be denned without making reference to
the verb.
5. Conclusion
One of the points that have repeatedly been put forward in this paper is that
the syntactic grammaticality of sentences cannot be understood without taking
the effects of prosody into consideration. A concept such as 'neutral intonation
sentence' is justifiable, given that such sentences are presentational focus sen-
tences. But going from here to the conclusion that these sentences therefore
embody the core structural relationships in a language is not. Rather, if the task
is to understand structural relations across sentence types and not the properties
of one such type, then sentences which deviate from this 'neutral intonation'
become part of the crucial data, as neutral intonation itself can be the source of
ungrammatically.
Taking a further step and assuming that such sentences form the basis of all
other sentences is equally unfounded. Presentational focus sentences are not
only SOV, but they also come with a particular intonation pattern: the subject
cannot be in the F F * It is the particular position of focus in these sentences that
allow for the percolation of stress to the sentential projection, in other words to
render these sentences 'presentational focus sentences' (see Goksel and Ozsoy
2003). Above we saw the effects of placing the constituents in different do-
mains. It thus makes little sense to base the structural analysis of sentences with
different word orders and intonation patterns on a sentence which itself has a
particular order and prosodic pattern.
The template suggested for capturing the structural properties of Turkish
uses signals from different components by combining phonological and
syntactic primitives as domain boundaries. This presents us with some
questions:
1. What kind of grammatical architecture can support the parallel expression

of phonological and syntactic building blocks in the same representation?
35. See Nakipoglu-Demiialp (2002) for details of presentational focus sentences.

2. Where is the 'location' of the template if it cuts across components?

3. How can this model be applied to other languages?
Starting from the last question, the template is the result of language-specific
empirical considerations and, as such, cannot be expected to occur universally
(in whichever form). Only studies into different languages, primarily but not
exclusively free word order, will provide an answer to this. A related issue will
provide the answer to the second question about the 'location' of the template.
The most natural host for the phono-syntactic template as a linear object made
up of a specific constellation of H* and V is the lexicon, as the template is a
language specific construction which is probably learned as a unit.
As for the first question, the present proposal is cast within the tradition of
models where serial derivation is abandoned for empirical reasons. Serial
models where the output of one component of grammar is the input to another
have widely been discussed in the literature, especially with respect to the bal-
ance between maintaining the technical machinery that makes a model work,
and the linguistic data that they set out to explain (see Culicover and Jackendoff
2005 for a detailed criticism). One such specific proposal which is relevant to
the present work is Steedman (2000). There, the components of intonation in
English, e.g. H*, are pre-syntactic lexical specifications, and tunes are associ-
ated with information structural constructs such as rheme and theme. Prosody
and phrase structure are different aspects of a sentence since their boundaries
may totally be unaligned. In the present work H* or any such other intonational
category is not associated with lexical categories, and the syntactic model does
not recognize rhemes or themes. The closest the present model gets to expressing
information structure in prosodic terms is the domain FF, but this domain does
not correspond to a specific informational structural unit (see Section 3.1 and
Note 29). Rather, prosodic and syntactic categories define a construction in
tandem, and it is such a 'hybrid' construction which is the basis for syntac-
tic operations. It is possible that the differences between these two models
are a direct result of the properties of two very different languages such as
English and Turkish, especially when it comes to ordering restrictions on their
constituents.
If it turns out that free word order languages are constructed over domains
of prosodic and syntactic primitives, as suggested here for Turkish, this will
present another piece of evidence for replacing derivational models with a
more simple device. The present work has looked at a fragment of Turkish with
this understanding in mind. It remains to be seen whether the proposal here can
capture other aspects of Turkish and whether it can form a basis for the analysis
of other languages.
72 AshGoksel
References
Aboh, Enoch, and Roland Pfau

2011 What's a wh-word got to do with it. InMapping the Left Periphery: The
Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 5, Paola Benmca and Nicola
Munaro (eds.), 91-124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arslan-Kechnotis,Ceyda
2006 Case as an unmterpretable feature. Ph. D. diss., Department of Western
Languages and Literatures, Bogazici University.
Aydmer,Pola
2006 The properties of the postverbal area with flat intonation in spoken Turk-
ish. Paper presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Turkish
Linguistics, Uppsala University.
Aygen(-Tosun),Gulsat
1999 Specificity and subject object positions: Scope interactions in Turkish.
Unpublished ms., Harvard University.
Aygen(-Tosun),Gulsat
2002 Fmiteness, case and clausal architecture. Ph. D. diss., Department of
Linguistics, Harvard University.
Baker, Mark
2003 Three natures of nonconfigurationahty. In The Handbook of Contempo-
rary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltm and Chris Collins (eds.), 407-438.
(Blackwell handbooks in Linguistics.) Oxford: Blackwell.
Bangoglu,Tahsm
1974 Turkce'nin Grameri [The Grammar of Turkish]. Istanbul: Baha Matbaasi.
Boeckx,Cednc
2003 Free word order in Minimalist syntax. Folia Linguistica 37: 77-102.
Boskovic, Zeljko, and Daiko Takahashi
1998 Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 347-366.
BozsahmCem
undated Word order, word order flexibility and the lexicon. Unpublished ms..
Middle East Technical University.
Cheng, Lisa, and JohanRooryck
2000 Licensing wA-in-situ. Syntax*. 1-19.
Cuhcover, Peter, and Ray Jackendoff
DemircamOmer
1996 Turkce'nin Sesdizimi [Phonology of Turkish]. Istanbul: Der Publications.
DemircamOmer
2001 Turkce'nin Ezgisi [Intonation of Turkish]. Istanbul: Yildiz Technical Uni-
versity Press.
DiScmllo, Anna-Maria, and Edwm Williams.
1987 On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Dizdaroglu,Hikmet
1976 Tumcebilgisi [Syntax]. Ankara: Turk Dil Kurumu Yaymlan.
Ediskun,Haydar
1963 Yeni TurkDilbilgisi [New Turkish Grammar]. Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
ErgmMuharrem
1962 Turk Dil Bilgisi [Turkish Grammar]. Istanbul: Istanbul Umversitesi
EdebiyatFakultesiYaymlan.
Erguvanli,EmmeEser
1984 TheMctionofWordOrderinTurMsh.Berkdey.\JmyerSôfCamnnaPreSS.
Erku,Fende
1983 Discourse pragmatics and word order in Turkish. Ph. D. diss., University
ofMmnesota.
Goksel, Ash
1992 Case and configurationhty. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and
Phonetics 2,147-172.
Goksel, Ash
1993 Levels of representation and argument structure in Turkish. Ph. D. diss..
Department of Linguistics, School of Oriental and African Studies.
Goksel, Ash
1998 Linearity, focus and the postverbal position in Turkish. In The Mainz
Meeting, Lars Johanson, Eva Agnes Csato, Vanessa Locke, Astnd Menz,
and Deborah Wmterlmg (eds.), 85-106. Wiesbaden: Harxassowitz.
Goksel, Ash
2001 Asymmetries between the preverbal and postverbal positions in Turkish.
Paper presented at Workshop on Word Order, Bogazici University.
Goksel, Ash, Meltem Kelepir, and Ash Untak-Tarhan
2008 The morpho-syntactic implications of intonation as a clause-typer
In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55, 39-50.
Goksel, Ash, Meltem Kelepir, and Ash Untak-Tarhan
2009 Decomposition of question intonation: The structure of response seeking
utterances. In Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations, Janet
Gryzenhout and Bans Kabak (eds.), 249-286. (Interface Explorations
16.)MoutondeGruyter.
Goksel, Ash, and Ceha Kerslake
2005 Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
Goksel, Ash, and A. SumruOzsoy
2000 Is there a focus position in Turkish? In Studies on Turkish and Turkic
Languages, Ash Goksel and Ceha Kerslake (eds.), 219-228. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Goksel, Ash, and A. SumruOzsoy
2003 dA: A focus/topic associated clitic in Turkish. Lingua 113: 1143-
1167.
Goksel, Ash, and Stavroula Tsiplakou
1996 Linear domains: Variations between Greek and Turkish. In Proceedings
oftheSiXteenthAnnualConferenceonGreekLinguistics,193-203.TheS-
salomki: University of Thessalomki Publications.
74 AshGoksel
Hale, Kenneth
1983 Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5-47.
Hankamer, Jorge
1972 On the nonexistence of mirror rmage rules in syntax. In Syntax and Se-
mantics, John P. Kimball (ed), vol. 1,199-212. New York: Seminar Press.
Hankamer, Jorge
1979 Deletion in Coordinate Structures. New York: Garland.
Hoffman, Beryl
1998 Word order, information structure and centering in Turkish. In Centering
Theory in Discourse, Marilyn A. Walker, Aravmd K. Joshi, and Ellen F.
Prince (eds.), 253-271. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
issever, Selcuk
2003 Information structure in Turkish: The word order-prosody interface.
Lingua 113: 1025-1053.
Kayne, Richard
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Kelepir,Meltem
1996 The implications of Turkish for the theory of antisymmetry of syntax.
M. A. diss., Department of Western Languages and Literatures, Bogazici
University.
Kelepir,Meltem
2000 Scope of negation: Evidence from Turkish NPIs and quantifiers. Proceedings
of GLOW Asiall, September 1999 at Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan.
Kelepir,Meltem
2001 Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope. Ph. D. diss., De-
partment of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kennelly, Sarah
2003 The implications of quantification on the role of focus in discourse struc-
ture. Lingua 113: 1055-1088.
Kennelly, Sarah
2004 Pragmatics and quantificational dependencies. Lingua 114: 367-388.
KihcaslanYilmaz
2004 Syntax of information structure in Turkish. Linguistics 42: 717-65.
KornfilUaklm
1988 m>-dehtionandoaSemarkmginTnrkiSh.InStudiesonTurkishLinguistics.
Sabn Koc (ed.), 187-215. Ankara: Mddle East Technical University Pressi
KornfilUaklm
1998 On rightward movement in Turkish. In The Mainz Meeting, Lars Johan-
son, Eva Agnes Csato, Vanessa Locke, Astrid Menz, and Deborah Win-
terlmg (eds.), 107-123. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
KornfilUaklm
2000 Directionality of identical verb deletion in Turkish. In An Electronic Fest-
schrift for Jorge Hankamer, Sandra Chung and Jim McCloskey (eds.).
http://lmg.ucsc.edu/Jorge/kornfilt.html.
KornfilUaklm
2005 Asymmetnes between pre-verbal and post-verbal scrambling in Turkish.
In The Free Word order Phenomenon, Its Syntactic Sources and Diver-
sity, Joachim Sabel and Mamoru Saito (eds.), 163-179. Berlin: Mouton
deGruyter.
Kural,Murat
1994 Properties of scrambling in Turkish. Ms., University of California at Los
Angeles.
Kural,Murat
1997 Postverbal constituents in Turkish and the linear correspondence axiom.
LingisticInquiry2Z:A9%-52\.
Lewis, Geoffrey
1967 Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Miyagawa,Shigeru
1997 Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 1-25.
Nakrpoglu-Demiralp,Mme
2002 Case and dehmitedness: Meeting the interpretive requirements of the in-
terfaces. Paper presented at the 11th Conference on Turkish Linguistics.
August 7-9, 2002, University of East Mediterranean, Famagusta/Gazi
Magosa.
Ozge,Umut
2003 A tune-based account of Turkish information-structure. MSc diss. Infor-
matics Institute, Middle East Technical University.
Ozsoy, Sumru
2005 Topic, focus, multiple specifiers, multiple spell-out. Paper presented at
the Mediterranean Syntax Meeting, University of the Aegean, Rhodes.
Ozturk,Balkiz
2005 Case, Referential^ and Phrase structure. (LmmSticAktue\\/LmmSticS
Today 77.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pierxehumbert, Janet
1980 The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph. D. diss..
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Richards, Norvin
2001 Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sezer,Engm
1991 Issues in Turkish syntax. Ph. D. diss., Department of Linguistics, Harvard
University.
Sezer,Engm
2006 Defocusmg and discourse linking in Turkish. Paper presented at the 13th
International Turkish Linguistics Conference, Uppsala, 16-20 August
2006.
Steedman,Mark
2000 Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic
Review 31: 649-689.
76 AshGoksel
Swift, Lloyd B.
1963 A Reference Grammar of Modern Turkish. Indiana University Publica-
tions, Bloommgton. The Hague: Mouton.
Takano,Yuji
2005 Making nghtward scrambling possible. Unpublished ms., Kinjo Gakum
University.
Tansu,Muzaffer
1963 DurgunGenelSesBilgisiveTurkceiArticuMoryPhoneticszndTurkish].
Ankara: TDK Yaymlan.
Temurcu,Ceyhan
2005 The interaction of syntax and discourse in word order variability: Data
from Turkish. In Dilbilim ve Uygulamalan, Giiray Komg, I. Ozyildirim,
D. Aydm, and A. Altan (eds.), 123-159. Istanbul: Multilingual.
Turan,Umit,D
1998 Ranking forward-looking centers in Turkish: Universal and language-
specific properties. In: Centering Theory in Discourse, Marilyn A.
Walker, Aravmd K. Joshi, and Ellen F. Prince (eds.), 253-271. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Uygun,Dilek
2006 Scrambling bare singular nominal objects in Turkish. Paper presented at
the 13th International Turkish Linguistics Conference, Uppsala, 16-20
August 2006.
Untak-TarhanAsh
2006 Topics in syntax-phonology interface in Turkish: Sentential stress and
phases. M. A. diss., Department of Western Languages and Literatures,
Bogazici University.
Yarar,Emme
2006 ^-complement clauses in postverbal position. Paper presented at the
13th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Uppsala Univer-
sity, Sweden.
A coanalysis approach to Polish past tense
agreement*
BertholdCrysmann
The morphosyntactic status of Polish past tense agreement markers has been a
matter of considerable debate in recent years (Booij and Rubach 1987; Spencer
1991; Borsley and Rivero 1994; Borsley 1999; Bahski 2000; Kupsc 2000:
Kupsc and Tseng 2005). Past tense agreement is expressed by a set of bound
forms that either attach to the past participle, or else "float off" to a host further
to the left. Despite this relative freedom of attachment, it is often noted in the
literature (e.g., Borsley 1999; Kupsc and Tseng 2005) that the combination of
verbal host and agreement marker forms a word-like unit. In this paper I will
argue that these agreement markers are best analyzed as affixes uniformly in-
troduced on the verb whose inflectional features they realize. Building on
the linearization-based theory of morphology-syntax interaction proposed in
Crysmann (2003), syntactic mobility of morphologically introduced material
will be captured by mapping phonological contributions to multiple lexically
introduced domain objects. It will be shown that this is sufficient to capture
the relevant data, and connect the placement of floating "affixes" to the gen-
eral treatment of Polish word order (Kupsc 2000).
1. Data
In this section I shall provide an overview of the basic empirical pattern. Fol-
lowing an in-depth discussion of the phonology, morphology, and syntax of
past tense agreement markers in Section 1.1,1 shall discuss agreement marking
found with the closely related conditional marker by (Section 1.2).
* The research reported here has been partially supported by the DFKI project
COLLATE IL funded by the German Mmstry of Education and Research (BMBF).
The results reported here have been presented at the DGfS workshop on multi-
dimensional approaches to syntax and morphology (February 2006, Bielefeld) and
at the 2006 International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar
(August 2006, Varna, Bulgaria). The present paper extends previously published
work reported in Crysmann (2006).
78 BertholdCrysmann
Table 1. Past tense paradigm of widziec
Singular Plural
fern neut fem/neut
1 widzia-l-em widzia-l-a-m - widzie-l-i-smy widzia-l-y-smy

2 widzia-l-es widzia-l-a-s - widzie-l-i-scie widzia-l-y-scie
3 widzia-l widzia-l-a widzia-l-o widzie-l-i widzia-l-y
1.1. Polish past tense agreement
Past tense in Polish is marked using a combination of a participial ending /// on

the verb, inflected for number and gender, plus a person/number agreement
marker that realizes subject-verb agreement in first and second person (-(e)m,
-(e)s, -smy, -scie).
What is special about the agreement marker is that it may either attach
directly right-adjacent to the verbal participle, or else float off to the left.
(1) (Ty) widzial-es te kiqzke.

you see 2.SG this book
'You saw this book.'
(2) Ty -s widziat t? Kqtk?.

you2.SGsee this book
'You saw this book.'
The floating past tense agreement markers may attach to a wide range of
preverbal hosts, including nouns, pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, conjunctions
(Spencer 1991).
(3) Daleko-m poszla.

far l.SG went
'I went a long w a y '
(4) Wdomu -scie to zrobili?

at home 2.PL that made
'Did you make it at home?'
However, realization in absolute clause-initial position is barred, a property

shared with syntactic clitics in Polish (e.g., pronominal clitics, see Kupsc 2000),
which is standardly interpreted as an instance of the Tobler-Mussafia Law (cf.

Bahski 2000), a prosodic constramt that bans enclitics from absolute domain-
initial position.
(5) *s widzial tf kiqzk?

2.SG see this book
In postverbal position (i.e., attached to the participle), past tense agreement

markers display a good deal of interaction with lexical phonological rules,
namely, assignment of primary lexical stress, word final vowel raising, and yer
vocalization. However, in preverbal position, no systematic interactions can be
observed (Bahski 2000). Yer vocalization is a systematic vowel/zero alterna-
tion in Polish, argued by Booij and Rubach (1987) to be a cyclic lexical phono-
logical rule. Within the domain of the word, an underlying "yer" is realized as
[e], if followed by another yer, or else deleted. Booij and Rubach (1987) relate
the vowel/zero alternation observable with the past tense agreement markers to
this well-attested rule. Since the domain of application is the word, it follows
that vowel/zero alternation at the juncture between the past tense agreement
marker and the verbal host suggests that these forms combine in the lexicon.
(6) a. robtl
did.M.SG
'he did'
b. robile -m
did.M.SG l.SG
'I(masc.)did'
c. robila -m
did.F.SG l.SG
'I (fern.) did'
Another morphophonological rule that points in the same direction is rais-

ing of o to 6 (= [u]) in word final syllables before voiced consonants (Booij and
Rubach 1987). Since attachment of past tense agreement apparently blocks the
application of raising, Dogil (1987) concludes that these markers must already
be attached when this lexical phonological rule applies.
(7) a.ja-m mogl

I l.SG could
'I could'
80 BertholdCrysmann
b. ja moglem
I could.l.SG
'I could'
Finally, lexical stress in Polish regularly falls on the penultimate syllable of

the prosodic word. If a singular past tense agreement marker is attached to the
participle, lexical stress assignment to the penult takes the extra syllable result-
ing from yer vocalization into account.
(8) a. rob*
did.M.SG
'he did'
b. robil -em
did.M.SG l.SG
'I did'
For plural markers, there is some variation amongst speakers: stress placement
is either on the antepenult or the penultimate syllable, including the agreement
marker:
(9) a. robilr
did.M.PL
'they did'
b. robitt -smy
did.M.PL l.PL
'we did'
c. robili-smy
If we turn to preverbal realization of said markers, we find that none of the

above morphophonological effects can occur at the juncture between the float-
ing agreement marker and its phonological host (Bahski 2000): neither yer vo-
calization, nor stress shift can be observed, i
1. As discussed by Booij and Rubach (1987) and Kupsc and Tseng (2005), there is a
small set of hosts like, e.g.Jafc ' a s ' J z 'already', chociaz 'although', sam 'alone'
that do feature e -epenthesis when followed by a past tense marker. Although these
forms are considered archaic by Kupsc and Tseng (2005), an account of Polish past
tense agreement should nevertheless be able to provide an account of these forms: I
would therefore suggest that these forms might be analyzed as modal verbs which
(10) Yer vocalization:*

a. i. palc-a
fingcr.GEN
ii. palc-a -mis
fingcr.GEN 1/2.SG
b. i. palec
fingerACC
ii. *palece -mis
fingerACC 1/2.SG
Likewise, raising applies, as if the agreement marker were not there.
(11) Raising:
a. i. krowy
cows.NOM/ACC
n. * W =icie
cows.GEN 2.PL
b. i. krow
COWS.GEN
ii. Vcrow =scie
cows.GEN 2.PL
Failure to undergo an expected and otherwise fairly regular morpho-

phonological alternation constitutes evidence that, pre-verbally, these markers
do not morphophonologically integrate with their host. The only phonological
restrictions ("phonological friendliness") that do seem to hold between the
floating agreement marker and its preverbal host concern the host's final seg-
mental material, in particular sonority of final segments and complexity of the
coda. In contrast to Kupsc and Tseng (2005), who regard this as a morphopho-
nological idiosyncrasy, Bahski (2000) argues that the phonological selectivity
can be explained in entirely prosodic terms, drawing on the sonority hierarchy.
He argues further that the availability of phonologically less marked alternative
attachment sites accounts for the low acceptability observable with suboptimal
hosts. If we also consider further that non-local realization of agreement is a
subcategory for an umnflected participle, akin to the conditional and future tense
auxiliaries by and bedzie. This issue will be addressed in Section 3.4.
2. The vowel/zero alternation b e t w e e n ^ and palca suggests that palec is underly-
mgly yer-fmal. In contrast to verbal participles, attachment of the agreement marker
does not make the stem-final yer surface as [e].
82 BertholdCrysmann
Table 2. Conditional paradigm of widziec
Singular Plural
fern neut masc fem/neut
1 widzia-l-by-m widzia-l- - widzie-l-i- widzia-l-y-by-smy

a-by-m by-smy
2 widzia-l-by-s widzial-a- - widzie-l-i- widzia-l-y-by-scie
by-s by-scie
3 widzia-l-by widzia-l- widzia-l-o-by widzie-l-i-by widzia-l-y-by
a-by
probably a marked option by itself- although cross-lmgmstically attested, it is

not an option chosen by too many languages of the world - , unacceptability of
cliticization to unfriendly hosts may well be accounted for by having two
strikes against it: one prosodic, the other morphosyntactic.
1.2. The conditional auxiliary^
The Polish conditional marker by displays some striking parallelism to the past
tense agreement marker: first, just like the past tense, the conditional is ex-
pressed by a combination of the participial form of a verb (inflected for number
and gender) plus the auxiliary by, which is inflected for person and number. The
form of the person/number markers is identical to past tense markers.
Furthermore, the forms of the conditional marker by obey conditions on
placement similar to those regulating the distribution of the past tense agree-
ment marker: Postverbally, there is almost strict adjacency to the verb, the only
exception being intervention of the particle -no (Kupsc, see Borsley 1999:
fn. 12).
(12) Obejrzalno -bys ten film!

NO COND.2.SG this film
'You would see this film!'
(13) *Obejrzalno -s ten film!

NO 2. SG this film
Preverbally, attachment is promiscuous, again with a ban on clause-initial

position.
With respect to morphophonology, however, the conditional marker does

not display any of the expected properties of affixal attachment: forms oUy are
entirely stress-neutral, regardless of their host.
(14) a. robtl
did.M.SG
'he did'
b. robtl-by
did.M.SG-COND
'he would do'
c. *robil-by
did.M.SG-COND
(15) a. robilt
did.M.PL-COND
'they did'
b. robili-by
did.M.PL-COND
'they would do'
c. -robtli-by
Likewise, application of raising is entirely unaffected by the attachment of by
(16) a. mag
could.M.SG
'he could'
b. moglby
could.M.SGCOND
'he would be able to'
c. *moglby
could.M.SGCOND
Thus, I will follow Spencer (1991), Bahski (2000), and Kupsc and Tseng
(2005) in that morphophonological evidence points towards their status as syn-
tactic clitics. This difference in status is further corroborated by coordination
data (cf Kupsc and Tseng 2005; Bahski 2000): while wide scope over a coor-
dination of hosts is by-and-large impossible with past tense agreement attached
to a verbal host (participle or copula), conditional markers easily take wide
scope in this position.
84 BertholdCrysmann
(17) Poszedl -em r zobaczyl *(-em).

go.PAST l.SGand see.PAST.MASC l.SG
'I went and saw.'
(18) Bylr -sorer jest *(-escre).

be.PAST2.PLandbe.PRES2.PL
'You were and you are.'
(19) Wlqczyl -bym sobre radio r posluchal (-bym)

turn.on COND.l.SG SELF radio and listen COND.l.SG
muzykr.
music
'I would turn on the radio and listen to the music.'
Preverbally, both markers may take wide scope (Kupsc and Tseng 2005).
Another difference between past tense agreement and conditional markers
concerns the degree of interaction with pronominal clitic placement. As ob-
served by Kupsc (2000), Polish pronominal clitics either all precede or imme-
diately follow the verb. Forms of clitic -by are always realized to the left of the
pronominal clitics, regardless of whether by itself is realized in pre- or in post-
verbal position (Borsley 1999; Witkos 1997).
(20) Ty bys go wrdzraljutro.

you COND.2.SG3.SGseen tomorrow
'You would see him tomorrow.'
(21) ?*7> go bys wrdzraljutro.

you 3.SGCOND.2.SGseen tomorrow
(22) Ty wrdzralbys go jutro.

you seen COND.2.SG 3.SGtomorrow
(23) l*Ty go wrdzralbys jutro.

you 3.SG seen COND.2.SG tomorrow
Preverbal forms of the past tense agreement marker pattern with -by. Post-
verbal forms, however, show no interaction with pronominal clitic placement
(Witkos 1997; Borsley 1999).
(24) Ty -s go widzialwczoraj.
you 2.SG3.SG seen yesterday
'You saw Mm yesterday'
(25) ?*7> go -s wrdzralwczoraj.

you 3.SG2.SGseen yesterday
(26) Ty widziale-s go wczoraj.

you seen COND.2.SG 3.SGyesterday
It seems thus that the difference in lexical status suggested by morphopho-

nology between postverbal past tense agreement on the one side, and the
conditional marker and preverbal past tense agreement on the other, is also
reflected in terms of syntactic visibility.
1.3. Summary
To summarize the empirical observations made above, I conclude that the sta-
tus of Polish past tense agreement presents us with an analytical paradox: while
postverbal realization of this marker suggests affixal status - as supported by
their morphophonological properties, the strict adjacency requirement, the non-
interaction with pronominal clitic placement, and the failure to take wide scope
over a coordination of hosts - , preverbal realization, however, suggests syntac-
tic clitic status - as witnessed by promiscuous attachment and the lack of mor-
phophonological integration with the host. Nevertheless, pre- and postverbal
realizations need to be systematically related in order to account for the identity
of formatives and the unique marking of a verbal inflectional category. The
forms of the conditional marker by, however, are probably best analyzed as
syntactic clitics, regardless of position, since there is absolutely no evidence for
morphophonological integration with their host, the adjacency requirement is
not strict, they can take wide scope over a coordination of hosts, and they inter-
act with pronominal clitic placement. Still, the inflected forms of the conditional
marker should be related to the past tense agreement markers.
2. Previous analyses
Probably the first generative approaches that do full justice to the apparent lex-
ical properties of Polish floating agreement markers are the analyses by Dogil
86 BertholdCrysmann
(1987) and Booij and Rubach (1987). Based on the observation that the mor-
phophonology of these markers displays sinking parallelism to other lexical-
morphological processes, Booij and Rubach (1987) suggest that attachment of
the past tense agreement markers applies in the lexicon, regardless of the host.
Thus, both postverbal suffixal realization and preverbal realization are derived
by essentially the same morphological process. In order to rule out double real-
ization*, Booij and Rubach (1987: 36) invoke a syntactic filter that bans all
configurations in which two identical clitics surface. However, the way in which
this filter is specified clearly runs counter to the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis,
given that it makes full reference, in syntax, to sublexical structures. The model
of Booij and Rubach (1987) also displays some shortcoming on the empirical
level: as pointed out by Bahski (2000), a uniformly morphological theory of
Polish past tense agreement, such as Booij and Rubach's, cannot derive the
apparent lack of morphophonological effects with the great majority of non-
verbal hosts, as witnessed e.g. by stress assignment, word-final raising, and
absence of yer vocalization discussed above. It appears, thus, that the lexical
theory presented by Booij and Rubach (1987) overemphasizes the parallel-
ism observable with isolated lexicalized non-verbal hosts at the expense of a
wide range of open-class host categories that show a different phonological
pattern.
In his recent in-depth study of Polish clitic agreement, Bahski (2000) ob-
serves that the phonological behaviour of the past tense markers differs de-
pending on the host: while verbs and a handful of non-verbal hosts provide
evidence for a tight morphophonological integration, this is not the case for the
majority of non-verbal hosts. Instead of drawing a distinction between lexical
and post-lexical attachment, he suggests instead to differentiate between clitici-
zation at the X-level vs. integration at the level of XP It follows, then, that, in
Bahski's model, the phonology of Polish clitic agreement is uniformly associ-
ated with the level of post-syntactic phonology. Choice between X and XP
cliticization in Polish appears to be lexically governed. While Bahski's solution
might make sense in a framework, such as Distributed Morphology, where late
insertion of Vocabulary is assumed, it is pretty much incompatible with any
other current theory of grammar, which tend to employ a more standard notion
of the lexicon.
Probably the first study of this set of phenomena in the framework of HPSG
is Borsley (1999). In his paper, he focusses on the similarity in syntactic distri-
bution between the past tense agreement marker and the conditional marker
3. Booij and Rubach (1987) also present data from substandard variants exhibiting
double realization of the agreement markers.
and develops an essentially parallel analysis of these markers in terms of weak

auxiliaries. In order to capture the difference in syntactic mobility between pre-
verbal and postverbal realization, he suggests that in preverbal position, these
auxiliaries are syntactically independent signs, which take a participial syntac-
tic complement, whereas postverbally, these auxiliaries are regarded as part of
a morphologically derived verb-auxiliary complex. Syntactic realization in
postverbal position is ruled out by a suitable LP constraint. Uninflected third
person forms receive special attention: since an empty auxiliary analysis will
give rise to spurious ambiguity, he suggests instead that third person finite past
tense forms are derived from the non-finite participle by way of a unary conver-
sion rule. There are, however, a few problems with this account in the light of
the data discussed above: first, as pointed out by Kupsc and Tseng (2005), a
uniform treatment of past and conditional cannot do full justice to the apparent
differences in morphological status, as witnessed by morphophonological be-
haviour and the coordination facts. Second, deriving postverbal weak auxilia-
ries uniformly as a syntactically opaque daughter of a lexical compound cannot
model the observable difference in interaction with pronominal clitic place-
ment, which suggest that postverbal conditional markers must be syntactically
visible, in contrast to postverbal past tense agreement. Third, the morphological
analysis put forth in Borsley (1999) is inherently asymmetrical, postulating a
lexical incorporation analysis for the conditional and nonthird person past tense
auxiliaries on the one hand, and an analysis in terms of zero inflection on the
other. Finally, it is far from obvious how the weak auxiliary analysis of the past
tense agreement markers can be generalized to derive other inflected forms that
draw on the same set of markers, including the conditional marker and the pre-
sent (!) tense c o p u l a ^ . Identity of exponence across different paradigms
therefore favors an analysis of the past tense agreement marker as an inflec-
tional affix, realizing person and number specifications.
In a recent paper, Kupsc and Tseng (2005) have argued for a non-uniform
account of conditional auxiliaries and past tense agreement, according to which
the former are considered to be syntactic clitics, whereas the latter are analyzed
as morphologically derived agreement affixes. The authors, however, do not
Table 3. Present tense paradigm of jest
Singular Plural
~ jestem jestesmy
2 jestes jestescie
3 jest sq
88 BertholdCrysmann
assign a difference in status to preverbal and postverbal occurences of the past

tense agreement marker, but assume instead that the past tense agreement
marker always attaches to its surface host as an inflectional affix. In order to
relate the non-local realization of the agreement marker to the verbal inflec-
tional features they are an exponent of, they suggest a special feature percola-
tion mechanism using marker and trigger features. Essentially, the locally un-
inflected participle launches a trigger feature, inflection of a host for person/
number agreement launches a marking feature, and a unary clause-level schema
discharges both features under unification. In essence, their approach can be
regarded as a feature-based reincarnation of the syntactic filter suggested by
Booij and Rubach (1987).
Although I concur with Kupsc and Tseng (2005) in regarding postverbal
past tense agreement markers as suffixes directly attached to their hosts, ex-
tending this perspective to their preverbal counterparts raises several issues.
which I will briefly discuss: first, the feature percolation mechanism invoked
by the authors does not connect past tense agreement to any well-understood
subtheory of local or non-local phenomena in Polish or across languages.
Likewise, past tense agreement appears as an isolated agreement process
unrelated to other agreement processes in the language. Second, the syntactic
similarity between preverbal past tense agreement markers and conditional
auxiliaries remains unaccounted for. Third, and most importantly, Kupsc and
Tseng (2005) do not provide evidence that preverbal past tense agreement
markers show a similar degree of morphophonological integration with the host
as their postverbal counterparts: in contrast to postverbal agreement, none of
the expected lexical phonological rules may apply at the juncture between
preverbal agreement markers and their hosts, like, e.g., stress shift or yer vo-
calization. Conversely, the observable conditions on phonological friendliness
are probably best understood in prosodic terms (Bahski 2000). Finally, promis-
cuous attachment, i.e., the low degree of selection towards syntactic or mor-
phological properties of the host (Criterion A of Zwicky and Pullum 1983) does
not seem to support an analysis in terms of direct morphological attachment
either.
3. A coanalysis approach
In the analysis which I am going to propose I will try to synthesize the insights
gained by Bahski (2000), Borsley (1999), and Kupsc and Tseng (2005) and as-
sign the status of a syntactic clitic to the conditional marker regardless of posi-
tion, yet treat the past tense agreement marker as a morphosyntactic hybrid:
building on proposals by Kathol (1995) and Crysmann (2003), I suggest that

Polish past tense verbs can contribute more than one domain object to linear
domain structure, the level of representation relevant for word order in recent
versions of HPSG. As a result, morphological rules of exponence will uni-
formly introduce exponents of agreement on the verbal host, yet the mapping
of lexically introduced phonology to domain objects will permit the "affix"
phonology to float off. The analysis of preverbal markers as syntactically visi-
ble floating affix phonology will prove to capture, in a straightforward way, the
interaction with pronominal clitic placement, predict the lack of phonological
integration with prosodic hosts, and account for uniqueness of exponence. Fur-
thermore, this analysis not only connects the placement of floating past tense
agreement to the standard HPSG approach to Polish word order (Kupsc 2000),
but it also relates the phenomenon at hand to the strikingly similar case of float-
ing subject agreement in Udi (Crysmann 2000).
3.1. Morphology
As to the morphological status of the past tense markers -{e)m, -(e)s, -smy.
-sate, I follow Kupsc and Tseng (2005) and assume that they are best regarded
as exponents of person/number agreement rather than tense auxiliaries. This
view is supported by a variety of considerations: first, the forms used in the
conditional are identical to the ones used in the past, yet they do not select the
participial form of by. The very same holds for the present tense c o p u l a ^ .
Second, an analysis as tense auxiliaries would assign these forms the status of
sign, which would make the wrong prediction concerning the interpretation of
inflected forms of the present tense copula jest, which is clearly non-past.^
Third, zero marking of third person also favors an affixal treatment over a com-
pound analysis. I therefore suggest to represent the person/number markers as
an inventory of pure forms (exponents - not morphemes)^
4. Historically, the past tense markers are sard to derive from the cop^ jest 'to be'.
See Booij and Rubach (1987: 42) and references cited there.
5. The paradigms generated by the r e l a t i o n a l schemata given here are all finite para-
digms. As a consequence, we can localize the encoding of past tense with the con-
straint on /-forms given in the STEM dimension. Certainly, there is also a non-finite
use of the /-form in periphrastic tenses such as future or conditional. This non-finite
use may be licensed by a morphological schema of its own, which is simply the
identity function.
90 BertholdCrysmann
(27) pst-agr
PER NUM|
pst-lst pst-2nd pst-sg pst-pl
The forms are then selected by r e l a t i o n a l schemata: following previous

work on type-based realization* morphology (Koenig 1999; Riehemann 1998:
Crysmann 2003), I suggest to organize the realizational schemata into a two-
dimensional type hierarchy for affix and stem selection, where dimensions are
conjunctively connected. This means that the range of well-formed fully
resolved lexeme categories is obtained by combining subtypes from each
dimension under unification, here, the subtypes in the STEM-SELECTION
and AFFIXATION.
(28) stem
M( ) 0 list(pst-agr)
HD verb
AFFIXATION | STEM-SELECTION
[M(/... stem \" [M(/... stem

\1 [M(/... stem \1
HD VFOl IMl
"7 PH (jest)
-)] PH (by)
-)]
What is crucial for our analysis is that the relative order of stem and affix is
not fixed on the supertype, as indicated by the shuffle operator (o), an order-
independent operation for combining lists, which states that the M(ORPH) list
consists of the verbal stem and a (possibly empty) list of pst-agr affixes, in
any order. In other words, the supertype merely constrains list membership,
without actually restricting the order in which the members of the list may
occur. Ordinary order-sensitive list concatenation, by contrast, is expressed
by.
stem
M( ) O Ust(pst-agr)
HD verb
AFFIXATION STEM-SELECTION
PER NUM
Under the natural assumption that the domain of application for morphophono-
logical rules is the morphological structure, presence vs. absence of morphopho-
nological effects can be simply related to the configuration found at this level:
with suffixation, yer vocalization and stress shift will be triggered. With prefixation.
the local condition for rule application is simply not met. Likewise, raising will
be possible, if the stem is final, yet will be blocked by following affixal material.
The possibility for affixes to be positionally non-fixed is quite common
cross-linguistically: Morphologically conditioned positional alternation has
been attested for French and Italian pronominal affixes (Miller 1992; Mona-
chesi 1999), whereas morphosyntactically conditioned placement alternation
of affixes has been observed for German separable particle verbs (Kathol 1995),
European Portuguese pronominal affixes (Crysmann 2003; Luis and Spencer
2004), and Udi agreement (Harris 2000; Crysmann 2003).
3.2. Morphosyntactic mapping
Having establishedhow agreement formatives are introduced into morphological

structure, we can now proceed to the specification of the morphology-syntax
interface: as already mentioned above, the key to our analysis of morpho-
logically introduced, yet floating agreement markers is a natural extension of
Linearization HPSG (Kathol 1995; Reape 1994), namely the possibility for lex-
ical signs, just like phrasal signs, to introduce more than a single domain object,
92 BertholdCrysmann
an idea that has already been explored in the analysis of morphosyntactic para-
doxa in German (Kathol 1995), European Portuguese, Fox, and Udi (Crysmann
2000, 2003).
In order to preserve lexical integrity, morphological entities are not directly
accessible to syntactic manipulation. Rather, it is only the phonological contri-
bution of morphological entities that gets distributed over the lexically intro-
duced domain objects. Interaction between surface syntax and morphotactics is
limited to ordering: as guaranteed by the homomorphism constraints below, the
sequence of PHON values on DOM must correspond to the sequence of PHON
values in morphological structure.
(30)
const
DOM
(
PH hi 9 *J PH S
)]
PH El... S
M PH \h\ , ..., PH H
word < >
/
PH K Is ... s)\ha
I.e., in contrast to optimality-theoretic approaches, interaction between

morphological constraints and syntactic constraints is monotonic, embodying a
cooperative, rather than competitive view of the interface.
All we need to do now to account for the difference in syntactic transparency
between pre- and postverbal realizations of the agreement marker is to assume
that Polish past tense verbs align their stem phonology with the right-most do-
main object.
(31)
DOM list ( PH \B list
) 1
1 stem \
M PH ED ) O Ust(pst-agr)
(
\ verb
HD
1
As a result of the interaction between the morphologically variable position
of the agreement affix and stem alignment, we will obtain two different surface-
syntactic representations:
- a pre-stem position, which is syntactically transparent,

(32)
DOM I PH ( s \ , PH/widzian
- and a post-stem position, winch is syntactically opaque.
(33)
DOM I PH (widziales)
A sample derivation of floating agreement will thus look as follows:
(34)
DOM ( H
PH (i\
DOM ( U
SS ILI CAT | HD E LOC | CAT | HD H
SSE
The syntactic inseparability of the conditional auxiliary and the morpho-

logically attached agreement markers can straightforwardly be captured by
restricting the length of the lexical DOM list to 1, enforcing realization as an
inseparable suffix.
(35)
DOM list / PH [TJ list
) 1
/ stem \ A DOM( )
M P H ED > 0 Ust(pst-agr) \LJ/_
(
\ HD verb
1
94 BertholdCrysmann
Given that we analyze the conditional marker by, be it inflected or not, as a

weak auxiliary, or, in other words, a syntactic clitic, how then is the agreement
marking it bears related to the subject of the main verb participle? Following
Borsley (1999), I shall assume that by selects the main verb participle as its
complement. Along the lines of the standard HPSG treatment of auxiliaries
(Pollard and Sag 1994), by is analyzed as a raising verb, inheriting the unsatu-
rated subject valence from its verbal complement, as depicted by the lexical
entry for by given below. As a result of raising, the main verb's unsaturated
subject valence is locally accessible on the auxiliary's SUBJ list, where it can be
targetted by the realization^ schemata for person/number agreement.
(36) stem
PH
w HD
verb
AUX +
SUBJ E
SS L CAT
HD VFORM I
COMPS L CAT
SUBJ H
3.3. Clitic order
The final piece in our analysis of the data at hand concerns the syntactic place-
ment of clitics. I assume that clitic status in Polish is probably best defined
prosodically, e.g., in terms of prosodic extrametricality, an assumption that
will directly predict the effects of the Tobler-Mussafia Law (cf Section 1.1).
In the following, I will use the types nonclitic and clitic as mere short-cuts to
refer to domain objects whose PHON starts with a prosodic word boundary, or
not.
In order to model the restrictions on clitic placement observed above (see
Kupsc 2000 for a more in-depth study) a set of 3 LP constraints appears suffi-
cient to derive the basic pattern:
- Verbal clitics precede pronominal clitics.

(37)
DOM / ...
\
clitic
HD noun
clitic
HD verb... >]
/
- Clitics either all precede or follow the verb.
(38)
nonclitic
DOM / ... clitic
HD verb
clitic
)]
- Postverbal clitics must be verb-adjacent.
(39) nonclitic
DOM nonclitic clitic
HD verb
d v e n the constraint on verb adjacency for post-verbal clitics, formation of

a clitic cluster turns out to be a mere corollary. Thus, the patterns of placement
interaction between pronominal clitics on the one side and the conditional and
past tense agreement markers on the other will be derived as follows:
- Preverbal agreement marker must precede all other clitics.
(40)
a. r
clitic clitic nonclitic
nonclitic
DOM PH U) PH ^gO^ PH /widzial)
PH (tij
HD verb HD noun HD verb
b. clitic clitic nonclitic

nonclitic
DOM PH (so) PH U) PH /widzian
PH (ty)
HD noun HD verb HD verb
- Postverbal agreement marker may follow preverbal clitics.
(41) clitic nonclitic

nonclitic
DOM PH ^go^ PH /widziales)
PH (ty^
HD noun HD verb
96 BertholdCrysmann
Conditional by must always precede all other clitics.
(42)
a.
clitic clitic nonclitic
nonclitic
DOM PH (bys^ PH ^gO^ PH (widzial)
PH (iy}
HD verb HD noun HD verb
b. clitic clitic nonclitic

nonclitic
DOM PH ^gO^ PH (bys\ PH /widzialy
PH
<> HD noun HD verb HD verb
(43)
clitic nonclitic clitic
nonclitic
DOM / s PH ^go^ ) PH /widzial\ ) PH (bys\
PH <JtyJ) >
HD nown HD ver& HD verb
3.4. L e g a l i z e d non-verbal hosts
As pointed out at various points in our discussion above, there is a circumscribed

set of non-verbal hosts that pattern strikingly with postverbal attachment, as far
as the morphophonology is concerned. Most notably, these hosts give rise to
vowel/zero alternations, which have previously been analyzed as instances of
yer vocalization (Booij and Rubach 1987). Although the set of hosts displaying
such tight phonological integration is fairly limited and the forms are consid-
ered archaic by some authors (Kupsc and Tseng 2005), it is nevertheless a phe-
nomenon that needs to be addressed by any theory of Polish floating agreement
that claims for itself to be complete.
Given the parallelism in morphophonology, I shall assume that forms, such
wjakem ovjuzes, are indeed lexically derived, on a par with verb-clitic combi-
nations, which display an identical behaviour, as far as morphophonology is
concerned.
While it would be straightforward to invoke a theory like the one suggested
by Booij and Rubach (1987) or Kupsc and Tseng (2005) to take care of the
problem, it should be evident that this would lead to a solution which is quite
baroque. Worse, such a theory would face the same motivational problems as
the ones we have raised above against the account provided by Kupsc and
Tseng (2005).
A first step to incorporate the treatment of lexicalized non-verbal hosts, in
volves an extension of the realization* schemata, licensing inflection of these
particles with person/number agreement markers. Thus, in addition to partici
ples and the auxiliary by and c o p u l a ^ , we shall include particles such as
jak and Jut into the set of stems that can serve as lexical hosts for the person/
number markers under discussion. In essence, what I am suggesting here is that
these particles function as modal auxiliaries, adopting a type-raising approach
akin to Kim and Sag (1996).
In order to license inflection of these particles, all we need to do is to add
appropriate morphological schemata to the STEM-SELECTION dimension, as
shown below for the particle./** 'already'. Intersection of this schema with the
realizations schemata for person/number agreement will provide the full set of
inflected forms of the particle. Similarly to auxiliary by, these inflected parti
cles subcategonze for a non-finite participle ([VFORM I\), thereby ruling out
double inflection on both the particle and the verb. Still analogous to auxiliary
by, the type-raised version of the particles are raising verbs, making the main
verb's subject valence locally accessible for the inflectional schemata (indi
cated by boxed "1"). Type-raising from a modifier-head relationship to a head-
complement one is performed by means of inheritance of the stem's MOD value
onto the inflected particle's COMPS list (boxed "2").
(44)
DOM
verb
HD
AUX +
SS | L | CAT SUBJ 1
COMPS < \2\ L | CAT | HD | VFORM l
[stem
PH ^juz^
HD verb
M L | CAT
HD MOD 2
SUBJ 1
SS L | CAT
SUBJ ()
COMPS ()
98 BertholdCrysmann
Thus, by adopting aperspective of inflected particles as lexically type-raised

auxiliaries we can integrate these archaic and isolated forms into our general
theory of Polish floating agreement. Furthermore, the representation of the
type-raising rule as l e g a l i z e d schemata straightforwardly accounts for the iso-
lated, l e g a l i z e d nature of the phenomenon. Finally, since agreement markers
and host are combined already at the level of morphology, we can model the
fact that these inflected particles are subject to morphophonological rules such
as yer vocalization.
4. Conclusion
In the present paper, I have argued that the syntax and morphology of "floating"
agreement markers in Polish can receive a unified treatment under the assump-
tion that they are uniformly introduced as agreement affixes on the verb. Mor-
phological introduction as exponents of person/number agreement naturally
accounts for the paradigm-like properties, including zero exponence and cross-
paradigm parallelism. An analysis as morphologically introduced affixes also
relates syntactic opacity and morphophonological properties, and derives the
lexical-phonological effects (and lack thereof) by reference to the domain of
application: morphological structure. The adoption of a lexically-controlled co-
analysis approach has proven to reconcile the affixal properties of postverbal
markers with the syntactic mobility of their preverbal counterparts, capturing
uniformity of markers and uniqueness of exponence. The specific nature of the
morphology-syntax interface in terms of multiple lexically introduced domain
objects aligns the treatment of floating "affixes" with the general approach to
Polish word order (Kupsc 2000). Finally, the account presented here for Polish
floating affixes is highly reminiscent to the analysis of similar phenomena in
Udi (Crysmann 2000, 2003).
References
Bansk^Rotr
2000 Morphological and prosodic analysis of auxiliary clitics in Polish and
English. P h D . thesrs, Umwersytet Warszawskr
Booij.Geert.andJerzyRubaoh
1987 Postcychc vs postlexrcal rules in lexical phonology. Linguistic Inquiry
18: 1-44.
Borsley, Robert D.
1999 Weak auxiliaries, complex verbs and inflected complementizers in Polish.
In Slavic in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Robert D. Borsley
and Adam Przepiorkowski, (eds.), 29-59. (Studies in Constraint-Based

Lex 1 cal 1 sm2.) Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Borsley, Robert, and Maria-Luisa Rivero
1994 Clitic auxiliaries and incorporation in Polish. Natural Langiuage and
Linguistic Theory 12: 373-422.
CrysmannBerthold
2000 On the placement and morphology of Udi subject agreement. Paper pre-
sented at 7th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure
Grammar, Berkeley.
CrysmannBerthold
2003 Constraint-based Coanalysis: Portuguese Cliticisation and Morphology-
Syntax Interaction in HPSG. (Saarbrucken Dissertations in Computa-
tional Linguistics and Language Technology.) Saarbrucken: Computa-
tional Linguistics, Saarland University and DFKI LT Lab.
CrysmannBerthold
2006 Floating affixes in Polish. In The Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stefan Muller
(ed.), 123-139. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Dogil,Grzegorz
1987 Lexical phonology and floating inflection in Polish. Phonologica 5:
39-47.
Harris, Alice C.
2000 Where in the word is the Udi clitic? Language 76: 593-616.
Kathol, Andreas
1995 Linearization-based German syntax. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University.
Kim, Jong-Bok, and Ivan Sag
1996 French and English negation: A lexicahst alternative to head movement.
Ms., Stanford University.
Koemg, Jean-Pierre
1999 Lexical Relations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Kupsc,Anna
2000 An HPSG grammar of Polish clitics. Ph.D. thesis, Polish Academy of
Sciences and Umversitede Pans 7.
Kupsc, Anna, and Jesse Tseng
2005 A new HPSG approach to Polish auxiliary constructions. In The Proceed-
ings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Struc-
tureGrammar, StefanMuller(ed.),253-273. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Luis, Ana, and Andrew Spencer
2004 A paradigm function account of 'mesochsis' in European Portuguese.
Yearbook of Morphology 177-228.
Miller, Philip
1992 Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. (Outstanding
Dissertations in Linguistics.) New York: Garland.
Monachesi,Paola
1999 A Lexical Approach to Italian Cliticization. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
100 BertholdCrysmann

1994 Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago University Press.
Reape,Mike
1994 Domain union and word order variation in German. In German in Head-
Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, John Nerbonne, Klaus Netter, and
Carl Pollard, (eds.), 151-197. (CSLI Lecture Notes 46.) Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Riehemann, Susanne
1998 Type-based derivational morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic
Linguistics 2:49-77.
Spencer, Andrew
1991 Morphological Theory. An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative
Grammar. (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 2.) Oxford: Blackwell.
Witkos,Jacek
1997 Polish inflectional auxiliaries revisited. Paper presented at the 30th
Poznan Linguistic Meeting, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan.
Zwicky, Arnold M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum
1983 Chticization vs. inflection: English*'/. Linguistics 59: 502-513.
Optimal specifications: On case marking in Polish*
BerndWiese
1. Introduction
Polish noun inflection shows paradigms of case forms that combine features of
the flexive type and of the agglutinative type of morphological formations. As
I shall argue in Section 2 (which presents relevant data), this mixture provides
a particular challenge for any approach that takes seriously the morphological
forms (and their form-related properties) used in case marking. Section 3 starts
from some well-known observations on differential case marking and case syn-
cretism that turn out to be crucial when the interplay of gender and case is to be
explained. Section 4 provides a detailed analysis of the inflectional system of
Polish nouns that avoids the rampant multiplication of paradigms and declen-
sions found so often in Polish grammars. On the basis of multi-level classifica-
tion systems for gender and case that are supported by internal and external
evidence, a limited number of noun endings are identified, which, for the most
part, are given unambiguous categonal specifications and conditions of appli-
cation that predict their distribution over inflectional forms or 'cells' of para-
digms. Section 5 adds a short conclusion, i
* This paper was presented at the Workshop on Theoretical Morphology (WoTM) 1.

June 14, 2005, University Leipzig, and at the 28 Jahrestagung der Deutschen
Gesellschaft fur Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS), February 22-24, 2006, University
Bielefeld; I would hke to thank the audiences for stimulating feedback. The
study presented is part of the project Grammatik des Deutschen im europaischen
Vergleich (principal investigator Gisela Zifonun) at the Institut fur Deutsche
Sprache (IDS), Mannheim, Germany. I am most grateful to the members of the
project group for many productive discussions. Special thanks to Marek Konopka
(IDS) for help with the Polish data.
1. The following abbreviations will be used: m. (masculine), f (feminine), n. (neuter):
amm. (animate), man. (inanimate); pers. (personal), impers. (impersonal), hon
(honorific); sg. (singular), pi. (plural); nom. (nominative), voc. (vocative), gen.
(genitive), dat. (dative), ace. (accusative), abl. (ablative), loc. (locative), ins. (instru-
mental); dir. (direct), obi. (oblique); vel. (velar).
102 BerndWiese
Table 1. Case forms in Turkish
nom. ace. gen. dat. loc. abl.

singular ev evi evin eve evde evden
plural evler evleri evlerin evlere evlerde evlerden
EV ('house')
2. Agglutination vs. inflection
Case forms may be classified by two different types of criteria, viz. according
to form and function, respectively (Comne 1986): (i) case forms are distin-
guished and are classified in terms of the occurrence or non-occurrence of per-
tinent morphological markers (or 'formatives' or 'exponents'), (ii) case forms
are distinguished and are classified in terms of their syntactic potential as in
traditional approaches.
In agglutinative systems, formal and functional classifications may largely
coincide as may be exemplified from Turkish. By standard analyses, Turkish
(cf. Table 1) possesses six cases.
The nominative (of the singular) exhibits the bare base form. As for the re-
maining cases, there are special endings each marking one and only one case.
Depending on stem types, endings may show variants (primarily due to rules of
vowel harmony) but variation is automatic and morphologically irrelevant. As
usual, personal pronouns may show some irregularities. Otherwise, case suf-
fixes remain unaltered and apply to arbitrary nouns both in the singular and the
plural. Thus, Turkish case suffixes conform to the expectations raised by a clas-
sical morphemic model: here inflection realizes the ideal of a biunique relation
between form and function favored by so many a linguistic theory.
Flexive (or 'fusional') systems do not comply with this ideal as shown by
paradigms of the Latin standard declensions (see Table 2 based on Risch 1977:
the macron indicates vowel length). Again, case marking is realized by adding
endings to stems. However, division of stems and endings is not trivial and end-
ings are bound to numbers. Different from Turkish, the relation between form
and function is non-unique in both directions. For instance, there are five dis-
tinct endings available for the genitive singular. What is more, these endings
cannot be regarded as mere variants of a common basic pattern on account of
their manifest formal dissimilarity. At the same time, one and the same ending
may occur in apparently unrelated paradigmatic positions. Consider the ending
-I It appears in the gen.sg., the abl.sg., the dat.sg., and the nom.pl. Obviously.
the classical concept of morpheme where morphemes are conceived of as
Optimal specifications 103
Table 2. Latin declensions

m./f. n.
singular nom. voc. ace. abl. dat. gen. nom./voc./acc.
a-decl. capra capra capram capra caprae caprae
o-decl. lupus lupe lupum lupo lupo lupi iugum
r'-decl. ignis ignis ignem igm igni ignis mare
C-decl. rex rex rigem rige rig! rigis nomen
w-decl. ictus ictus ictum ictii ictuT ictiis genu
e-decl. dies dies diem dii diei diei
plural nomVvoc ace. abL/dat. gen. nom./voc./acc.
a-decl. caprae caprds capris caprdrum
o-decl. lupi lupos lupis luporum iuga
i-decl. ignis ignis ignibus ignium maria
C-decl. regis regis rigibus rigum nomina
w-decl. ictus ictiis ictibus ictuum genua
e-decl. dies dies diibus dierum
CAPRA ('goat'), LUPUS ('wolf), IGNIS ('fire'), REX ('king'), ICTUS ('blow'),
DIES ('day'); IUGUM ('yoke'), MARE ('sea'), NOMEN ('name'), GENU ('knee')
"roots and affixes winch serve as Saussurean signs" (Spencer 2006: 105) is not
suited well to such a system.
Wilkin the traditional word-and-paradigm model, there are two moves to be
made in reaction. First, the inventory of noun lexemes is divided into classes of
items which fit into a common pattern of building inflectional forms, called
declensions (a-declension, o-declension, etc.). For each declension a separate
set of case endings is established. (Neuter nouns deviate from the general sets
of endings in the nominative, vocative and accusative. The remaining forms of
neuters follow the pattern of masculines. They have not been listed in Table 2
for this reason.)
The various sets of endings differ not only with respect to the make-up of
forms, and different paradigms diverge not only by employing distinct sets of
endings. Rather they also exhibit different patterns of syncretism, available
endings being distributed differently over the range of relevant syntactic func-
tions. For example, lexemes of the o-declension such as LUPUS show distinct
forms in the nominative and the vocative, lupus and lupe, respectively. In the
remaining declensions (and in the plural) this distinction is absent. In the plural.
there are no distinct forms for ablative and dative. With neuters, nominative:
vocative and accusative always coincide in the singular and in the plural as
well.
104 BerndWiese
From a syntactic point of view, this kind of variation between paradigmatic

patterns may appear unfavorable. If maximally simple rules of agreement and
government are desired, paradigms would be welcome that provide matching
sets of case forms, hence, identical arrays of cells. For this to be achieved, all
case distinctions that are formally drawn in some (sub-) paradigm are posited
for all of the (sub-) paradigms (Lyons 1968: 293). This is the second move,
crucial for the traditional model. Thus, as a matter of principle, formal differ-
ences in the structure of paradigms are made to disappear. While this contrib-
utes to the strength of the word-and-paradigm approach, it also constitutes a
severe limitation of the model.
Differences between patterns of syncretism (or patterns of differentiation) might
well be arbitrary from a synchronic point of view. Often enough, however, there
are systematic aspects that should not be neglected in a proper treatment of inflec-
tion. For instance, the luxury of allowing for specialized vocative forms seems to
be particularly appropriate for the o-declension, that is, the declension that desig-
nations of (male) persons are preferably put into. The fact that there are less case
distinctions in the plural than m the singular obeys a widely observed pattern, too.
Turning to Polish, I shall consider first a representative set of singular para-
digms of non-feminines, that is, of masculine and neuter nouns. The endings
involved are displayed in Table 3. Notation of endings is orthographic using
main variants in case of variation. The inventory of inflectional forms is as-
sumed as given in Orzechowska (1999) and Swan (2002). These grammars also
provide details and additional minor paradigms that are beyond the present
discussion. For analyses of syncretisms in Polish noun inflection see Laskowski
(1989), Menzel (2000), and Gunkel (2003).
Noun stems may be 'hard' or 'soft'. Hard stems show off-sets in consonants
from the basic (non-palatalized, non-affncated) sets of labials, dentals and
Table 3. Polish noun endings in the singular: masculines and neuters

nom. 11 voc. 11 ace. loc. dat. | gen. | ins.
STUDENI ,m.
CUKIER, m.
BIOLOG, m.
BANK, m.
BIURO, n.
TANGO, n.
POLE, a.
STUDENT ('student'), CUKIER ('sugar'), BIOLOG ('biologist'), BANK ('bank'),

BIURO ('office'), TANGO ('tango'), POLE ('field')
velars or m M or /w/ (orthographically, m<p bfw m>,<t d s z n>, <k g ch>.

<r> or </>). Otherwxse stems are soft.* Remarkably, for some inflectional end-
ings application depends on a stem alternation known as softening, i.e., a
change from a hard stem alternant to a soft one. As usual this is indicated by
putting a prime-sign (figuring as a 'soft sign') before the name of the ending (as
in: '-e); cf studencie (< student + '-e), voc./loc.sg. of STUDENT. (For details see
reference grammars; cf. also Cameron-Faulkner and Carstairs-McCarthy 2000.
Stem alternations, which may be due to consonant or vowel shifts, will not be
discussed in this paper.) To start with, it may be observed that the structure of
the nominal inflectional system of Polish taken as a whole resembles the Latin
one, as might be expected, but there are seven cases, not six. Again, case-
number-marking is cumulative and realized (primarily) by endings. Some
familiar patterns of formal (non-)differentiation also reappear. For instance.
as in related languages, neuters do not distinguish nominative, vocative and
accusative. It may be noted here that, in the singular, masculines of the type
POETA (base form in -a) are inflected like the corresponding feminines.
Considering the form-function-relationship, we find non-unique relations in
both directions. The ending -u provides the most noteworthy example. Within
the seven exemplary paradigms shown in Table 3 this ending does not appear
in the first paradigm. It appears in the genitive in the second paradigm; in the
vocative and locative in the third paradigm; in the vocative, locative and geni-
tive in the fourth paradigm; in the dative in the fifth paradigm; in the locative
and dative in the sixth paradigm and in the seventh paradigm. Again, this dis-
tribution, arbitrary as it seems, does not fit well into a morphemic model. No
particular problems seem to arise in a word-and-paradigm model on the Latin
pattern: what one would need to do is establish seven declensions that differ
with respect to the sets of endings employed. However, it should be observed
that just about all endings appear in more than one declension. As a limit, in a
particular case (here: the instrumental) all non-feminine nouns may share a
common ending that is specific to this case. The same observation applies to the
2. Consonants that figure as off-sets of hard and soft stems may be ^^functionally
hard and soft, respectively. Functionally hard consonants, e.g., /s/ and /z/, are also
phonetically hard. Phonetically soft consonants (i.e., palatalized and palatal conso-
nants) are also functionally soft, e.g., Isl and /*/. This group includes (in ortho-
graphical notation): <pi bifi wi mi>, <ki gi chi>, <c/ci dz/dzi s/si z/zi h/ni> and </>.
However, the phonetic and the functional distinction are not co-extensive as there
are also phonetically hard consonants that are functionally soft, e.g., /J7 and / 3 /. This
group includes (in orthographical notation): <c dz cz dz sz rz/z>. (The treatment of
/U (</>), which is functionally soft, differs in the literature.) In the text of this paper
'soft' and 'hard' refer exclusively to functional notions.
106 BerndWiese
Table 4. Polish noun endings in the singular: femmmes

| nom. 11 voc. 11 ace. loc. dat. | gen. ins.
LAMPA, f.
ZffiMIA, f.
GOSPODYNI, f.
NOC, f.
LAMPA ('lamp'), ZffiMIA ('land, earth'),

GOSPODYNI ('landlady, hostess, housewife'), NOC ('night')
feminine, winch possesses its own invariant ending for the instrumental. Table
4 displays four major feminine paradigms. For the most part, feminine endings
differ from non-feminine ones. The four exemplary feminine singular declen-
sions, however, diverge only occasionally Here, in distinct paradigms, endings
reappear with partly overlapping distributions. Note that the ending -/ is ren-
dered orthographically as </> or <y> according to allophonic variation, cf.
e.g., the forms nocy (< noc + -/) of NOC or lampy (< lamp + -/) of LAMPA vsi
gOÔ^/ofGOSPODYM.3
Table 5 presents a representative set of plural paradigms. As in the non-
feminine singular and in the feminine singular, in the plural, too, there is an
invariant instrumental ending that is used in all regular paradigms (-ami, with
an exceptional variant -mi). The same holds for the locative and the dative.
Neglecting case-number-cumulation, these endings approach the Turkish pat-
tern to a considerable degree: here, for one function (i.e., case-number combi-
nation) there is one and only one ending, which in its turn is restricted to just
this function.
The existence of competing case endings allows for a multiplicity of para-
digms. This is in particular so if alternatives multiply each other's effects. In
plural paradigms, there are instances of each and every combination of the
three standard nominative/vocative/accusative formations (in -,, -e, and -a) and
of the three genitive formations (in -6w, in -/, endingless). Thus nine types can
be distinguished in addition to those that exhibit the special masculine endings
4 and -owie in the nominative (and vocative) plural. Moreover, the overall
number of declensions is further increased if combinations of singular and
3. <y> represents [i], which appears after phonetically hard consonants such as /S/
(<C>), while <i> represents [i], which appears elsewhere. Note that Ikl and /g/
'automatically' soften before -i (Swan 2002: 15) and require, therefore, [i] (ortho-
graphically <i> as in corki, gen.sg. of CORKA, 'daughter'). The same applies to /l/.
Stem-final Ikl and /g/ also soften before -em (hence biologiem, bankiem, tangiem.
mS.Sg. Of BIOLOG/BANK/TANGO).
Table 5. Polish noun endings in the plural

nom./voc. ace. loc. dat. gen. ins.
GENERAL, m. owie -ow -ach -om -ow -ami
STUDENT, m. '-i -ow -ach -om -ow -ami
CUKIER, m. -i -i -ach -om -ow -ami
MYSZ, f. -i -i -ach -om -i -ami
LAMPA, f. -i -i -ach -om - -ami
PLAC, m. -e -e -ach -om -ow -ami
NOC, f. -e -e -ach -om -i -ami
ZIEMIA, f. -e -e -ach -om - -ami
MUZEUM, n. -a -a -ach -om -ow -ami
POPOLUDNIE, n. -a -a -ach -om -i -ami
BR7RO, n. -a -a -ach -om - -ami
GENERAL ('general, mil.'), STUDENT ('student'), CUKIER ('sugar'), MYSZ ('mouse'),

LAMP ('lamp'), PLAC ('[town] square'), NOC ('night'), ZIEMIA ('land, earth'),
MUZEUM ('museum'), POPOLUDNIE ('afternoon'), BIURO ('office')
plural paradigms are considered, these being not in biunique correspondence.

All in all, Orzechowska (1999) assumes about 50 declensions.
Throughout noun paradigms, there is massive overlap. There are consi-
derable identities in the make-up of inflectional forms between different para-
digms, and the relevant endings may be even identical from a functional point
of view.* Thus it is reconfirmed that, in this system, most individual endings
are not tied to a particular declension or paradigm. Consequently, there are no
'sets of endings' competing en bloc with other sets of endings (as in Latin).
To a degree, the very notion of declension is, then, undermined in such a
system. Instead of declension-specific sets of endings there are three sub-
inventones that supply paradigms with endings, viz. (i) singular endings of
non-feminines, (ii) singular endings of feminines, and (iii) plural endings.
Paradigms are mainly distinguished by differences of choice between the
items they select from these three subinventones. In sum, what we encounter
in Polish noun inflection is neither a pure agglutinative system following the
Turkish model nor a system of declensions according to the Latin pattern.
4. Similar observations can be made wrth respect to other Slavonic languages. See.
e.g., Miller (2004) on Russian, who emphasizes strongly the necessity to take care
of both intra- and mterparadigmatic identities of form. Likewise, Baerman, Brown.
and Corbett (2005: Sec. 5.4, also on Russian) point out the inadequacy of traditional
accounts that treat paradigms as 'monolithic units'.
108 BerndWiese
Polish noun inflection holds a middle position between morpheme-centered

and paradigm-centered morphology.
3. Differential case marking and case syncretism
As in Latin, distinctions of case are sometimes marked on case forms in Polish.

sometimes they are not. The distinction of nominative and accusative is a case
in point. In languages that have it, this distinction is, as a rule, not always made
formally explicit. In particular, direct objects may carry a pertinent morpho-
logical marking only under restricted conditions, a phenomenon termed differ-
ential object marking in Bossong (1985).
Even Turkish, in spite of its nearly perfect biunique relation between case
forms and case functions, exhibits such an asymmetry. Direct objects take the
accusative if a specific or definite reading is intended, as in evi ('the house') or
bir eVJ ('a house [specific]'). Otherwise the nominative (or, more appropriately
put, the unmarked base form) usually takes over as in bir ev ('a house
[non-specific]'), see Kornfilt (1997: Ch. 2.1.1).
Similar procedures are adhered to in many languages. Markers appear when
direct objects are to be distinguished that exhibit properties typically indicative
of subjecthood otherwise (Lyons 1968: 294). This is true in particular if refer-
ence is made to animate beings (humans, in particular) or if the intended read-
ing is specific or definite. Apparently, with other nominals used as direct
objects, formal markings are more readily dispensable: if such nominals
fill the object role, this agrees with expectations. In Latin, differential object
marking separates genders. Neuter nouns never distinguish nominative and
accusative, and, of course, neuters usually denote inanimates. As traditional
treatments explain, a nominative-accusative distinction was not established
in a class for which non-admittance of animate members was definitional.
It is true that the nominative-accusative distinction, if marked, is not im-
mune to fall victim to phonological erosion. However, it has been observed that
in such cases various compensating strategies of repair may take effect if the
need arises. In Latin (Table 2), it is exactly in the (masculine) o-declension and,
subsequently following suit, also in the a-declension that a coincidence of nom-
inative and accusative plural (expected by sound laws) has been avoided. The
conspicuously deviant pattern of nominative formation (lupT, caprae) has been
taken over from the pronominal declension (Brugmann 1904: 390, 479).
When formal markers are introduced or reintroduced that help tell direct
objects from subjects, a path frequently taken is the adoption of morphological
markers that are already in use for marking of objects. After the break-up of the
Latin case system, grammaticalized prepositions came into use as markers

for syntactic relations. In Spanish, and similarly in other Romance languages.
article-noun-groups (but not personal pronouns) normally remain unmarked as
direct objects whereas the preposition a serves as a marker for indirect objects
(as in Day el libra a Juan, '(I) give the book to Juan'). However, in Spanish,
this type of marking, which is primarily of a 'dative' nature, is also used to flag
direct objects in case these serve for specific or definite reference to humans (as
in Veo a Juan, '(I) see Juan', vs. Veo el libra, '(I) see the book'). Thus, the
formal differentiation of subjects and direct objects has been partly restored
(for details see historical grammars, e.g., Hanssen 1910: 227, and, from a
more theoretical point of view, Meillet 1921).
In Slavonic, the nominative-accusative distinction had been lost in various
paradigms, including the singular of the major declension type of masculine
nouns. But this distinction has been renewed though not unvaryingly, rather, as
might be expected, to different degrees (Thomson 1909/12; for details see
Laskowski 1986). First and foremost, the new accusative formations apply to
humans, then also to animate beings in general. The path taken to reestablish
the distinction resembles the one adopted in Spanish: the missing formal
marking of the accusative was taken over from another objective case, viz., in
Slavonic, the genitive. Polish inanimate masculine nouns do not possess special
forms for the accusative. As in the nominative, the base form applies; cf. dam,
nom.-acc.sg. of DOM ('house') in Mam ladny dam, '(I) have (a) nice house':
However, with designations of animates (except a-base nouns) it is the form
otherwise used as agenitive that applies in the accusative, cf. sionia, accgen.sg.
of SLON ('elephant') in Widze duzego sionia, '(I) see (a) big elephant'.
This relation of substitution (which may be accounted for by a 'rule of re-
ferral') is encountered in the accusative masculine in general, i.e., it is not re-
stricted to nouns. Agreeing items such as adjectives are subject to this rule as
well. When used in construction with animate masculines (in the singular), they
change to the genitive form wherever an accusative is required, as the examples
show; cf. ladny, nom.-acc. of LADNY ('nice') vs. duzego, acc.-gen. of DUZY
('big'). With regard to this rule of agreement, a subclassification of the mascu-
line gender into so-called subgenders, viz. inanimate masculines ('m.inan.')
and animate masculines ('m.anim.'), has to be acknowledged in Polish (Meillet
1921: 208, "sous-genre"). These subgenders are true grammatical categories.
Their extension does not coincide exactly with the corresponding semantic
classes that lend them their names. What is, in semantic terms, inanimate may
well fall into the class of animate masculine nouns grammatically.
It should be stressed that the Polish (and Slavonic) rule of acc-gen.-referral
does not present us with a case of a locally restricted adoption of markers
110 BerndWiese
Table 6. Polish system of genders

nouns
I l I
non-f. f.
I i i
m. n.
I i I
m.anim. m.inan.
L i
m.pers. m.impers.
singular + +
plural +
acc.-gen.-referral: + (applicable), (non-applicable)
(as exemplified by the special nommative plural formations in Latin re-

ferred to above). Rather, it applies to pronouns, numerals, adjectives and
nouns in both singular and plural, which may exhibit quite different inflec-
tional material. Whatever the relevant genitive form may look like and how-
ever it may be formed, it is taken over into the accusative if the conditions
for applying the rule are fulfilled. With personal pronouns it even extends to
inanimates.
The overall gender system of Polish may be set up as in Table 6; cf Trubetz-
koy (1934: 8) and Jakobson (1960) on Russian. In this system, a primary clas-
sification takes care of the distinction between non-feminine nouns and femi-
nine nouns. The former class subdivides into two, masculine and neuter. Among
masculines, animates and inanimates have to be distinguished. Finally, for
Polish, a further subdivision is needed that distinguishes two subclasses of ani-
mate masculines: personal, viz. designations of male persons, and impersonal.
This further subclassification is needed since it is only in the singular that the
rule of acc,gen,referral holds for all of the animate masculines. By contrast, in
the plural it is restricted to personal masculines.
As remarked by Laskowski (1989: 220), the homonymy of accusative and
genitive forms, which is brought about due to differential object marking, is, as
it were, "communicatively costless", the two readings being readily distin-
guished in context. Actually, noun forms of the two cases may indeed stand in
opposition when used as a non-partitive or a partitive direct object of a verb like
KUPIC ('buy') as in kupii cukier vs. kupii cukru ('to buy sugar/some sugar'). Of
course, only inanimate nouns are likely to occur in the singular partitive con-
struction. But then, these nouns do not exhibit the acc-gen.-homonymy as they
are outside the scope of the acc.-gen.-rule.
Another rule of referral is required to deal with vocative forms. In general.

vocatives and nominatives may coincide (as, e.g., in most Latin declensions).
especially in the plural of all genders and in the singular of neuters. In Polish, a
distinction is called for only in the singular of masculines and of feminines.
However, as it happens, part of the feminine nouns and most of the masculine
nouns lack special endings for vocative marking. Again, as in the case of
marked accusative forms that are missing, forms of another case stand in, here:
locative forms.5 Locative forms that substitute for vocatives in their turn may
show various suffixes, viz. '-e, -u (for masculines) and -/ (for feminines). This
fact points to a systematic relation that is not bound to individual endings
(Johnston 1997: 62) but may be accounted for by a rule of referral, such rules
being blind, as it were, with respect to the make-up of substitutes (as is the rule
ofacc,gen,referral).
4. Functions of Polish case endings
4.1. A two-level case system
By the above considerations, the coincidence of nominative, vocative and ac-

cusative forms of the neuter in Polish (and related languages) would not appear
to be due to 'arbitrary' homonymy Assume, then, that what we are dealing
with in such cases are in fact unitary forms, not sets of homonyms. If so, what
should a proper treatment of such forms look like?
From a morphological point of view, case systems may be regarded as sys-
tems of classifications of forms of words. Polish has seven cases, thus, seven
classes of case forms. On a most simple (and traditional) approach these classes
would be given by a single classification on the basic set, i.e., by a 'flat' clas-
sification system. However, Trubetzkoy (1934), looking at Russian, set up a
hierarchical system that starts from a primary division into two superordi-
nate categories that he termed direct and oblique. Within these superordinate
5. Reference grammars make use of a mechanism of referral when slots in paradigms

are filled not by forms but by pointers such as '= loc.'. The possibility of a rule of
voc.-loc.-referral for Polish is also considered in Cameron-Faulkner and Carstairs-
McCarthy (2000: 825 n. 10). (Apart from -base nouns like POETA, masculine voca-
tive forms that differ from locative forms are restricted to a small group of nouns
ending in ec as, e.g., OJCIEC, 'father', cf ojcu, loc.sg., vs. ojcze, voc.sg., with an
anomalous consonant shift c . cz. In addition there are isolated cases such as PAN,
olpanu, loc.sg., vs. panie, voc.sg.)
112 BerndWiese
Table?. A two-level case system

caseforms
direct oblique
nom. voc. ace. loc. dat. gen. ins.
categories, traditional cases are identified as subcategories. Trubetzkoy's pro-

posal may be adapted for Polish as shown in Table 7.
If we assume such a hierarchical case system, the n o m . - v o c a c c f o r m s of
neuters referred to above may be classified plainly as direct case forms, and
they may thus be given a non-ambiguous characterization (cf also Williams
1994). Trubetzkoy's primary division, later on approved by Jakobson (1958).
certainly plays a major role in a multitude of languages as may be gathered
from the literature, and it fits into a general typology of syncretisms that has
been elaborated in Baerman, Brown and Corbett (2005) and related publica-
tions on the basis of a representative sample of languages. As for Slavonic
grammars, it is well established.
4.2. Singular endings of non-feminines
While the quest for a hierarchical case system receives support from syncretism
of direct cases, the gain is even higher if we turn to the oblique domain. Con-
sider once more the endings of oblique cases in the singular of non-feminines.
In Polish, there are five of them. Each of these endings is associated with a
particular case except for the ending -u, which exhibits a seemingly arbitrary
distribution. The ending '-e appears in the locative, -owi in the dative, -a in the
genitive, and -em is an instrumental ending. It may be said that these endings
specialize in a single case each. The ending -u appears in various oblique cases.
Consequently, -u may be characterized provisionally as an unspecific (or
'plain') oblique ending. This can be done as the superordinate category oblique
has been made available. Given this characterization, it is to be expected that
-u appears whenever application of any more specialized ending is prevented
for one reason or another.* Illustrative examples (to be discussed below) are
6. I assume a suitable version of the principle of specificity (or 'Elsewhere-prmcrple'.

Krparsky 1973); see Wrese (2004: 331, wrth references). The utilization of super-
ordmate (or 'aichi-') categories may be regarded as a more restricted analogue of
the use of 'incomplete' specification or ' ^ s p e c i f i c a t i o n ' (cf. Halle and Marantz
1993).
Table 8. Polish noun endings: the non-feminine singular inventory

caseforms
direct
base
nom. voc. ace. loc. dat. gen. ins.

= loc. = gen. '-e -owi -a -em
m. manim. m. *mjnan.
m.anim., hard student '-e -a '-e -owi -a -em
m.inan., hard cukier '-e '-e -owi -u -em
m.anim., hard, vel. biolog -u -a -u -owi -a -em
m.inan, hard, vel. bank -u -u -owi -u -em
n., hard biuro '-e -u -a -em
n., hard, vel. tango -u -u -a -em
n., soft pole -u -u -a -em
m.inan., hard, -a nos '-e '-e -owi -a -em
m.inan., soft, -a grosz -u -u -owi -a -em
m.anim., hard, *-owi hot '-e -a '-e -u -a -em
minan., hard, -a, *-owi swiat '-e '-e -u -a -em
Conditions of application:
m. (applicable to masculines only); m.anim. (applicable to animate masculines
only); *m.inan. (not applicable to inanimate masculines)
provided in Table 8. The table repeats the two-level case system introduced
above. Names of case endings have been written into 'case boxes' where ap-
propriate. In this way it is shown how endings are assigned their proper case
specifications. The table also indicates pertinent conditions of application for
endings. Restrictions on the use of case markers are form-based or function-
based.
i. Form-based restrictions relate to the interplay of endings and stem alterna-

tions, for which the division of nouns by stem type into hard-stem nouns and
soft-stem nouns is basic. As indicated by the prime-sign, the locative ending
'-e always implies a stem alternation known as softening. Now, only a subset
of noun stems allow for such an alternation. Soft-stem nouns in particular
rule out softening. In the locative, non-feminine stems with velar offset, too,
do not allow softening. Thus, applicability of this ending is heavily restricted.
If '-e is inapplicable, -takes over.
114 BerndWiese
11. Function-based restrictions basically relate to the role of the animacy hier-
archy (or, more generally, the hierarchy of individuation) in case-marking.
Among the oblique cases, dative and genitive are affected, these cases
being used more frequently in reference to animates than are locative and
instrumental
Dative is a case that is used preferentially in reference to animates, humans

in particular. Hence, it may be expected that formally distinguished dative
forms are primarily needed for lexemes that denote animates whereas on forms
of lexemes not so used dative marking may be less well developed or even ab-
sent. Given the type of gender system found in Polish, the class of nouns con-
cerned is the neuter, i.e., the inanimate gender par excellence. As a matter of
fact, neuters do not employ the special dative ending -owt that occurs on mas-
culines.* To account for this observation I posit a condition of application that
restricts the dative ending -owi to masculines (as indicated by the subscript 'm.'
in Table 8). Accordingly, neuters show -u in the dative.
In the genitive, too, nouns may or may not accept the pertinent specialized
case ending (here: -a). In the latter case, the less specific ending -u will stand
in. Once more, the split is related to the animacy hierarchy. Practically all nouns
of the animate masculine subgender, i.e., nouns that employ ace,gen,referral.
take -a in the genitive singular. Inanimate masculines for the most part do not
form genitives in -a (for details see Orzechowska 1999: 306f.).9 Thus two pat-
terns stand out: (i) nouns like STUDENT add -a in the genitive (and do not distin-
guish genitive and accusative forms), (n) nouns like CUKIER do not add -a (and
distinguish genitive forms in -u from accusative forms, which are left without
ending). As mentioned above, a formal distinction between accusative and
genitive would be welcome for lexemes that may be expected to appear in
both standard direct object constructions and partitive direct object construc-
tions, and in fact, mass nouns form the hard core of this subclass.
7. Laskowski (1989: 212f), reporting on a (small) corpus of spoken Polish texts, pro-
vides the following frequencies for the oblique cases (in percentages of all occur-
rences of case forms in the corpus of animate and inanimate nommals, respectively).
Animates: dat, 12.4, gen, 8.2, ins.: 3.8, loo.: 0.4. Inanimates: gen, 26.3, loo, 12.2.
ms. 4.8, dat, 0.0(!).
8. As for cognate endings in Czech, Slovak and Ukrainian, the animacy hierarchy is
also unquestionably identifiable as a major factor controlling their distribution (and
diachromc spread), see Janda (1996: 170f).
9. A split in genitive marking as found in Polish is found also in related languages
(Janda 1996: 145). Russian even developed a division of two separate cases, geni-
tive I - a general genitive - and genitive II - a partitive (Trubetzkoy 1934: 10).
A minority class of inanimate masculines, mainly count nouns, may com-

promise both patterns. This includes various designations of instruments
and implements, among others. In general, these nouns do not undergo
acc.-gen-referral while at the same time their being used partitively (in the
singular) is less likely. They show endingless accusatives along with geni-
tives in -a. In a somewhat simplified analysis, such nouns may be handled
as lexical exceptions. This said, the distribution of genitive formations will be
accounted for by a condition of application that prevents the ending -a from
being used with inanimate masculines (as indicated by the subscript '*m.inan.'
in Table 8).
Neuters invariably take -a in the genitive. Avoidance of genitive-dative syn-
cretism has been adduced in order to explain this distribution (Schenker 1964:
50). In general, non-feminines may lack either the special dative ending (-owt)
or the special genitive ending (-a), but not both. (This follows as the domains
blocked by the associated conditions of application are disjunct.) As envisaged,
the above analysis of non-feminine endings puts into relief systematic asym-
metries in case marking. The neuter subsystem is patently less differentiated
than the masculine one, which adds vocative and accusative marking (con-
trolled by animacy) as well as a special dative marker and an animacy split in
the genitive. Only animate masculines may tap the full potential of the system.
Formal and functional restrictions take part in controlling the distribution of
endings. Together with case specifications, they account for the variance be-
tween paradigms as may be gathered from an inspection of the sample nouns
listed in Table 8. These exemplify eleven different distributions of endings. To
begin with, consider the endings of oblique cases:
- STUDENT ('student') is an animate masculine from the class of hard-stem

nouns (in the table: 'm.anim., hard'). With nouns of this type, we encounter
maximally developed paradigms. As a matter of fact, all of the four special-
ized oblique endings are present. Thus, the ending -u does not get a chance
to apply.
- CUKIER ('sugar'), being inanimate, does not accept the genitive ending -a. As
predicted the plain oblique ending -u stands in.
- BIOLOG ('biologist') is a noun that cannot undergo softening before '-e as
its stem ends in a velar (indicated by 'vel.' in the table). Hence, the ending
cannot apply and again, the plain oblique ending -u stands in.
- BANK ('bank') does not accept either the locative ending '-e or the genitive
ending -a according to the conditions discussed. Hence, in both positions it
is -u that appears.
116 BerndWiese
- BIURO ('office'), winch is neuter, exhibits the plain oblique ending -u in the
dative since neuters do not accept the special dative marker -owt, which is
restricted to masculines.
- TANGO ('tango') and POLE ('field') are neuter and exhibit a hard velar stem
and a soft stem, respectively. Aside from rejecting -owi (as do all neuters).
they cannot add the ending '-e either (on account of their respective stem
class membership). Thus, two of the oblique cases show the plain oblique
ending -u.
- A few outliers deserve special mention. As noted above, the condition of
application associated with the genitive ending -a, viz. '*m.inan.', may be
violated with nouns from special groups, including various designations
of body parts such as NOS ('nose'). Against the rule, such nouns may accept
the ending -a. For this reason, they have to be treated as lexically marked
(this is indicated in Table 8 by adding '-a' to the specification of the noun
class). Significantly, there are considerable fluctuations to be found in this
domain. The noun GROSZ ('penny') is another example of an inanimate mas-
culine noun that does accept -a. Unlike NOS, GROSZ IS a soft-stem noun. Thus.
it does not take the locative ending '-e.
- The condition of application associated with the dative ending -owi, viz.
'm.', is rarely violated. Only a few nouns that should have it drop this ending
and, for this reason, have to be considered as lexically marked; cfi, e.g., KOT.
m. ('cat'). This is indicated in Table 8 by adding '* W to the specification
of the noun class. Once more, the ending -u stands in.
- The last example in Table 8, SWLAT ('world'), presents an isolated case.
namely an inanimate masculine that does not accept the dative ending -owt
but does add the genitive ending -a. It has to be treated as doubly marked in
the lexicon. There are some more isolated cases and small groups including
DOM ('house'), PAN ('mister, sir') and SYN ('son'). These three hard-stem
nouns lack the locative ending '-e; again, -u stands in.
I return to the direct cases. As a rule, base forms of masculines are ending-
less, base forms of hard-stem neuters show the ending -o, and base forms of
soft-stem neuters show the ending -e. (For perspicuity, base-form endings are
not represented in Table 8.) As discussed with reference to neuter nouns, base
forms figure as unspecific (plain) direct forms. In fact, there are no regular non-
feminine endings that specialize in particular direct cases. Base forms are used
throughout direct cases unless additional regularities intervene (as is the case
with masculines only). Most importantly, this concerns the rule of referral for
'missing' marked accusative forms that are substituted by genitive forms, which
has been described and motivated in Section 3, above. By another rule of refer-
ral, also discussed above, locatives may substitute for missing marked vocative
forms. However, vocative marking is mostly optional and, if not applied, base
forms stand in.
As discussed in Wiese (2004, with reference to Russian), referrals may be
taken care of by setting up equations between sets of forms, which are given in
Table 8 (in the table: 'voc. = loc.' and 'ace. = gen.') together with their relevant
conditions of application (noted as 'm.', i.e., applies to masculines, and as
'm.anim.', i.e., applies to animate masculines). Applying these 'rules of refer-
ral', we complete the derivation of case forms in the non-feminine singular.
Remaining vacant positions (marked as ' - ' in Table 8) are filled by unaltered
base forms. As may be read off the table, the distribution of endings is fully
predictable given the specifications associated with the endings (including con-
ditions of application), the classification of stems (including lexical markings
where necessary, i.e., where needed to deal with exceptional cases), and the
rules of referral (including their conditions of application).
4.3. A multi-level case system
The adoption of hierarchical classification systems provides a natural way to

deal with systematic syncretism, defined as "the suppression of a relevant op-
position under certain determined conditions" (Kurylowicz 1964: 40). In fact.
pursuing this idea further, it seems natural to adopt a multi-level system that
replaces the two-level classification tentatively adopted above, as presented in
Table 9.
In the domain of direct cases, absence of a distinction of nominative and
vocative forms, which may be more or less extensive, is a familiar phenomenon
both in Polish and beyond (as noted above for Latin). In a multi-level case sys-
tem, this syncretism may receive a straightforward account if a binary subclas-
sification of the category direct is assumed, comprising non-accusative and
accusative (where non-accusative is the union of the subcategories nominative
and vocative the distinction of which may or may not be formally reflected in a
paradigm).
Trubetzkoy (1934: 8), in support of the direct-oblique-distinction, points out
that, in Russian, the most simple, if anomalous, paradigms of words that have
more than one inflectional form (viz., the numerals SOROK '40' and STO '100')
possess just two forms, a direct one and an oblique one. Similarly, Polish nu-
merals of the type exemplified by PDJ6 ('five') make a distinction between a
118 BerndWiese
Table 9. A multi-level case system

caseforms
direct oblique
non-acc. ace. non-ins. ins.
nom. voc. non-gen. gen.
direct form prec and an oblique form precru, which is not further specialized
and hence may occur in all of the four oblique cases.
As a next step of differentiation within the oblique domain, a special instru-
mental form may be distinguished. Polish numerals do possess such forms (cf
pifdama, instrumental of PIEC), their use being optional. (Essentially the same
situation is found in Russian pronouns such as ETOT, 'this', cf. etoj, obl.sg.fem.,
vs. etoju, ins.sg.fem., obsolete or optional.) Of course, in as far as such special
instrumental forms are used at all, appearance of the general oblique forms will
be restricted to the remaining non-instrumental subdomain of oblique cases
(viz. locative, dative and genitive), which, in these paradigms, undergoes
no further subdivision. Consequently, in a multi-level case system, a binary
subclassification of the category oblique may be assumed, comprising instru-
mental and non-instrumental (where non-instrumental is the union of loca-
tive, dative and genitive). Among Polish nouns, such an opposition of
instrumental forms and forms covering all of the remaining oblique cases
is encountered in soft-stem feminines, cf. ziemi, loc.-dat-gen.sg., vs. ziemiq.
ins.sg. of ZIEMIA (as well as between feminine forms of adjectives, cf. bialej.
loc.-dat.-gen.sg.fem., vs. biciq, ins.sg.fem. of BIALY, 'white'). Here, only the
most marked oblique case in Polish (according to Laskowski 1989: 212) has a
form of its own. The formal distinctions between the remaining oblique cases
are 'suppressed'.
As a further step towards a more elaborated partitioning of the oblique
forms, hard-stem feminines show an additional distinction between forms that
are restricted to the genitive (as, e.g., lampy of LAMPA) and forms covering both
locative and dative (as in lampie). The latter may be characterized, in terms of
the system presented in Table 9, as non-genitive forms (non-genitive being the
union of locative and dative). A comparable pattern of distinctions is found
with soft-stem neuters (and with velar hard-stem neuters as well). Oppositions
between genitive forms and less specific oblique forms may be found both in-
side and outside Slavonic. Compare, e.g., singular forms of Russian feminine
nouns of the type GORA ('mountain'). Similarly, in Latin plural noun declen-
sions, special genitive forms contrast with forms covering both ablative and
dative (cf Table 2, above).
Among Polish nouns, the final step of subdividing the oblique singular do-
main, viz. the differentiation of locative and dative, is taken only in (most)
paradigms of hard-stem non-feminines. Masculines, in particular, may distin-
guish specialized dative forms (in -owt), as discussed in the previous section.
The weakness of the locative-dative-distinction does not come as a surprise, of
course, both from a system-internal and from a comparative point of view, the
Indo-European dative being "nothing else than an offshoot of the loc. used with
personal nouns", as Kurylowicz (1964: 190) put it. In Polish, the distribution
of dative vs. locative is nearly complementary both semantically, i.e., with re-
spect to (in-)animacy (cf. n. 7, above), and syntactically (the locative being
a pure prepositional case while prepositions governing the dative are rare).
Further subdivisions of the oblique domain are not present in Polish but
are found in Russian (where locative and genitive each split into two sub-
categories). Overall, the degree of formal differentiation within different para-
digms corresponds to relations of markedness between word classes (genders,
in particular). I"
Using a hierarchical system of classifications, categonal specifications of
case endings may be optimized. As discussed above, a form such as pole (of
POLE, n.), which shows the neuter base-form ending -e, may appear in the nom-
inative, the vocative and the accusative. If higher-level case categories are
available, no reference to single cases need be made. Thus, a categonal specifi-
cation may be given that is not more specific than required. On the other hand.
it may be expected that an adequate system of classification should provide for
specifications that are, at the same time, not less specific than warranted by
available evidence. As base-form endings are categorized as markers of the
category direct, both requirements are accounted for. Such a specification is
optimal as it is neither more nor less inclusive than can be justified by the
data. A multi-level case system allows for further optimizations of case spe-
cifications. The ending -u has been treated above as an unspecific or plain
oblique ending of the non-feminine singular. But, as noted, instrumental noun
10. Adjectives and other declmables show additional types of syncretism discussion
of which is beyond the scope of this paper, but cf. Wrese (2004) for an integrated
approach to nominal, pronominal, and adjectival inflection in Russian that may
be applied also to Polish.
120 BemdWiese
Table 10. Polish noun endings: the non-feminine and feminine singular inventories
caseforms
oblique
non-ins. ins.
non-f./f. non-f./f.
-ul-i -em/-q
nom. voc. gen.

f. non-f.
[-a] -o -a
*m.inan.
loc. dat.
non-f. non-f.
'-e -owi
m.
f., hard, [-a] lampa -o -e -1
f., soft, [-a] ziemia -o -/
f., soft, [-/] gospodyni loc. -i -Q.
f-,soft,[-#l noc loc. -i -1
forms in Polish always show special instrumental endings (in all genders and
numbers). Given the multi-level case system presented in Table 9, we may
optimize the case specification for the noun ending -u, which never appears
in the instrumental, by changing it to non-instrumental (given that non-ins. =
loc. u dat. u gen.).
4.4. Singular endings of feminines
Table 10 repeats the multi-level case system introduced in the preceding sec-
tion. Again, names of case endings have been put into the 'case boxes' where
appropriate. Both, non-feminine and feminine endings are given in order to
facilitate a comparison of the two inventories. Membership in either set is indi-
cated above the endings' names as ' n o n - f and T.\ respectively. Case specifi-
cations and conditions of application for non-feminine endings are unchanged
excepting only -u, as justified above. Notational conventions are as explained
for Table 8. Feminine stems are classified by reference to the base-form endings
they take. These classes are indicated by '[-a]', '[-,]', and '[-#]' (endingless) in
the table.
Compared to the non-feminine, the feminine singular shows less variation
between paradigms and also a reduced degree of differentiation between
oblique cases (see the standard example paradigms repeated in Table 10 for
convenience). This is in accordance with the status of the feminine as a marked
gender. Among feminines, too, there are those that distinguish nominative and
accusative forms as well as others that do not (cf the paradigms of LAMPA,
ZIEMIA, and GOSPODYNI vs. the paradigm of NOC). The latter type, which is
clearly the minority type, comprises soft-stem nouns that exhibit endingless
base forms. It is true, the division between those feminines that do syncretize
nominative and accusative and those that do not is not drawn according to
animacy in the way observed for the masculine. But significantly, the syncre-
tizing type of feminines is known to comprise nouns that denote inanimate
objects along with numerous abstract nouns in -osc but only a few animates
(Damerau 1967: 38).
Unlike masculines, feminines achieve nom.-accdifferentiation not by re-
ferral but by contrasting a special accusative ending (viz., -e) with a char-
acteristic base-form ending, viz., -a for the predominating type and -/ for a
smaller subclass. The fact that -e is used only with nouns that show a vocalic
base-form ending is indicated in the table by the notation ' [ - K ] \ which pre-
cedes the name of the ending. In addition, feminines of the a-base type have at
their command a special vocative ending -o, thus arriving at a fully differenti-
ated set of direct case forms. In the table, the notation '[-a]' indicates that the
ending -o is restricted to a-base nouns. (As mentioned, there are also masculine
a-base nouns such as POETA, which follow the feminine pattern in the singular.
but not in the plural.) Feminines that do not accept the vocative ending -o fol-
low the by now familiar rule of referral and switch to the locative form, cf., e.g.,
nocy, voc.sg. of NOC. (AS it happens, for nouns of the type GOSPODYNI the target
form is still homonymous with the nominative.)
As for the oblique cases, there are three feminine endings (compared to five
non-feminine ones). Once again, there is a rather unspecific ending that appears
in three oblique cases (locative, dative, and genitive), viz. - , It may be ad-
dressed as the feminine counterpart of the non-feminine ending -u. Accord-
ingly, it is also assigned the specification non-instrumental. Again, the instru-
mental has a typical 'nasal ending' of its own, viz. -q (where <q> represents
lol). Finally, in the feminine, too, the ending <-e is used but its domain of ap-
plication extends to the locative and the dative. Thus, it is appropriately as-
signed the case category non-genitive, which is provided by the multi-level
122 BerndWiese
case system. Like its non-feminine counterpart, it is applicable only if the stem
to which it is attached allows softening as in lampie of LAMPA, which is a hard-
stem noun. (Note that in the feminine also velar-stem nouns allow softening
before -e as in nodze of VOGA, 'leg, foot'.)
As is easily verified, the given specifications of feminine singular endings
(plus the voc-loc-referral) correctly predict the distribution of endings in the
feminine sample paradigms when base forms of nouns (with their relevant fea-
tures) are given. At the same time, syncretisms in these paradigms as well as
interparadigmatic identities of endings between these paradigms are accounted
for.
4.5. Plural endings
Compared to the singular, the plural system is a simple one (see Table 5 for
example paradigms). As for the direct cases, we find unitary forms, which cover
the nominative, the vocative and the accusative. Moreover, subdifferentiation
by referrals is reduced. The acc-gen.-referral is restricted to personal mascu-
lines, while the voc-loc-referral does not apply. Hence, plural base forms (i.e..
direct plural forms as found in the nominative plural) are used throughout the
accusative and the vocative, excepting only the accusative of personal mascu-
line nouns where genitive forms take over; cfi, e.g., generalow, acc.-gen.pl. of
GENERAL and studentow, acc.-gen.pl. of STUDENT.
However, formation of direct plural forms differs depending on two factors.
viz. gender and stem type, as shown in Table 11, which provides case specifica-
tions and conditions of application for plural endings. (The hierarchical case
system is assumed as before but not represented to save space.) The sign '|' may
be read as 'otherwise' as will appear from the following.
As familiar from related languages, there is a special direct plural ending for
neuters, viz. -a (cfi, e.g., biura of BIURO). In addition, there is a special ending
for masculine hononfics (cfi generaloww of GENERAL), which form a subclass
of masculine personal nouns (referred to as 'm.hon.' in the table). Here, com-
peting formations serve to mark distinctions on the hierarchy of individuation.
Table 11. Polish noun endings: the plural inventory

direct loc. dat. gen. ins.
-a -owie e '-i -i -ach -om [-#] i -6w -ami
n. m. m. m.
hon. pers.
For the bulk of nouns the default plural suffixes apply, winch are -e and -/ for
soft-stem nouns and hard-stem nouns, respectively. In the table, I use a tilde
prefixed to the ending (as in: W ) in order to indicate that this ending applies
to soft-stem nouns only (cf ziemie of ZIEMIA). Otherwise, direct case forms add
-i, orthographically <t> or <y>, (as in cukry of CUKIER) with the proviso that
personal masculines change to their softened stem alternants (as indicated
again by the prime sign, cf. studenci of STUDENT). A special group, not yet
accounted for by the specifications given in the table comprises a subset of
soft-stem feminines with endingless base forms (including nouns ending in
-osc in particular, e.g., trudnosci, dir.pl. ofTRUDNOSC, 'difficulty'). These do not
accept the -e typical of soft-stem nouns but fall into the domain of the general
default plural ending -/ (cf. also mysz + -i > myszy, dir.pl. of MYSZ). Nouns of
this group as well as further exceptions have to be treated in terms of lexical
marking.
There is no syncretism among oblique cases in the plural. Here every ending
specializes in a single case, and for three cases there are endings that apply
globally (-ach, loc, -am, dat, and -amt, ins.) as discussed above. It is only the
genitive that exhibits competing formations (in -,, in -6w, and endingless)
whose distribution is controlled by stem class and gender and also by the make-
up of base forms. As a rule, the genitive ending -/ applies only to soft-stem
nouns (as indicated by ' - - , ' in Table 11) that possess an endingless base form
(indicated by ' [-#]'). This holds for feminines such as NOC (cf. nocy, gen.pl.) as
well as for masculines such as SLON (cf. slant, gen.pl.). Otherwise, masculine
nouns add -6w (cf, e.g., studentow of STUDENT and cukrow of CUKIER). But of
course, under these conditions, for most feminines and neuters neither of these
two endings will be an option. Hence, their genitive forms remain endingless
(cf, e.g., biur, gen.pl. of BIURO, n., and ziem, gen.pl. of ZIEMIA, f). As usual,
there are classes of exceptions to this overall pattern as well as some idiosyn-
crasies and much variation (see Swan 2002: 46, 74-76, 113). For instance, both
neuters ending in urn (like MUZEUM) and masculines ending in c (like PLAC) usu-
ally take -6w; on the other hand, a group of soft-stem neuters take -/ (cf, e.g.,
POPOLUDNIE).
5. Conclusion
In the preceding analysis of Polish noun inflection, the focus has been on a
(multi-level) system of case classifications that allows setting up optimal spec-
ifications for case markers, viz. case specifications that are neither more spe-
cific nor less specific than can be justified by the actual distribution of forms.
124 BerndWiese
Once such specifications have been made available, the effective foundation of
paradigm construction is revealed. Sometimes grammarians seem to be in-
clined to treat the various Polish noun declensions as monolithic blocks, which
may, at best, be fitted into a more or less well arranged taxonomy. However,
if an analysis is pursued that examines the functions of endings one by onei
the seemingly arbitrary multiplicity of declensions gives way to a confined
inventory of markers that follow comparably simple and traceable rules of
distribution.
Not counting base-form endings, we arrive at a total often singular endings.
five feminine ones and five non-feminine ones. In addition, there is about the
same number of plural endings. This rather manageable inventory is supple-
mented by two rules of referral for the vocative and the accusative. As a result.
given the base forms of nouns and their characteristic properties, the distribu-
tion of forms over paradigms is predictable on the basis of the specifications
that are associated with the endings (including conditions of application).
Remarkably, case specifications of endings hold for all pertinent paradigms.
including even irregular ones that drop or add particular endings against the
general rules. As exemplified, there are various irregular paradigms that differ
only in the set of endings they select from the general inventory -just as regular
ones do. Differences in selection do not affect the functions of endings. Their
values (specified in terms of case marking) are invariable across paradigms.
As has been pointed out, with respect to endings, distinct paradigms often
differ in only a small number of places or even in one position only, for instance
in the locative singular (as do BIURO and TANGO). Such massive interpara-
digmatic identities must not be ignored, nor may be cases of systematic syncre-
tism. In agglutinative morphology (as in Turkish) each ending is associated
with a full functional specification 'on a standalone basis'. On the other hand,
by the system of declensions of traditional Latin grammar, endings are tied to
paradigms outside of which they do not have, as it were, a life of their own.
Polish exemplifies a state of affairs that is located between such extremes. A
number of case endings are specialized markers for one and only one case, and
they cross paradigms. But in contradistinction to Turkish there are other case
endings (such as -u) that by themselves are not sufficient to determine which
case a word form so marked belongs to, cfi, e.g., cukru (of CUKIER), which 'is'
genitive, and biuru (of BIURO), which 'is' dative. To establish the functions a
form can have, the competition between forms, hence the interplay between
forms in paradigms, has to be taken into account. But, given the relevant sets of
'morphemes', here: the inventory of noun endings (together with conditions of
application and rules of referral), it turns out that paradigms are derivable and.
then, so are the eventual functional values of noun forms.
References
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett

2005 The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bossong,Georg
1985 Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in
den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tubingen: Narx.
Brugmann,Karl
1904 KurzevergleichendeGrammatikderindogermanischenSprachen.StraSS-
burg: Trubner.
Cameron-Faulkner, Thea, and Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy
2000 Stem alternants as morphological signata: Evidence from blur avoid-
ance in Polish nouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 813-
835.
Comrie, Bernard
1986 On delimiting cases. In Case in Slavic, Richard D. Brecht and James S.
Levme (eds.), 86-106. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.
Damerau,Norbert
1967 Polnische Grammatik Berlin: de Gruyter
Gunkel,Lutz
2003 Syncretisms and case underspecmcation in Polish noun paradigms.
In Generative Linguistics in Poland: Morphosyntactic Investigations,
Piotr Banski and Adam Przepiorkowski (eds.), 47-62. Warszawa: Institut
PodstawInformatykiPAN.
Halle, Moms, and Alec Marantz
1993 Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from
Building 20, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), 111-176.
Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
HanssenFnedrich
1910 Spanische Grammatikaufhistorischer Grundlage. Halle (Saale): Niemeyer.
Jakobson, Roman
1958 Morfologiceskie nabljudenya nad slavjanskim sklonemem (Sostav
russkix padeznyx form). In American Contributions to the Fourth Inter-
national Congress of Slavicists, Moscow, September 1958, 127-156.
's-Gravenhage: Mouton. [Engl, trans. Morphological observations on
Slavic declension (The structure of Russian case forms). In Roman
Jakobson (1984): Russian and Slavic Grammar. Berlin: Mouton.]
Jakobson, Roman
1960 The gender pattern of Russian. Studii si cercetari lingvistice 11 (3): 5 4 1 -
543. [Repr. in Roman Jakobson (1984): Russian and Slavic Grammar.
Berlin: Mouton.]
Janda, Laura
1996 Back from the Brink: A Study of How Relic Forms in Language Serve as
Source Material for Analogical Extension. Munchen: Lmcom.
126 BerndWiese
Johnston, Jason
1997 Systematic Homonymy and the Structure of Morphological Catego-
ries: Some Lessons from Paradigm Geometry. Ph. D. diss., University of
Sydney.
Kiparsky,Paul
1973 Elsewhere in phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R.
Anderson and Paul Kiparsky (eds.), 93-106. New York: Holt, Rmehart
and Winston.
KornnlUaklm
1997 Turkish. London: Routledge.
Kurylowicz,Jerzy
1964 The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.
Laskowski, Roman
1986 The development of the category of gender in the Slavic Languages.
In Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries, Dieter
Kastovsky and Aleksander Szwedek (eds.), 459-472. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Laskowski, Roman
1989 Markedness and the category of case in Polish. In Marhedness in Syn-
chrony and Diachrony, Olga Miseska Tomic (ed.), 207-226. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Lyons, John
1968 Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Meillet,Antome
1921 Linguistique historique et linguistique generale. Paris: Champion.
Menzel, Thomas
2000 Flexionsmorphologischer Wandel im Polnischen. Oldenburg: BIS.
Muller,Gereon
2004 On decomposing inflection class features: Syncretism in Russian noun
inflection. In Miller, Gunkel, and Zifonun (eds.), 189-227.
Miller, Gereon, Lutz Gunkel, and Gisela Zifonun (eds.)
2004 Explorations in Nominal Inflection. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Orzechowska,Alicja
1999 Paradygmatika. Rzeczowmk. In Gramatyka wspolczesnego jezyka pol-
skiego. Morfologia [1]. Wyd. 3., poprawione, Renata Grzegorczykowa,
Roman Laskowski, and Henryk Wrobel (eds.), 270-332. Warszawa!
Wyd.NaukowePWN.
Risch, Ernst
1977 Das System der latemischen Deklmationen. Cahiers Ferdinand de
Saussure 31: 229-245.
Schenker, Alexander M.
1964 Polish Declension: A Descriptive Analysis. The Hague: Mouton.
Spencer, Andrew
2006 Morphological umversals. In Linguistic Universals, Ricardo Mairal and
Juana Gil (eds.), 101-129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swan, Oscar E.
2002 A Grammar of Contemporary Polish. Bloommgton: Slavica.
Thomson, Alexander
1909/12 Beitrage zur Kasuslehre. I. tiber den Gemtiv-Akkusativ im Slavischen
IV. tiber die Neubildungen des Akkusativs. Indogermanische Forschun-
gen 24: 293-307; 30: 65-79.
Trubetzkoy,NikolajS.
1934 Das morphonologische System der russischen Sprache. Prague: Jednota
Ceskoslovenskych Matematiku a Fysiku/Leipzig: Harxassowrtz.
W l e se,Bernd
2004 Categories and paradigms: On underspecification in Russian declension.
In Miller, Gunkel, and Zifonun (eds.), 321-372.
Williams, Edwin
1994 Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua 92: 7-34.
Case competition in Russian: Genitive vs. accusative
and nominative. An integrational account*
Hans-Heinrich Lieb and Svetlana Friedrich
A. Background and orientation
1. Background: The competition area
1.1. Locating the area
The most disputed case in Russian may well be the genitive. Lutin (2007: 47)
mentions the staggering numbers for the major and minor 'meanings of the
Russian genitive' that are distinguished in the relevant literature, such as:
"tol'ko dljabespredloznyxegoupotreblenij v 'Russkoj grammatike' [= Svedova
1980] soderzitsja okolo 30 znaceny" - "almost 30 meanings are given in the
'Russian Grammar'just for its use without a preposition", i
Drawing distinctions so finely may or may not be adequate: This is a ques-
tion we may leave undecided We will be concerned only with a subfield in the
entire area of the Russian genitive: with the genitive where associating with it
* The present essay has grown from work done by Lieb (2007) and Friedrich (2009:
Chapter 10), which it partly supersedes. Actual formulation of the text, and also the
essentials of the analysis, are due to Lieb. Friedrich has provided an analysis of the
relevant literature and, being a native speaker of Russian, has rechecked the linguis-
tic facts; her work on defmiteness and intonation in Russian is part of the back-
ground for this essay. An overview of the essay's content and results may be found
m Section 2.3. - We are indebted to Peter Kosta, of the University of Potsdam, for
commenting on an earlier version of the essay and for supplying essential back-
ground information on, and helpful discussion of, the problems treated in the con-
cluding Section 8.6. We are also grateful to Petr Sgall, of the Charles University of
Prague, for his comments. Any faults and flaws remain our own.
1. The system used for transliteration - also of proper names - is the German Scientific
Transliteration. Transliterations withm quotes are left unchanged. References made
in quotes appear in our List of References.
2. Historically, the Russian genitive may be expected to have a number of different
functions, having absorbed the ablative; see Gorskova/Xaburgaev (1981: 142),
Semeren'i(1980: 169), Lavrent'ev (2001: 166).
130 Hans-HeinrichLieb andSvetlanaFriedrich
a part-whole relationship may at least be considered. This subfield is the area of

the traditional partitive genitive, or gemtivus partitrvus. In present-day Russian.
at least three major parts may be distinguished in the subfield: the genitive in
connection with number expressions or measurement expressions; the geni-
tive in connection with verbs; and, arguably, the genitive in connection with
negation. Of these three parts, we will not be concerned with the first, and
with the other two only where the genitive is in competition - in verb-form
complementation - with the accusative or the nominative (subjects are con-
strued as complements). It is this area - loosely to be called the competition
area, encompassing the competition genitive, accusative, and nominative - that
has created the most vivid linguistic interest
1.2. Structure of the area
There are two interlocking criteria that structure the competition area:
A. the competing cases: genitive vs. accusative and genitive vs. nominative.
B. relevance of negation to the competition.
The connection between the two criteria is skewed. For practical purposes, the
second may be given priority, leading to the following distinctions:
3. Existence of a similar competition area is well-known from other Slavic languages

(see below), but the competition between genitive and accusative also exists, for
example, in Ancient Greek. As a matter of fact, the interrelation between accusative
and genitive and their opposition to the nominative have been a disputed topic in
Indoeuropean linguistics; see, for example, Gamkrehdze and Ivanov (1995). The
history of the genitive in Russian, especially in relation to the accusative, has been
quite complex, with fairly recent changes leading to the present situation, of. Krys'ko
(2006: 271). Krys'ko claims that after changes taking place in the 19th and 20th
centuries, the competition genitive in present-day Russian is left with just one of
its previous functions, the partitive function: the genitive as the case of 'incom-
plete extension given a perfective verb' (Krys'ko 2006: 249), opposed to the
accusative as the case of 'complete extension'. (Note that we consider as factually
incorrect the restriction to perfective verbs, or verb forms. See Friedrich (2009:
Section 9.5), for a discussion of verbal aspect and nominal reference in Russian.)
The complete competition area is revitalized, in a different shape after loss of
the relevant case distinctions, through development of the so-called partitive
article in modern Romance languages like French and Italian. For a 'partitive
ablative' in a Non-Indoeuropean language, see Kornfilt (1996), for Turkish, and
Vamikka/Malmg (1996), for Finnish.
Case competition in Russian 131
(1) a. Negation-independent, or independent, competition

b. Negation-dependent, or dependent, competition:
i. dependent type-1 competition:
genitive vs. accusative
n. dependent type-2 competition:
genitive vs. nominative
All independent competition is genitive vs. accusative but not conversely, see
(b.i). All genitive vs. nominative competition is dependent; see (b.n). All com-
petition in non-negated sentences is negation-independent but not conversely:
If we have a pair of non-negated sentences with genitive vs. accusative compe-
tition and consider the corresponding pair of negated sentences, also with geni-
tive vs. accusative competition, then obviously the competition in both pairs is
negation-independent. In short, a confusing picture results when we take crite-
rion (A), of competing cases, as basic, but also when we replace criterion (B),
relevance of negation, by the weaker criterion oipresence of negation.
Drawing a distinction as in (la) vs. (lb) can be traced back at least as far
as Jakobson (1971 (i.e. 1936)), who quite generally sees two possibilities for
the way in which the Gemtivgegenstand (the non-linguistic entity associated
with the genitive constituent) may figure in the state-of-affairs that is being
predicated: either / part (teilweise) or negatively (negativ); the 'genitive of
negation' is seen as a subcase of the second possibility (Jakobson 1971: 3 8 -
39).
A distinction similar to (1) is again drawn by Neidle (1988: 46): "Genitive
marking by virtue ofsentential negation, which does not involve null quantifiers;
and Genitive marking by quantifier (null or otherwise) [. . . ] . " Leaving aside
the questions of quantifiers and of negation relevance, this appears to contrast
dependent competition with independent competition. According to Staniseva
(1966), our dependent competition was establishing itself in Russian only in
the 17* c e n t u S e e a l s o Timberlake (1975, 2004), Durst-Anderson (1996),
Paduceva (1997, 2005, 2006), on the status of the 'genitive of negation'; for the
work done by Partee and Borschev, see Section 1.6, below.
The Slavic languages differ with respect to the partitive and other genitive
adverbials and the 'genitive of negation', as summarized by King (1995: 36):
Russmn and Polish have partitives, genitive adverbials, and the genitive of nega-
tion. Czech has no partitives, no genitive adverbials, and no genitive of negation.
Serbo-Croation has partitives and genitive adverbials, but no genitive of nega-
tion. Finally, Slovenian has the genitive of negation, but no partitives and no
genitive adverbials.
132 Hans-HeinrichLieb andSvetlana Friedrich
However, "Genitive of Negation in Polish [. . . ] is a purely syntactic phe-

nomenon: its occurrence is confined only to the structural Accusative position."
(Blaszczak 2009: 450; see also Neidle 1988: 46-47 for Polish and Czech).
Independent competition exists in Polish only in non-negated sentences, the
accusative being exchanged under negation in favor of the genitive (optionally
in embedded sentences), which also excludes dependent type-1 competition
(type-2 competition of nominative vs. genitive does not exist, only the nomi-
native being allowed). In Czech, the genitive of negation survives only in a
few archaic constructions. On the history of the genitive in Russian see also
Lavrent'ev (2001), and, in particular, Krys'ko (2006).
In studying the various types of case competition (not as clearly distinguished
in the literature as in our (1)), two different approaches have been prevalent, to
be called the fine-graining of use and semantic unification. The former is an
approach that attempts to establish, ever more finely, the conditions of use for
the three cases, especially the genitive, that are involved in case competition.
Semantic unification attempts to come up with a unified semantic effect for
each one of the cases, in particular, the genitive.
1.3. Approaches to the area (1): Fine-graining of use
Generally, it is stated that use of the genitive "is constrained by a number of

lexical, semantic, syntactic, grammatical, morphological, and stylistic param-
eters" (Timberlake 1975: 123; in greater detail, Timberlake 2004), and interest
in part of the genitive literature focuses on such 'parameters', leading to the
fine-graining approach in studies of case competition. The fine-graining ap-
proach is prominently represented by Paduceva (1997, 2005, 2006), who re-
lates use of the genitive also to more specific factors such as: the proper name/
common noun distinction; the categories of concrete vs. abstract, animate vs.
inanimate, Singular vs. Plural; pronominal complements; or morphological cat-
egories for the relevant predicate constituent (for similar fine-graining, see also
the "Hierarchy of Object NPs" in Ueda 1993, and the "Nominal Hierarchy" in
Robblee 1996). Use of the genitive is related to sentence stress in Guiraud-
Weber (1984). In Chvany (1975) it is claimed that the possessive pronoun svoj
excludes use of the genitive.
An important factor is the type of verb that allows for case competition. It is
generally agreed that only certain Russian verbs are permitted but no formula
has yet been devised to delimit the relevant class of verbs. For independent
competition they must be transitive, assuming an account of verb government
by which a certain transitive verb may also take the genitive, rather than postu-
lating a new verb that governs only the genitive. Generally, there appears to be
alimitedlistofge/Y/vever^(ge/Y/v^g/ag 0 / J -Paduceva'sterm):Paduceva.
who in (1997) has a two-page list of verbs and verb forms (not restricted to the
'genitive of negation'), in (2005) mentions only ten verbs for the 'genitive of
negation', plus seven 'predicates of the perception group' (verb forms, not
verbs, in -o): zameceno 'it has been noticed' etc.
In the case of dependent type-2 competition, Paduceva (2005) makes certain
assumptions on the lexical meanings of the verbs and verb forms: We must be
dealing either with (a) verbs of perception, or (b) verbs that allow for expres-
sion of the existence or non-existence of objects. Given (a), we do have depen-
dent type-2 competition between genitive and nominative (Paduceva 2005:
88); given (b), the genitive is claimed to be 'semantically obligatory'. But this
claim on (b) is doubtful (not only because of exceptions in colloquial Russian):
it is contradicted by a sentence pair found already in Apresjan (1966: 193) and
frequently quoted since: Otvet [Norn, Sg] iz polka ne prise I. 'The answer from
the regiment has not arrived.' vs. Otveta [Gen, Sg] iz polka nepnslo. 'There
was no answer from the regiment.' (As a matter of fact, this sentence pair is
only a variation of the same pair without iz polka used already by Jakobson
1971: 39-40, originally published in 1936, which is also frequently quoted in
the literature.)
There is an important requirement on the predicate if the subject is to be in
the genitive, which holds irrespective of all other conditions: The predicate
must be an occurrence of a permitted form, in particular, an 'o-form'. (The
problem of permitted forms is further discussed below, in Section 8.4.)
1.4. Approaches to the area (2): Semantic unification - independent

competition
Whereas fine-graining of use emphasizes diversity, trying to specify a multi-

tude of conditions that appear to determine case use in each one of the various
types of case competition, semantic unification attempts to establish a small
number of effects - ideally, only one - that may be associated with the actual
use of one of the cases in a given competition type. (Lutin 2007: 50 denies that
there is any specific meaning to the Russian genitive but this does not exclude
the possibility of a semantic effect when a sentence meaning is constructed.)
For example, Borras and Christian (1971) argue for a 'particularizing' func-
tion of the genitive and an 'individualizing' one of the accusative. More gener-
ally, there are two major criteria that keep being considered for the semantic
effect of cases used in independent competition:
(2) a. Part-whole relationships:

A part-whole relatronshrp is expressed in a genitive sentence, but not
in a sentence with the accusative.
b. Definiteness/Specificness (Specificity):
The genitive constituent, but not the accusative constituent, is semanti-
c a l ^ indefinite, or is unspecific.
Typically, Jakobson (1971: 38-39) associates partitivity with the Russian geni-
tive where it is independent of negativity; see also Krys'ko (2006).
A number of authors (Neidle 1988; Franks 1995; Babyonyshev and Brun
2002; Baylin 2004) connect the accusative with specificness of a referent and
the genitive with non-specificness. The semantic opposition between definite
and indefinite is associated with the syntactic opposition between accusative
and genitive by, among others, Reformatskij (1967) and Lavrent'ev (2001):
similarly, Spath (2003). However, following Ravic (1971) and Lavrent'ev
(2001), even a genitive constituent may be either definite or indefinite.
Logically, the two hypotheses in (2) are not incompatible, and they appear
to be combined by Babby (1980: 80) in claiming that "partitive genitives
always involve an indefinite part of the referent-
Involvement of an indeterminate part of a whole should indeed be nec-
essary. However, it still does not follow that the indeterminacy of the part
must be expressed in the sentence meaning by the semantic indefiniteness
of the genitive constituent. We will argue that the genitive constituent is, in
fact, non-referential, therefore, neither semantical^ definite nor semantical^
indefinite.
1.5. Approaches to the area (3): Semantic unification - dependent

competition
It is not entirely clear from the literature if, or how far, the two hypotheses in
(2) may be extended to cover dependent competition; mostly, it is dependent
type-2 competition (genitive vs. nominative) whose semantics is being dis-
cussed. Following Babby (1980), genitival subjects must be semantically kept
apart from genitival objects. Genitive vs. nominative competition is seen to be
related to a distinction between types of sentences: The subject must be in
the nominative in a negative declarative sentence, e.g., Moroz [Norn, Sg] ne
cuvstvovalsia. 'The frost could not be sensed.'; in a negated existential sentence.
the subject must be in the genitive, as in Moroza [Gen, Sg] ne cuvstvovalos''.
'Frost was not to be sensed.', 'There was no frost to be sensed.', cf. Babby
(1980: 59, 62-63). Moreover, taking a lead from Givon (1975), Babby (1980:
70) assumes that "an indefinite NP in the scope of negation tends to have a non-
referential interpretation"; therefore, if the genitival subject in a negated exis-
tential sentence is both (syntactically) indefinite and in the scope of negation, it
may be expected that it is (semantical^) non-referential.
An account like Babby's may appear to be in danger of circularity: Two
types of sentences are used to characterize the semantic effect of the genitive
vs. the nominative but at least one type - negated existential sentences - may
in turn have to be characterized by means of the genitive effect.
Indeed, taking a lead from Kuroda (1972), Babby (1980: 73) attempts to
arrive at a more general characterization of the two sentence types by confront-
ing his declarative sentences as categoric and bi-partite to his existential sen-
tences as thetic and one-part; declarative: "The subject NP, which is outside the
scope of assertion/negation and often carries an existential presupposition
[. . . ] is one part, and the VP, which is in the scope of assertion/negation [. . . ]
and makes its assertion about the subject, is the other." There is no such divi-
sion in case of a thetic sentence. This distinction (which Babby also uses to
reject Apresjan's quasi-transformational account of the otvet . . . /otveta . . .
example: above, Section 1.3) is quite germane to an analysis in an Integrational
semantic framework.
Babby's account of dependent type-2 competition does not use part-whole
relationships, and the question of semantic definiteness or specificness is
touched upon only negatively - it does not come up if the genitival subject is
non-referential.
Part-whole relationships are considered for the genitival subject, at least as
a possibility, by Paduceva (2005: 91; see also Klenin 1978): In Breven [Gen.
PI] neprivezeno., the genitive is assumed to contribute a corresponding compo-
nent to the sentence meaning - '(Of) wood has not been delivered' (privezeno
is an o-form). On the other hand, consider a sentence with genitival subject
where a form of a perception verb is used as the predicate: It is assumed that the
sentence means: No object (Vesc') of a certain kind (the kind being determined
by the meaning of the genitive constituent) is within the area of perception of
the (imaginary) observer (NabljudateV); for example, Mast [Gen, Sg] tut ne
vidno. means 'No Masha is to be seen here.' (implying that Masha is not pre-
sent), as opposed to Masa [Norn, Sg] ne vidna. - 'Masha cannot be seen'
(meaning that Masha is present but not visible) (Paduceva 2005: 88). This.
then, appears not to involve any part-whole relationship.
Other than also allowing part-whole relationships, Paduceva's account is
obviously compatible with Babby's.
1.6. Approaches to the area (4): Semantic unification plus fine-graining of use
Such a combination is presently found mainly in recent and current work done
by Partee and Borschev and collaborators, as represented by, among other pub-
lications: Borschev and Partee (2002a, 2002b), Partee and Borschev (2002.
2006a, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b), Partee (2008), Borschev et al. (2008). This may
count as cutting-edge research in the field, taking up many strands of earlier
work, such as proposals made by Babby (1980) or Paduceva (e.g., Paduceva
1997). We here restrict ourselves to a few pointers of how this research is re-
lated to what we are going to present.
i. Partee and Borschev's work is largely complementary: They are concerned

mainly with dependent type-2 competition (our Part C, below), whereas the
present essay emphasizes negation-independent competition (Part B).
n. Partee and Borschev's criticism of some of Babby's conceptions - case
competition and scope of negation, theme-rheme distinctions - is accounted
for by our analysis.
in. Partee and Borschev's first major proposal, of a 'Perspective Structure' in
type-2 competition (made since roughly 2002, taking up conceptions found
in Paduceva's work), is compatible with our own account, which, however,
does not make use of a 'diathesis' concept (see below, Section 8.2).
iv Partee and Borschev's second major proposal, of a change to properties
when the genitive is used in type-2 competition ('property-type hypothesis
for the Russian genitive', taking up work done by others and presented, but
not unambiguously adopted, by Partee and Borschev since roughly 2004),
is, in a way, accepted, but only on condition of a syntactic and semantic re-
analysis (see below, Sec. 8.6).
This concludes our survey of the vast amount of relevant literature, of necessity
selective even with respect to important work.
2. Orientation
2.1. Problems and aim
It appears from our overview of previous research that the problematic case in
case competition is the genitive, much more so than the accusative or the nom-
inative, and we will indeed concentrate on this case. The problems to be treated
in this essay are formulated by the following questions, referring to the genitive
in case competition in present-day Russian and to be asked separately for each
type of case competition:
(3) Question of the nature of effects:

What are the semantic effects of the genitive in sentence-meaning
construction?
If we wish to do justice to the discussion in the literature of potential genitive

effects, we must distinguish at least two parts of a sentence meaning, a referen-
tial part and a proposition:
(4) Question of location:

In which component of a sentence meaning should we account for the
semantic effects of the genitive:
a. in the referential part,
b. in the proposition,
c. in both?
For a syntactic category to have a semantic effect in sentence-meaning con-

struction, there must be a semantic mechanism that typically involves both
semantic functions and application conditions for the functions and is related.
in one way or another, to the category; therefore:
(5) Question of semantic mechanism:

What is the semantic mechanism underlying a given semantic effect of the
genitive?
Moreover, given the semantic mechanism for some semantic effect of a syntac-
tic category, there must be a syntactic basis for the mechanism. This basis may
be the category itself, i.e. the semantic mechanism (consisting of, typically, a
semantic function with an application condition) is an interpretation of the
category. In this case, the semantic effect is a direct effect of the category. Or
else, the semantic mechanism is an interpretation not of the given category but
either of some other syntactic category or of some syntactic function (such
as some grammatical relation), and the given syntactic category figures only
in the application condition that is part of the semantic mechanism. In this
case, the semantic effect is an indirect effect of the given category. (These
distinctions of course make sense only if the syntax-semantics interface is
construed in a certain way, as it is in the framework to be used in this essay.)

We thus have the following question:
(6) Question of the syntactic basis:

What is the syntactic basis for the semantic mechanism underlying a
given semantic effect of the genitive?
Depending on the answers, the following question will have been answered
automatically:
(7) Question of directness:

Which semantic effects of the genitive in sentence-meaning construction
are direct, if any, and which, if any, are indirect?
This question is particularly relevant since the genitive is a case category: The
semantic effects of tense categories are typically direct; and while direct effects
may have to be admitted for case categories, their effects are typically indirect.
Questions (3) to (7), all restricted to the genitive in case competition in
present-day Russian, formulate the problems we will be dealing with in this
essay.
Our aim is: getting closer to a solution than has been possible so far, by
pushing semantic unification even farther and, at the same time, showing how
it can be integrated with fine-graining of use - an aim to be achieved through
use of an integrational framework.
2.2. Method
In Partee and Borschev (2006b: 12) the authors see a need for "advances in
theoretical approaches that offer ways to account for competing and interact-
ing principles" to further the study of case competition in Russian, suggesting
an extended version of Optimality Theory as a candidate. We doubt that a
constraint-based approach with inherent ordering problems is adequate for the
kind of interaction existing in case competition even if it can be extended -
which we also doubt - along the lines that Partee and Borschev indicate. Some
version of Construction Grammar might be more suitable; we are, after all.
dealing with 'genitive constructions'. However, existing versions of Construc-
tion Grammar are, in our view, too loosely organized to do justice to the tightly
woven intricacies of Russian case competition.
Some theoretical framework is clearly necessary for revealing the structure

of the field, and it should be one that satisfies the demands made by Partee and
Borschev. We are going to use the framework provided by Integrational Lin-
guistics (IL) as developed by Lieb and others, not presupposing any knowledge
of IL (for an overview, see Sackmann 2006, 2008; see also the IL homepage
www.germanistik.fu-berlin.de/il/). Within the IL framework, we proceed as
follows.
A solution to problems (3) to (7) will be sought for each type of case com-
petition by means of a detailed analysis of a relevant sentence pair that attempts
to establish, for the genitival sentence, (a) the semantic effect of the category
Genitive in this sentence and (b) the conditions that are satisfied for this effect
to come about. This will then be generalized to establish the semantic mecha-
nism that is operative (obtained by generalizing (a) and (b)) and its syntactic
basis. The sentences in the sentence pairs are simple, stripping away all details
that are irrelevant to the problems under study. (Use of such pairs is frequent
also elsewhere in the literature; at least one example that keeps being discussed
- the otveta/otvet sentence pair - was introduced more than seventy years ago.
see above, Section 1.3. It goes without saying that 'generalizing' from a few
sentence pairs must not be understood inductively Rather, problems of analysis
are solved for a vast class of sentences by studying relevant properties of a
small number of sentences that are known, or easily shown, to be maximally
representative in all relevant respects of the entire class.)
One sentence pair to be used for negation-independent competition is from
Gladrow (1998: 55) (Gladrow uses the Russian sentences - here transliterated
- as translations of the German sentences, where "Geld" and "das Geld" are in
bold face; we are adding English translations plus word-meaning and gram-
matical glosses; "Pret" for "Preterite"; "Perf" for "Perfective", an aspect,
perfectivity is not made explicit in the translation; the accent symbol ' is to
indicate non-contrastive sentence accent, not marked by Gladrow):
(8) a. On poslal maten deneg.

he send mother money
Pret Perf Dat Gen P1N
'Erschickteder Mutter Geld.'
'He sent his mother money'
b. On poslal materi den'gi.
Pret Perf Dat Ace P1N
'Erschickteder Mutter das Geld.'
'He sent his mother the money'
Other sample pairs, and pairs for negation-dependent competition, will be

given onee they are needed.
2.3. Overview
The theoretical framework assumed in this essay is characterized in Section 3

to the extent that it will actually be used. Part B (Sections 4 to 6) deals with the
aspects of sentence meaning that are associated with the genitive in Russian
where it competes with the accusative independently of negation. Part C (Sec-
tions 7 and 8) discusses the genitive where it depends on negation and is in
competition with the accusative (type 1) or the nominative (type 2).
In Section 4 it is argued that sentences with the accusative are subject to
standard ways of meaning composition and are insofar of secondary interest in
the context of this essay; the accusative constituent normally is a referential
expression. In contradistinction, a corresponding genitive constituent is non-
referential because the only referential meaning that is at all plausible - the
generic meaning - can be excluded. The semantic effect of the genitive must
therefore be located in the proposition.
In Section 5, the semantic effect of the genitive - introduction of a part-
whole relation into the proposition - is exemplified for sentences of two types.
quantity sentences and plurality sentences; sample propositions are explicitly
formulated.
Section 6 characterizes the semantic effect in more precise terms - the effect
is due to certain semantic functions and their application conditions - and iden-
tifies its syntactic basis. The semantic functions and their application condi-
tions turn out to be given not by directly interpreting the Genitive category but
by interpreting the complement function itself; the role of the Genitive category
is restricted to its appearance in the application conditions for the semantic
functions: Only if a relevant complement constituent is marked as Genitive
may the semantic functions associated with the complement function apply.
Again, both quantity sentences and plurality sentences are considered.
Three cases are distinguished in Section 7 for the genitive in negative sen-
tences: (i) The negative sentences show accusative/genitive competition in
exactly the same way as corresponding positive sentences; in this case, we are
dealing with negation-independent competition, and the analysis in Part B
(Sections 4 to 6) applies, (n) There is accusative/genitive competition involv-
ing singular forms of count nouns for the complement constituents. This case
- dependent type-1 competition - is not covered in Part B, but the genitive is
only indirectly relevant, and this is also true of negation; it again is the comple-
ment function whose interpretation - semantic functions and their application

conditions - is directly relevant, (in) There is nominative/genitive competition.
i.e. dependent type-2 competition. The semantic effect is analogous to case (n),
and the genitive and negation are only indirectly relevant; this is also true of the
verb-form categories that are required for the predicate constituent. Once again.
it is the complement function that serves as the syntactic basis of the semantic
mechanism. We conclude by briefly outlining a modification of our analysis of
type-2 competition.
3. Background: Theoretical framework
3.1. Syntax
The theoretical background assumed in this essay is the theory of language

developed in Integrational Linguistics (IL) (see above, Section 2.2, for refer-
ences; also, for syntax and semantics the relevant parts in Lieb 1983; plus Lieb
1993, 2005 for syntax, Lieb 1992 for semantics). Some important conceptions
from Integrational Syntax and Integrational Semantics will be characterized in
the present Section 3, if briefly and informally; conceptions from other parts of
the Integrational theory of language, to the extent they are needed, should be
self-explanatory when used. The technical terms now to be introduced must be
understood as relativized to idiolect systems S: "sentence in ST, etc.
A distinction is drawn between an '(uninterpreted) sentence' and an 'inter-
preted sentence': An (uninterpreted) sentence is a triple < / s, e> such that:/is
a sequence of syntactic base forms (mostly, phonological words); s is a syntac-
tic structure of this sequence; e is a lexical interpretation of/given s; and there
is a sentence meaning u of/given s and e. An interpreted sentence is a quadruple
< / s, e, u> such that u is a sentence meaning of/given s and e. - (Non-empty)
sequences/are construed as sets of ordered pairs </, w> where / is a number
1, 2, . . . , ( > 1) and w is of the type of a phonological word. Abbrevia-
tions are used as m f= on, poslal2 materi, deneg4= {<\,on>,<2,poslal>,
<3,materi>,<4,deneg>}. (Number subscripts that are part of variables, as
in fh f2 etc., are unrelated to sequences.) Note that deneg4 = {<4, deneg>}, and
that on, = the unit sequence of on = {<1, on>} is different from on.
A syntactic structure s of a sequence/is itself a triple, <k, m, / > , such that:
* is a constituent structure of / m is a marking structure of/given *-, and / is
an intonation structure of f. As an example, consider (8a): The first line ortho-
graphically specifies a sequence of phonological words, / = on,poslal2 materi,
deneg4, and partly specifies its intonation structure / b y means of punctuation
142 Hans-HeinrichLieb and Svetlana Friedrich
and the accent sign; the third line incompletely specifies the marking struc-
ture m by naming some relevant syntactic categories. For noun-form catego-
ries in Russian idiolect systems S we assume not only case, number, and gen-
der categories but also categories of definiteness: Def(- S), Indeff- S), and
Unsp D e f (- S), assigning all forms of substantives to Unsp Def ( - S), due to the
lack of articles, where Unsp Def (- S) = the set of all Noun forms of S that are
Unspecific for Definiteness. (These definiteness categories are syntactic not
semantic.) There is no hint in (8a) of the constituent structure k, which we
assume as follows (the phonological words do not belong to *-, the arrows
represent grammatical relations, which are not part of k either):
(9) ^VGr
3' comp3
\ in-
i Nf Vf Nf ) A ~Nf j
1 2 3 * 4
on postal materi deneg
i={<{l},Nf>,<{2},Vf>,<{3},Nf>,<{4},Nf>,<{l,...,4},VGr>},
N f = N f ( - 5")= Noun form in [Russian idiolect system] S; "Vf" for "Verb
form"; "VGr" for "Verb Group". There are four primitive constituents, on,.
poslal2, materia deneg,, where on, = {<1, on>}, e t c , and the whole sequence
/ i s the only non-primitive constituent ( / i s a constituent of itself). Obviously
Represents a surface-structure, non-binary analysis (only 'surface structures^
are allowed).
A lexical interpretation e of /given s is a function that associates concepts
b with the primitive constituents of/; for example, if e is the interpretation
in (8) a n d / = {<2,Poslal>}, then we take the set {2} as an argument of e,
and e({2})= send-; this way, the concept send- is associated w i t h / . The
concept associated with a primitive constituent must be the meaning of a
lexical word such that a form of the word is used by means of the constituent.
The second lines in (8a) and (8b) name the concepts as assigned by the lexical
interpretation, omitting the raised dots that are used in IL to form concept
names.
The arrows in (9) indicate that, given sentence (8a) as a triple < / s, e> in a
Russian idiolect system S, with k as in (9), the following grammatical relations
hold: <onh deneg4, materia (in this order) is a complement triple f o r ^ / a / 2 :
poslah is the nucleus (or head) o f / and on,, materi* and deneg, each are
nuclei of themselves. More formally:
(10) a. comP\f,s,e,S) = {<onhdeneg4,materi3,poslal2>}

b. n u c ( / s, e, S) = {<poslal2,f>, <onh onx>, <maten materia
<deneg4, deneg4>}
As appears from (10), traditional grammatical relations are reconstructed as

functions: comp^, nuc. (10a) also shows that we adopt a valency-type analysis.
treating subject constituents as another type of complement.
3.2. Sentence semantics
Lines 4 (German) and 5 (English) in (8a) indicate a sentence meaning. Any

sentence meaning u of a given triple <f, s, e> has several components, or parts:
a referential part that contains exactly one referential meaning ux for each ref-
erential expressions in/; a propositional part, consisting of the direction R (a
speaker attitude, such as Communicate) of u and the proposition u2 of u (the
content of*, such as the content that is being communicated); and at least one
propositional background, a set of pairs <R', u>>, where K is a speaker attitude
(e.g., Believe) and ' is its content (e.g., what is believed; this is expressed in an
utterance of the sentence in addition to the proposition, which - in a normal
declarative sentence - is communicated). Lines 4 and 5 of (8a) each indicate
the proposition and indirectly, by means of the punctuation sign, the meaning
direction; referential meanings for the three referential expressions are also
hinted at: Translating on, by means of a definite pronoun and maten, by means
of a definite noun form (in German) or a noun group with definite-pronoun
modifier (in English) we indicate that definite referential meanings are to be
assumed; and the translation of deneg4 by a bare noun form may point to an
indefinite or a generic referential meaning.
It is indeed three types of referential meanings that are distinguished in the
presupposed sentence semantics (Lieb 1979, 1983: Chapters 18, 26, 27; Fried-
rich 2009: Chapters 5 to 7): definite, indefinite, and generic. Typically, definite
and indefinite meanings are distinguished by a speaker belief: The speaker be-
lieves that the hearer does (definite) or does not (indefinite) 'know o f the refer-
ent of the referential expression. (It is an essential feature of the Integrational
conception of sentence semantics that speakers and utterances are directly
available in non-lexical meanings. In order to emphasize the special role of
speakers and utterances in sentence semantics, we will, in this essay, leave
variables for speakers and utterances non-italicized.) We may say that a refer-
ential expression is semantical definite, indefinite, or generic in a sentence
meaning if it has a definite, indefinite, or generic referential meaning that is
contained in the referential part of the sentence meaning. Parts of a referential

expression, especially its nucleus, may be associated in the marking structure
of the sentence with one of several syntactic definiteness categories: Def (-, S).
Indef (-, S), Unsp Def (-, S). There is a relation between these syntactic catego-
ries and semantic definiteness and indefiniteness but this is not one-on-one. In
particular, when semantic definiteness or indefiniteness is not marked formally,
say, by articles, as is the case with Russian substantive forms, then the unmarked
forms belong to Unsp Def (- S) and semantic definiteness and indefiniteness
must be determined more indirectly, by a complex of other morphological, syn-
tactic or semantic means.
Given a sentence <f, s, e>, with its lexical interpretation e, the components
of a sentence meaning u of the sentence are obtained by applying semantic
functions (or certain other relations) that ultimately start with the primitive con-
stituents o f / a n d the concepts associated with them by e. These functions (or
relations) are in turn given in the idiolect system in two components of the
system's sentence-semantic part, the Syntactic Category Interpretation (SCI)
and the Syntactic Function Interpretation (SFI).
The SCIofSrs a set of triples <K, a, c(S)> where K is a 'functional' syntac-
tic category consisting of word forms, such as P1 N (- S) - the set of plural noun
forms of S, a is a function that represents one semantic effect of the category
(there may be several), and c(S) is an ^-relative condition (formally, a certain
relation) that must be satisfied in a sentence if a is to apply in the construction
of a meaning of the sentence. (In sentences (8), no such condition is satisfied in
relation to the plural forms deneg4 and den'gfo thus, the semantic effects of
P1 N (- S) are irrelevant to the construction of the sentence meanings.)
The SFI ofS has several parts, due to the existence of syntactic functions of
different types. The part for grammatical functions (cornp", nuc, etc.) again is a
set of triples, analogous to the SCI of S: triples <p[S], a, c(S)>, where p[S] is a
grammatical function like comp 3 or nuc 'restricted to'S, a is a semantic func-
tion, and c(S) is an ^-relative application condition for a.
Any given 'functional' word-form category or syntactic function has a di-
rect semantic effect, an indirect effect, or both: The category or the function
restriction may be interpreted directly in the SCI or SFI by appearing as a first
component of an -tuple in the SCI or SFI (where it is interpreted by the seman-
tic function or other entity that is the second component), or may be relevant
indirectly by figuring in some application condition for a semantic function (or
other entity) that directly interprets some category or some function restriction.
The meanings of any sentence <f, s, e> of S are entirely determined by the
lexical interpretation e and the semantic effects of the categories and syntactic
functions that 'occur in'/given s, e, and S.
This is true even with respect to the background components of sentence

meanings - certain sets of attitude/content pans - that are introduced in addi-
tion to the referential and proposition^ parts to account, in a different way, for
what is usually covered by theme-rheme or topic-comment conceptions. Such
components are determined partly by sentence accents, construed as syntactic
functions of a special type.
3.3. Lexical semantics
A clear notion of lexical meanings understood as concepts is important to our

analyses: A concept ft (strictly, "potential" concept, a qualification that will be
omitted) is a content-determined property of perceptions or conceptions z (cer-
tain mental events or states): a property of such z that consists in z having a
content in which certain attributes (properties or relations-in-intension) of real-
world entities occur, as in the following example, which also exemplifies the
concept-related notations to be used:
(11) money- =XU ("the property of being a z such that"): z is a perception

or z is a conception, and {MONEY} is a subset of the content of z, where
MONEY = df Ix ("the property of being an x such that"): x is a means-of-
payment quantity.
Attributes like MONEY that are properties are one-place; attributes that are
-place relations-in-intension are n-place. Accordingly, we have -place con-
cepts, n > 1, each based on a set of -place attributes. (There is a single concept
b, the empty concept, that is defined differently and is zero-place.)
money- is a one-place concept, since MONEY is a property, or one-place
attribute. Concepts that are verb meanings are typically n-place, n > 1, due to
the fact that they are based on sets of -place relations between a process, event
etc. x and further entities involved in x.
The set of -place attributes on which a concept ft is based is the n-place
intension of b. The set of entities x, or -tuples <x b . . . , x>, that have all at-
tributes in ft's intension is the n-place extension of ft, or -ft. Thus, the 1-place
intension of money is {MONEY}, and the 1-place extension of money = {x | x
has MONEY} = {x | x is a means-of-payment quantity}.
Concepts can be of various types. In particular, there are wdMduaOzmg
concepts like house- and group concepts like (a) people-, whose intensions
consist of, respectively, a property of individuals and a property of groups. In
addition, we have mass concepts like money and substance concepts like
gold-, whose intensions consist of, respectively, a property of mass quantities

and a property of substance quantities. Mass and substance concepts jointly are
to* quantity concepts*
The elements of the extension of a quantity concept are related by a proper-
part relation, to be called Q-part ("proper quantity-part"), whose properties are
determined by a suitable system of mereology The parts of a given mass or
substance quantity need not be connected in space and time. The individual
quantities in the extension of a quantity concept jointly form a quantity in the
extension that is 'maximal', i.e., is not a Q-part of any quantity in the extension.
Analogous statements hold of group concepts, in particular, plurality concepts.
allowing for the fact that we are dealing with groups and a proper-part relation
G-part ("proper group-part"). 5
Following a well-established tradition in lexical semantics, we construe the
concepts that are verb meanings as typically n-place, for n > 1, due to the fact
that events etc. are represented separately but typically involve other entities
that also ask for separate representation. Verb-meaning concepts can be classi-
fied by properties of the events etc. and of the entities involved in the events. In
particular, we may have individual-friendly, quantity-friendly and group-
friendly concepts: These are -place action concepts, n > 2, whose intension
consists of an -place relation-in-intension between actions xh agents x2, af-
fected objects x3, and possibly other entities, such that x3 may be an individual/a
quantity/a group. It is these types of verb meanings that will be of special
importance.
B. Independent case competition: Genitive vs. accusative
4. The genitive effect and its location
4.1. The effect: Partitivity
In Section 2, we started in (3) with the most basic question: What are the
semantic effects of the genitive in case competition? It appears from our
4. Quantity concepts should not be construed as identity concepts, e.g., the intension of
gold- should not consist of the property of being identical to the sum total of (all
the) gold (in the world), the extension of gold- being the umt set of the sum total of
(all the) gold (in the world); similarly, for money . Such a proposal runs into trouble
as soonas specific quantities are to be referred to, zsmEnglish the gold in Fort Knox.
5. For a recent axiomatic treatment of quantity mereology on the one hand and group
('plurality') mereology on the other, see Appendix B in Nolda (2007).
overview of the literature that there has been growing consensus on the follow-
ing answer when we restrict ourselves to negation-independent competition in
present-day Russian: There is just one effect, and that is partitivity, i.e. expres-
sion of a part-whole relationship in the sentence meaning. We consider this as
basically correct, and adopt the answer, speaking of partitivity as the semantic
effect of the genitive in negation-independent case competition (of genitive vs.
accusative) in present-day Russian. More precisely, we consider partitivity as
the only 'positive' effect (an effect that does not consist in simply blocking
another semantic effect). We next turn to the question of location (4), of where
in the sentence meaning the effect is to be located, in the referential part of the
meaning or in the proposition?
The answer largely depends on the referential status of the genitive constitu-
ent: Is it - in cases of negation-independent competition with the accusative -
referential or non-referential? This question, recognized in the literature as an
important problem in relation to Russian case competition generally, will be
discussed in the present Section 4. Since the non-referentiality of the genitive
constituent would contrast with the referentiality - usually assumed - of the
accusative constituent, we begin by taking a closer look at the accusative.
4.2. Referentiality of the accusative constituent
Consider, once again, sentence (8b), repeated as
(12) On postal materi den'gi.

PretPerfDat Ace P1N
This was a translation by Gladrow (1998: 55) of "Er schickte der Mutter das
Geld." - "He sent his mother the money." The bare-noun occurrence den'gi,
was taken to be a referential expression, with a definite referential meaning,
'the money'.
The accusative constituent in (12) must indeed be referential but the refer-
ential meaning suggested by "das Geld" - "the money" is incorrect, given the
sentence accent (not indicated by Gladrow) on den'gi, and a non-contrastive
sentence meaning. If the speaker uses den'gi, in (12) with a definite referential
meaning, then the hearer 'knows o f the referent of den'gh. However, (12),
with sentence accent on den'gi, can be uttered appropriately only in a situation
where the speaker does not know of the referent, the money sent, e.g., (12) may
be uttered as a proper response to a preceding question by the hearer asking.
what did the o^-person send to the ^ e r / 3 - p e r s o n ? Only when the accent is
moved away from den 'giA does a definite referential meaning become possible.
as in On poslal mdteri den 'gi., which may be uttered as a proper response to!
Whom did the o^-person send the (known) money to? a question that also al-
lows for answers by, On poslal den'gi mdteri., and by Den'gi on poslal mdteri.
In summary, the referential meaning oi den'gi A in sentence (12) must be indefi-
nite not definite; a translation of den 'gi4, by "the money" is defensible only if it
is meant to indicate not definiteness but specificity (as opposed to genencity),
which is compatible with both definiteness and indefiniteness: In uttering (12):
the speaker refers to a specific amount of money (specificity), but does not ex-
press a belief that the hearer knows of this money (definiteness). True, this is
correct only in a situation where the amount of money was not previously in-
troduced, either explicitly or implicitly, as a potential referent of den 'gi4 in (12):
such introduction supersedes the role of sentence accentuation.*
4.3. The genitive constituent: Generic or non-referential?
Now consider (8a), here repeated as:
(13) On poslal materi deneg.

Pret Perf Dat Gen P1N
Gladrow's German version (1998: 55) is, "Er schickte der Mutter Geld." - "He
sent his mother money"; Gladrow appears to be claiming that deneg, has an
indefinite meaning.?
If deneg, is indeed referential, two possibilities can be considered for the
referent of denegA: It is either the whole of the part-whole relationship, or
the part. In Lieb (2007) and Friedrich (2009: Chapter 10) it is argued that the
6. The connection in Russian between intonation and the referential meanings of nom-
mals is systematically studied in Friedrich (2009), whose relevant results are pre-
supposed in the present essay.
7. Indefinite meanings for the genitive constituent in such sentences are more clearly
assumed by Birkenmaier (1979), Leiss (2000); it is not entirely clear how Gladrow's
Indeterminiertheit ("mdetermmateness") is related to indefiniteness. - In the follow-
ing discussion we exclude from consideration so-called attributive referential mean-
ings, as in cases like, "The murderer will be caught.", said by a policeman on the
discovery of a slam person; such meanings occur as a subcase of definite and, pos-
sibly, indefinite meanings but are obviously irrelevant here.
referent should be the whole but, for argument's sake, we will here allow both
possibilities.
On either reading of deneg4 in (13), definite referential meanings are ex-
cluded: There cannot be a felicitous utterance of (13) in a situation where the
speaker wishes to express his belief that the hearer 'knows o f the money that
was sent, or of which it is a part.
This agrees with the relationship between accent placement and referential-
ity established in Fnednch (2009): deneg4 in (13) bears the sentence accent.
and thus should permit only indefinite and generic referential meanings; as
soon as the accent moves away, only definite or generic meanings should be
possible.
However, contrary to what is assumed in Lieb (2007) and Fnednch (2009:
Chapter 10), indefinite meanings should be excluded for accented deneg4, and
definite ones for unaccented deneg4: Given an indefinite meaning, the speaker
who utters sentence (13) expresses his or her belief that some hearer does not
know of the money that was sent, or the money of which it is a part; similarly
that the hearer does have such knowledge if the meaning is definite. But either
condition on speaker beliefs appears to be too strong; rather, no belief is ex-
pressed, be it in a negative or a positive direction. (Also, in either case there is a
problem with specificity, if reference is to the whole: Sentence (13) with a spe-
cific meaning of deneg4, be it definite or indefinite, would then mean that part
of a specific sum of money was sent, which appears to be wrong.) This leaves us
with just two possibilities: Either the genitive constituent has a generic mean-
ing, or it is non-referential. Distinguishing genencity from non-referentiality is
notoriously difficult in many cases - this is one of them.
4.4. The genitive constituent: Can it be generic?
Adopting the analyses presented in Lieb (2007) and Fnednch (2009: Chapter
10), there may be a (distributive) generic meaning of deneg4 in sentence (13).
reference being to the whole not the part of the part-whole relationship. How-
ever, a more careful analysis of potential genenc meanings has led us to iden-
tify a serious problem, typical of sentences like (13). Characterizing the prob-
lem requires some technicality.
The lexical meaning associated with deneg4 in (13) is a mass concept
money. The extension of money- is the set of all quantities of money.
Suppose, then, that deneg4 in (13) has a (distributive) genenc meaning (non-
distnbutive meanings are hardly acceptable); that the part-whole relationship is
accounted for in the proposition; and that reference by deneg4 is to the whole
not the part. The meaning of deneg4 may then be characterized by the following
formulation:
(14) For any (entity) x, (utterance) V, and (speaker) V l : Vx refers by deneg4 in

V to x if, and only if:
a. x is in the extension of money.
b. x is 'relevant' with respect to deneg4, V, V b and money.
The proposition is informally characterized as follows (cf Lieb 2007; Friedrich

2009: Chapter 10):
(15) If the speaker refers to x 2 by on, and to x3 by deneg4 and to x 4 by materh.

then 'some part ofx 3 was sent by x 2 to x 4 \
We previously failed to notice that this analysis creates the following serious
problem: Combining a proposition as in (15) with a referential meaning as in
(14) results in a sentence meaning that implies: For every relevant quantity of
money, some part of it was sent. But certainly, the sentence means that only
some part of some relevant quantity was sent.
There appear to be just two remedies that may be reasonably suggested.
A. Assume that reference is not to the whole of the part-whole relationship but
to the part, and change (15) by dropping "some part of".
(14) is changed to read: "For any (entity) x, (utterance) V, and (speaker) V l : V,

refers by deneg4 in V to x if, and only if, for some x': (a) x' is in the extension
of money, (b) x' is 'relevant' with respect to deneg4, V, V b and money, (c)
x is a part of x'." The part-whole relationship is now accounted for in the refer-
ential meaning of deneg4; (15) is changed to read: "If the speaker refers to x 2 by
on, and to x3 by deneg4 and to x 4 by materi3, then x3 was sent by x 2 to x4". -
Combining the new versions of (14) and (15), we now obtain as a consequence
that every x3 that is a part of some money quantity was sent, which is wrong
again; i.e. proposal (A) must be rejected.
B. Assume that reference is not to the whole of the part-whole relationship but
to the part, and change (15) by dropping "and to x3 by Jeeg 4 " and substitut-
ing "some x3 to which the speaker refers by deneg4" for "some part of x3".
8. The notion of relevance in (b) is explicated in Integration^ Sentence Semantics

through the notion of "reference basis", cf. Lieb (1983: 285).
Generic meaning (14) is changed as before. No objectionable consequence as

previously derived may be obtained by combining the new versions of (14) and
(15). Solution (B) is, however, objectionable for a different reason. The propo-
sition now is, informally: If the speaker refers to x 2 by on, and to x 4 by materh,
then some x3 to which the speaker refers by deneg4 was sent by x 2 to x4. When
sentence (13) is uttered, the proposition becomes the content of an assertion.
However, it appears to be wrong to claim that the speaker asserts that some-
thing he or she is referring to by deneg4 was sent, rather than something that is
a part of some quantity of money: The assertion is not on the existence or non-
existence of a referent for deneg4. Hence, proposal (B) should also be rejected.
In summary, in order to save a generic meaning for the genitive constituent
deneg4 in (13), we had to give up both assuming that the part-whole relation-
ship is accounted for in the proposition and assuming that reference by deneg4
is to the whole not to the part; but even then no acceptable sentence meaning
was obtained. We conclude that deneg4 does not have a generic meaning. Now
generic meanings were the only candidates left for referential meanings. There-
fore, deneg4 does not have a referential meaning in sentence (13), i.e., it is a
non-referential expression in this sentence.' Obviously, this result generalizes
to the genitive constituents in all comparable sentences.
4.5. The genitive effect: Proposition^ not referential
The only plausible location for a genitive effect is in the referential part or in
the proposition. We are now left with the proposition as a place for the single
positive genitive effect. In summary:
(16) In sentences like (13), On postal materi deneg..

a. the genitive constituent is non-referential;
b. semantically, the category Genitive is processed directly in the
sitionofthe sentence meaning.
More generally, the following answer to the question of location (4) is implied.
which is restricted to Russian but suggestive of wider application:
(17) In cases of negation-independent competition, a positive semantic effect

of the genitive is to be accounted for in the proposition - not in the ref-
erential part - of the sentence meaning.
9. Cf. also "non-local-reference" in Durst-Andersen (1996) or "nereferentnoe upotre-

bleme" - "non-referential use" - in Paducheva (2005, 2006).
We can now see that there is also a negative effect: In negation-independent

competition, the genitive (i.e. the category Genitive) together with other factors
blocks the semantic functions (associated with the syntactic function of nu-
cleus) that would bring about referential meanings of the genitive constituent.
This will not be discussed any further.
We next turn to the question of semantic mechanism (5) for the seman-
tic effect that the genitive has in negation-independent case competition.
As a preliminary step, we isolate the effect more precisely in two sample
propositions.
5. The genitive effect in sample propositions
5.1. Informal version of a proposition
The proposition for sentence (13), which is to include the genitive effect, can
be informally characterized by modifying formulation (15): We must eliminate
the referring by means of deneg4, and account for the lexical meaning money-
of deneg4 directly in the new formulation, as follows:
(18) If the speaker refers to x 2 by on, and to x4 by maten,, then 'some part x3
of some relevant quantity x5 in the extension of money was sent by x2
tox4\
For a more explicit formulation it is the part in inverted commas that has to be
made more precise. We begin by making some general remarks.
Formulation (18) contains the explicit requirement that some part of some
relevant quantity of money was sent. Simply requiring that some relevant
quantity of money was sent would be insufficient. For consider all money that
the speaker considers relevant when uttering deneg4 in an utterance of sentence
(13). This again is a quantity of money, hence, a relevant quantity of money.
But if the speaker wanted to assert that this quantity was sent, he or she would
have to use the accusative den'gi* i.e., would have to utter sentence (12). The
all-comprehensive quantity must therefore be excluded in construing the prop-
osition for the genitive sentence (13). Precisely this is achieved by the require-
ment in (18) of "some part (i.e., Q-part) x3 of some . . . x5": The Q-part relation
is asymmetric, therefore x 3 ^ x 5 .
The proposition, informally characterized in (18), embodies the semantic
effect of the genitive. For isolating the effect, (18) has to be replaced by a more
explicit formulation. As an essential step, the notion of sending, associated with

the predicate c o n s t i t u e n t / ^ / , , must be made more precise.
5.2. Lexical meaning of the predicate constituent
The lexical meaning oposlal2 is a concept send-, not a concept have sent-.
i.e., we consider postal, as a form of a verb that has both perfective and im-
perfective forms, not as a form of a perfective verb that has only perfective
forms and whose meaning is a concept that introduces perfectivity as part of its
intension. I"
Adopting the conception of concepts characterized in Section 3.3, and ob-
vious requirements for send- as a lexical meaning ofposM2 in sentence (13),
we arrive at the following characterization of send-. Four entities x b x2, x3, and
x4 are involved when send- is applied: an action Xl of sending by an actor x2
(e.g., the o^-person) of an object x3 (some money) to an object x 4 (the maten,-
person); naturally, this does not yet exhaust all aspects of an action of sending.
send- must therefore be a four-place concept whose (four-place) extension is
the set of quadruples < x b x2, x3, x4> such that the relation(-in-intension) SEND
holds between x b x2, x3, and x4, the unit set {SEND} being the (four-place) in-
tension of send-. The term " s e n d " is denned accordingly:
(19) send- = df the property of being a perception or conception z such that

{SEND} is a subset of the content of z, where
SEND = df lxx x2 x3 x4 [the relation-in-intension between any x b x2, x3.
and x4 such that]:
a. Xi is an action of sending by x2:
b. x3 is an object affected by x b
c. x4 is intended by x 2 in xx as a recipient of x3.
From the theory of concepts outlined in Section 3.3 we obtain the following
consequences:
(20) a. send-is a four-place concept.

b. "-send- [the four-place intension of send] = {SEND}.
c. --send- [the four-place extension of send] = {<x b x 2 ,x 3 ,x 4 > | SEND
relates x b x 2 , x 3 , and x 4 }.
10. Cf. Fnednch (2009: Section 9.5) for the underlying treatment of aspect in Russian.
The various aspects of the notion of sending that are essential to a reformula-
tion of (18) have now been rendered explicit.
5.3. Formal version of the proposition
Using the sentence-semantic framework outlined in Section 3.2 and replacing

"part" by "Q-part" ("proper quantity-part"), we reformulate (18) as follows:
(21) Forallx 2 andx 4 ,
If i. [Speaker] V l refers by on, in [utterance] V to x2, AND

n. Vxiefeis by materia in V to**
THEN
b. there are x b x 3 , and x5 such that:
i. x* is an element of the one-place extension of money, AND
n. x5 is an element of the one-place reference basis for deneg4, V b V.
and money, AND
in. x3 is a Q-part of x5, AND
iv < x b x2, x3, x4> is an element of the four-place extension of send-.
AND
v. < x b x2, x3, XA> is an element of the four-place reference basis for
^/a/2,V,Vbandsend-,AND
vi. for all x6,
IF
corresponds [Corr], for V b to theposlal2-part of V.
THEN
(3. Xj is earlier than x6, AND
y. Xj is complete at x6.
Formulation (21) is a reading of the following formula, added for the sake of
logical explicitness:
(22) (Vx2)(Vx4) [Ref V l 0 W l Vx 2 A Ref V 1 mater/ 3 Vx 4 ->

(3xj) (3x3) (3x5) (x5 e e l -money A
x5 e reb 1 (Jeeg 4 , V, V b -money) A
<x3, x5> e Partg A <xh x2, x3, x4> e e4-send- A
<xh x2, x3, x4> e reb4(poslal2, V, V b -send-) A
(Vx6) (<x6, pt(poslal2, V), V!> e Corr -^
< x b x6> e Earlier A < x b x6> e Complete))].
In (21), conditions on reference bases - (b.n), (b.v) - restrict the entities in

question to those which are 'relevant' for the speaker ( V l ) when he or she real-
izes a certain constituent (e.g., deneg4) in the utterance (V) together with a
certain concept ( m o n e y ) that is the constituent's lexical meaning. Condition
(vi) assumes a certain treatment for the indexicality of tenses (via) and repre-
sents the semantic effect of the categories Preterite (vi.(3) and Perfective (vi.y)
that both markposlal,.
5.4. Partitivity in quantity sentences and in plurality sentences
Intuitively, the semantic effect of the genitive marking of deneg, consists in the
'Q-part confining' - or 'Q-confining', for short - of poslal2 meaning send-, by
a meaning of deneg4 (this meaning being represented essentially by (b.i) and
(b.n) in (21)): The confining introduces some part of some money such that this
part is being sent.
Confining should in principle be possible in connection with any verb whose
lexical meaning is a quantity-friendly concept (in the sense explained in Sec-
tion 3.3), such as send-; put differently, in connection with any quantity-
friendly verb as exemplified by the Russian verb for sending.
It is exactly certain quantity-friendly verbs that permit one type of negation-
independent competition m Russian. There is, however, a second major type: We
may also have independent competition connected with group-friendly verbs - to
which the Russian verb for sending also belongs - and the plural of count nouns."
A sample pair of sentences is obtained from (8) by substituting papiros for
deneg in (8a) and papirosy for den 'gi in (8b):
(23) a. On poslal maten papiros.

he send mother cigarette
PretPerfDat Gen P1N
'He sent his mother cigarettes.'
b. On poslal materi papirosy.
he send mother cigarette
PretPerfDat Ace P1N
'He sent his mother specific cigarettes.'
(The translations - "cigarettes", "specific cigarettes" - are only approximate.)
11. deneg, and den'giA in sentences (8) are marked as Plural but are occurrences of
forms of a substantive that is a mass noun having only Plural forms; the Plural
category is semantically irrelevant here, as previously noted.
The analogies between (8) and (23) are striking, and the similarities between
the two types of negation-independent competition are well known. Still, the
two cases cannot be simply equated; a separate treatment for the second case
will be proposed.
We follow a recent tradition in the study of plural semantics by assuming
that 'pluralities' - the potential referents of plural nominals - are groups (not
sets). When a sentence meaning is constructed, then the concept associated
with an occurrence of a plural form of a count noun - say, cigarette-, associ-
ated mthpapJros4 in (23a) and wthpaptrosy, in (23b) - is transformed into the
corresponding 'group-concept', such as cigarette-group; and it is this concept
that enters into further semantic processing.^
Our discussion of the 'quantity-sentences' (8), with all conclusions, carries
over to the analysis of the 'plurality sentences' (23). In particular, the proposi-
tion of the genitive sentence (23a) is exactly like the proposition of the genitive
sentence (8a), formulated in (21) and (22), requiring just the following changes
in (21) (analogously, (22)):
(24) a. " m o n e y " is replaced by "cigarette-group":

b. "Jeeg 4 " is replaced by "papirosf;
c. "Q-part" is replaced by "G-part" ("proper group-part").
Because of the analogies between the two types of independent competition.

our intuitive characterization of the genitive effect as 'confining' carries over
from the quantity sentences to the plurality sentences; in the case of the genitive
sentence (23a), the effect consists in the group-part confining (G-confining) of
poslal2 meaning send , by a meaning oipapiros, represented essentially by the
modified versions of(b.i) and (b.n) in (21).
6. The genitive effect: Semantic mechanism and syntactic basis
6.1. Introduction
As stated in Section 3.2, a sentence meaning u is assigned to a given sentence

<f, s, e> by applying, typically, semantic functions that ultimately start from the
primitive constituents o f / a n d the concepts associated with them by e, and
12. If b is an individualizing concept, then ft-group is the concept whose intension con-
sists of the property of being a group whose members are elements of the extension
of b, and the extension of ft-group is the set of all such groups.
these functions are given either in the Syntactic Category Interpretation or the
Syntactic Function Interpretation. We have informally identified 'confining^
functions that qualify as semantic functions for introducing the genitive effect
when a proposition is constructed. These functions, together with their applica-
tion conditions, each constitute a semantic mechanism connected with the gen-
itive category in sentences of the relevant type. The mechanism must be
anchored either in the Syntactic Function Interpretation or in the Syntactic
Category Interpretation, i.e. the syntactic basis of the mechanism must be
either a syntactic function or a syntactic category.
From the very beginning, two different functions of confining, quantity con-
fining or Q-confining and group-confining or G-confining, must be distinguished,
due to the fact that two different part relations are involved, Q-part (proper
quantity-part) and G-part (proper group-part).
Because of the similarities between the two part relations it may be sug-
gested that we should assume just a single type of confining functions, intro-
ducing a special relation component into the arguments of these functions that
represents the two part relations. But such confining functions would no longer
be semantic functions as permitted by the Integrational framework: A semantic
function to be applied in sentence meaning construction may only have argu-
ments that consist of constituents or their (lexical or constituent) meanings.
Still, the two confining functions are analogous, and it should suffice to give
a more detailed analysis of Q-confining, together with its application condition.
using our standard example; the necessary changes for G-confining are then
easily specified.
6.2. The genitive effect in quantity sentences: Example
Consider, once again, the proposition for sentence (13), On poslal maten
deneg., as formulated in (21). The consequent of (21) introduces three entities
x b x3, and x5, by means of existential quantification: x, is an action of sending
(b.iv), x5 is a quantity of money (b.i), and x3 is a Q-part of x5 (b.m) and is what
is being sent (b.iv).
Introduction of x, is an effect of the predicate relation holding betweenô-
slal2 and the word sequence of the sentence, and is independent of the genitive
effect. Similarly, the tense (Preterite) and aspect (Perfective) interpretations of
poslal2, which involve only xh are not part of the genitive effect. However, in-
troduction of x5, and of x3 as a part of x5, is directly or indirectly due to the
genitive, given the two c o n s t i t u e n t s ^ / ^ and deneg, and their lexical mean-
ings send- and money: It is x5 and x3 and their role in conditions (b.i) to (b.v)
that constitute the effect; xx (the sending), x 2 (the sender), x4 (the recipient), V
(the utterance), and V, (the speaker) that also figure in these conditions must be
treated as already given.
It may now be suggested that we introduce Q-confining ("quantity-
confining") as a function whose arguments are quadruples such as <poslal2.
send-, deneg4, money> and that assigns to each argument a relation suitable
to account for the genitive effect in the proposition.
There is, however, a problem with this idea: Whereas poslal2, having com-
plements, must be a primitive constituent and may therefore be associated with
a concept like send- as its lexical meaning, the genitive constituent deneg4 is
primitive only by accident; as soon as it is replaced by a complex constituent.
the new constituent may no longer have a lexical but only a syntactic constitu-
ent meaning.
In the cases under consideration, a constituent meaning is a relation-in-
intension d among entities x, [potential utterances] V, and [potential speakers]
Vx. Even a primitive constituent may have a meaning of this kind. In the case
of deneg4 in sentence (13), this is d*, defined as follows:
(25) d* = df Ix" V" Vx" [the relation-in-intension between any x", V", and Vf
such that]:
a. x" is an element of the one-place extension of money-:
b. x" is an element of the one-place reference basis for deneg4 relative to
V ' W i " , and money.
Both primitive and complex constituents may have such relations as their con-
stituent meanings. For this reason, we do not include in the arguments of a
confining function the genitive constituent and one of its lexical meanings but
instead, simply a constituent meaning of the genitive constituent; i.e. the argu-
ments of Q-confining will be construed as triples <f, b, d>, where, as a matter
of fact, / i s a predicate constituent, b a concept that is a lexical meaning off.
and d a constituent meaning of the genitive constituent. We must also account
for the number n of places of b, which leads us to introduce n functions
Q-confining". These functions should be introduced in a way that makes the
following statement come out true for our example:
(26) Q-confiningV 0 5 /a/ 2 , send-, d*) ["the four-place quantity-confining of

^/a/2andsendbyd*"] =
lx{ x2' x4 V VY [the relation-in-intension between any x / , x 2 ', x 4 ', V .
and V< such that]: There are x3 and x5 such that:
a. d* relates x5, V , and V{:

b. x3 is a Q-part ["proper quantity-part"] of x5:
c. <x{, x 2 ', x3, x 4 '> is an element of the four-place extension of send-:
d. <x{, x2', x3, x 4 '> is an element of the four-place reference basis for
poslal2,N\N{, and send-.
Conditions (a) to (d) correspond to conditions (b.i) to (b.v) in (21). Given (25).
the entire consequent (b) of (21) is logically equivalent to:
(27) There is an xx such that:

a. <Xi, x2, x4, V, Vi> has Q-confining4(poslal2, send-, d*) [i.e., the rela-
tion specified in (26) holds between x b x2, x4, V, and V J , AND
b. [=(21b.vi)]forallx 6 ,
IF
a. x6 corresponds, for Vi, to the poslaU-mxt of V.
THEN
(3. Xj is earlier than x6, AND
y. Xj is complete at x6.
How, then, must the notion of Q-confining" be defined so as to make (26) and
(27) come out true?
6.3. Semantic mechanism in quantity sentences (1): Quantity confining
The arguments of the Q-confining" functions can now be characterized more

precisely They are to be triples <f, b, d> that satisfy the following conditions:
i. Ms an -place concept like send, i.e. an -place quantity-friendly concept

as explained in Section 3.3; a concept that can be associated with an expres-
sion like poslal2 as its lexical meaning.
n. Because of (i), b is an action concept that involves an object affected by the
action; b must therefore be at least 3-place. Moreover, since b is to be pos-
sible as the lexical meaning of a Russian verb, b can normally be at most
(n* + l)-place, where n* is the maximal number such that some Russian
verb has valency n*. Therefore, 3 < n < n* + 1.*
13. The valency of a lexical word is normally one less than the number of places of the
concept that is the word's meaning, by the General Valency Hypothesis; see Lieb
(1993: Section 5.6).
in. J i s to be a relation tike d*, more specifically, a quantity relation: a relation-

in-intension between entities x, [potential utterances] V, and [potential
speakers] V, such that x is a quantity (winch may be a mass quantity or a
substance quantity). Relations J e a n be associated as constituent meanings
with certain types of primitive or complex constituents.
The functions Q-confining" are formally introduced by a conditional definition

schema that accounts for (i) to (in) in its antecedent (only (i) and (in) need be
mentioned) and otherwise generalizes (26) by substituting V for "4"; y ' for
"poslah"; "ft" for " s e n d " ; and " J " for "d*" We thus obtain:
(28) Suppose that ft is an -place quantity-friendly concept; and d is a quan-

tity relation. Then:
Q-confimng\f, ft, d) = df W x2> x 4 ' . . . x' V V^: There are x3 and x5
such that:
b. x 3 i s a Q - p a r t o f x 5 ; "
c. <x{, x 2 ', x3, x 4 ',. . . , x'> is an element of the -place extension of ft:
d. <x{, x 2 ', x3, x 4 ',. . . , x'> is an element of the -place reference basis
for/relative to V , V^, and ft."
It is easily seen that definition schema (28) makes (26) true for n = 4; / =
poslal2; ft = send-; and d= d*; which in turn makes (27) come out true.
We next establish when exactly the Q-confining" functions may apply in the
construction of a proposition. Once again, we take our lead from the sample
sentence (13).
6.4. Semantic mechanism in quantity sentences (2): Application conditions

for quantity confining
The following syntactic and semantic properties of sentence (13), construed as

a specific triple </, *, e> of a suitable Russian idiolect system S, are relevant to
applying Q-confining* in the construction of proposition (21) (for the syntactic
properties, see Section 3.1, above):
i. <f,s,e> is a sentence of S
n. send- is afour-place quantity-friendly concept.
14. For n = 3 the schema is to be understood as not including x4' to x'. Similarly in (34).
below.
111. d* is a quantity relation.

iv. send- is a lexical meaning ofposM2 in/, s, e, and S.
v. d* is a constituent meaning of deneg, in/, *, e, and .9.
vi. < 0 b deneg4, materh,poslal2> e comp3(/ s , e, S).
vn. Jeeg 4 is marked as Gen(- S) i n / s, e, and .9.
vin. postal* is marked as NOM + AKK/GEN [+ DAT](-, - S) i n / *, e, and S
Conditions (n) and (m) are needed in view of the antecedent in (28).
Generalizing from (i) to (vm), we obtain a condition that is necessary
and sufficient for applying the Q-confining" functions, to be called the Qc-
condWon" ("the -place quantity-confining condition", "c" for "confining") in
Russian idiolect systems S. There is just one complication in formulating these
conditions for quantity confining: In computing the valency of the predicate
verb (3, in the example, see (vi)) from the number of places of the concept that
is the predicate-verb meaning (4, in the example, see (n)), using the General
Valency Hypothesis (Lieb 1993: Sections 5.5 and 5.6), we must subtract not
only 1 but also the number of 'deictic' places of the concept, i.e. the places re-
lated to speakers or utterances (zero, in the example, which does not appear
overtly). This will be taken into account.
Formally, a value of Qc-condition" is a six-place relation (set of six-tuples)
between certain syntactic and semantic entities; the relation is assigned to Rus-
sian idiolect systems S by means of the function denoted by the term "Qc-
condition"", for a suitable n, as specified in the following definition schema:
(29) For any Russian idiolect system S:

Qc-condition\S) = df the set of all < / , b, d,f, s, e> such that:
a. <f,s,e> is a sentence of S;
b. Ms an -place quantity-friendly concept;
c. d is a quantity relation:
d. Ms a lexical meaning o f / in/, s, e, and S:
e. for m = n minus 1 minus the number of deictic places of b, there are
fhf2,...,fm such that:
i- </b/2, JmJ{> e comp m (/ s, e, S):
n. / 2 i s m a r k e d i n / , , e , a n d S a s G e n ( - , S ) :
in. d is a constituent meaning of/2 i n / s, e, and S;
15. This unphes that there is a sentence meaning for < / ,, e>. ~ Generalizing (a) to
'sentence combinations' is a technical problem, here left undiscussed.
f. f is marked i n / ., e, and S as an occurrence of a form of an ACC/

GEN-verbof^
Definition schema (29) is indeed a generalization of (i) to (vm): n = 4; m = 3:

/ ' = ^ / a / 2 ; ft = -send-; J = d*, / = on,, f2 = deneg4; f3 = materi3; < / s, e> =
<f,s,e> = Onposlalmatendeneg.
6.5. Syntactic basis for the semantic mechanism
The syntactic basis for the semantic mechanism is either the genitive category
itself, if the confining" functions are given in the Syntactic Category Interpreta-
tion; or else, is a syntactic function in case the confining" functions are supplied
by the Syntactic Function Interpretation.
Suppose that S is a Russian idiolect system and n is the number of places of
at least one concept that is quantity-friendly and is the meaning of an ACC/
GEN-verbofS. We consider the pair
(30) <Q-confining", Qc-condition"(S)>.
This pair is an interpretation either of the syntactic category Genitive(- S) or

of the restriction to S, g[S], of a syntactic function g. In the first case, we
assume that the triple
(31) <Gen(- S), Q-confining", Qc-condition"(S)>
is an element of the Syntactic Category Interpretation of S; in the second case.

we assume the following triple as an element of the Syntactic Function Inter-
pretation of S: the triple
(32) <g[S], Q-confining", Qc-condition"(S)>.
Either possibility is compatible with (30). There is, however, a reason to prefer
(32) over (31).
16. An ACC/GEN-verb of S is any verb <P, b> of S that is at least two-valued and al-
lows as a second complement both an accusative constituent and a genitive constitu-
ent. By (iv), / ' is to be an occurrence of a form of such a verb such that the relevant
government category of the verb appears in the marking structure, the second com-
ponent of the syntactic structure s off, in connection with/'.
It appears from (29e) that the function g that qualifies in the context of (32)
is complementation. Now Q-confining" directly involves the constituent/ that
has complements, and its lexical meaning b, whereas the constituent marked by
Genitive is represented only indirectly, through its constituent meaning d.
We therefore conclude that (32) is correct, i.e. we assume that
(33) <cQmp[S], Q-confining", Qc-condition"(S)>
is an element of the Syntactic Function Interpretation of S, for any n such that

S is a Russian idiolect system and n is the number of places of at least one con-
cept that is quantity-friendly and is the meaning of an ACC/GEN-verb of S such
that m = n minus 1 minus the number of deictic places of the concept. When-
ever in the construction of a proposition the Qc-condition"(S) is satisfied, the
Q-confining" function applies. The Genitive category Gen(- S) figures only in
the application condition Qc-condition"(S): Gen(- S) is not itself interpreted;
its semantic effect is not direct, through an interpretation in the Syntactic
Category Interpretation of S, but only indirect, by figuring in the application
condition for a semantic function that belongs to an interpretation of the re-
striction of a syntactic function, comp, for each admissible m.
We next consider the situation for group confining.
6.6. The genitive effect in plurality sentences
Sentence (23a), On postal materi papiros., may serve as a sample sentence.

The group-confining functions G-confining" are analogous to the quantity-
confining functions, with one major difference: The genitive constituent -
which may but need not be a primitive constituent like papiros, - is in the
Plural, and this is semantically relevant; the constituent meaning d of the geni-
tive constituent must be a group relation: a relation-in-intension between enti-
ties x, [potential utterances] V, and [potential speakers] Vi such that x is a group.
(Allowing only for groups of 'small' objects in the present context, as sug-
gested by a statement made by Gladrow in 1998: 55, appears to us unwarranted.)
The reason is our conception of plural semantics by which the semantic effect
of the category Plural (of nouns) consists in the determination of groups whose
members are from a certain set, in the simplest case, from the extension of an
individualizing concept that is the lexical meaning of a primitive constituent.
such aspaptros, in sentence (23a).
It is not enough, though, to require that d should be a group relation; the
condition of the genitive constituent being marked as Plural is independently
important: We must exclude the case of a genitive constituent by which a group

noun is used in the singular. On the other hand, a genitive constituent that uses
a group noun in the plural must be admitted. All these requirements are satisfied
if the application conditions for the group-confining functions contain the con-
ditions: (i) d is a group relation and a constituent meaning of the genitive
constituent, and (11) the genitive constituent is in the Plural.
The definition schema for the group-confining functions can now be
obtained by making a few substitutions in (28), the definition of Q-confining":
i. "group-friendly concept" for "quantity-friendly concept":

n. "group relation" for "quantity relation";
in. "G-part"for"Q-part".
This results in the following definition schema:"
(34) Suppose that ft is an -place group-friendly concept; and d is a group

relation. Then:
G-confimng" (f, ft, d) = df ^ x2> x 4 ' . . . x> V V^: There are x3 and x5
such that:
b. x 3 i s a G - p a r t o f x 5 ; "
c. <x{, x 2 ', x3, x 4 ',. . . , x'> is an element of the -place extension of ft:
d. <x{, x 2 ', x3, x 4 ',. . . , x'> is an element of the -place reference basis
for/relative to V , V x ', and ft.
Similarly, a definition schema for Gc-condition"(S) is obtained from (29) by

means of the changes (i) and (n), plus:
iv Add "and P1 N (- S)" in (29e.ii).
This yields the following formulation:

Gc-condition\S) = df the set of all </', ft, d,f, s, e> such that:
b. ft is anyplace group-friendly concept:
17. See also footnote 14, above.

18. See also footnote 15, above.
c. d is a group relation:
d. Ms a lexical meaning o f / in/, s, e, and S:
fhf2,...,fm such that:
i- fhf2, JmJ{> e comp m (/ s, e, S):
K
11. f2 is marked i n / s, e, and S as Gen(- S) and P1 N (- S):

in. d is a constituent meaning of/2 i n / ., e, and S;
f. / ' is marked i n / ,, e, and S as an occurrence of a form of an ACC/
GEN-verbofS.
By an argument strictly analogous to the reasoning in Section 6.5 that led us to

accept (33) for Q-confming", we now arrive at:
(36) <comp[S], G-confming", Gc-condition"(S)> E Syntactic Function

Interpretation of S,
for any Russian idiolect system S and n = the number of places of at least one
concept that is group-friendly and is the meaning of an ACC/GEN-verb of S
such that m = n minus 1 minus the number of deictic places of the concept.
Again, whenever in the construction of a proposition the Gc-condition"(S)
is satisfied, the G-confining" function applies. The two categories Gen(- S)
and P1 N (- S) jointly have an indirect effect, by figuring in the application con-
ditions for semantic functions associated in the Syntactic Function Interpreta-
tion with complement-function restrictions.
All leading questions (3) to (7) have now been answered for negation-
independent competition: the questions of the nature of effects of the genitive;
of the location of effects; of the semantic mechanism by which the effects are
achieved; of the syntactic basis of the mechanism; and of the directness of the
effects - all this for the only positive effect, partitivity.
We now consider, somewhat more briefly, negation-dependent competition.
C. Dependent case competition: Genitive vs. accusative and nominative
7. Type 1: Genitive vs. accusative
7.1. Introduction
Consider the following sentence pair (quoted from Partee and Borschev
2006b):
(37) a. On ne polucil pis'mo.

he NEG received letter-ACC.N.SG
'He didn't recexve the (or 'a specific') letter.'
b. On ne polucil pis'ma.
he NEG received letter-GEN.N.SG
'He didn't receive any letter'
Case competition in this pair does not exemplify either type of negation-
independent competition: We are confronted, in the genitive sentence (b), nei-
ther with quantity confining - since the lexical meaning letter- oipis'ma, is no
quantity concept, the constituent meaning of pis'ma, is no quantity relation -
nor with group confining: pis 'ma4 is marked as Singular not Plural.
Still, our treatment of negation-independent competition easily carries over
to the situation represented in (37), except for an important qualification: Nei-
ther of the two part relations, proper quantity-part and proper group-part, is
involved, / / w e wish to admit partitivity as a semantic effect of the genitive in
(37b), then a third part relation, (proper) piece-of, must be introduced. How-
ever, the general opinion in the literature appears to be that the genitive in a
sentence like (37b) is non-partitive. We adopt this view but otherwise apply our
previous analysis.
How should Russian genitive sentences be distinguished from non-genitive
sentences in negation-dependent case competition? There has been growing
agreement in the literature on the following position (see also Partee and
Borschev 2006b: Section 1):
(38) a. Negation scope:

Constituent affected (Gen) vs. not affected (Ace, Norn) by negation.
b. Referentiality:
Constituent clearly referential (Norn, Ace) vs. 'less referential'
(Gen).2
c. Existentiality:
19. For an analogous relationship between negation and different types of adverbs in
Slavic languages, see Kosta (2003a, 2003b). - Formulation (38a) is deliberately
ambiguous in relation to "scope", which may be understood as 'syntactic scope'
with respect to some authors and 'semantic scope' with respect to others. As a matter
of fact, only on the second interpretation of "scope" is (38a) tenable, as appears from
Partee and Borschev (2002). Our own understanding will therefore be semantic.
20. Referential^ should not be considered a matter of degree; we therefore replace
"less referential" (as in Timberlake 2004: 300) by "non-referential".
Constituent introducing (Gen) vs. not introducing (Nom, Ace) exis-

tential quantification.
Our own proposals are to account for all three points, as exemplified by the
propositions for sentences (37).
7.2. Sample propositions
First, consider the accusative sentence (37a). We assume the following

proposition:
(39) For all x2 and x3, if Vx refers by on, in V to x2 and by pis'mo, in V to x3.
then NOT:
There is an x, and an x4 such that <x b x2, x3, x4> E --iccieve- [etc.].*
Obviously, except for NOT as an effect of the e-occurrence, this proposition

comes about exactly as the propositions for the non-negative accusative sen-
tences (8b) and (23b), and an indefinite but specific referential meaning for the
accusative constituentpis'moA (cf "or a specific" in (37a)) is as expected. In
other words, negativity of the sentence is irrelevant to the problems under dis-
cussion. On the other hand, the proposition of the genitive sentence (37b) comes
out as follows:
(40) For all x2, if V l refers by on, in V to x2, then NOT:

There is an x, and x4 such that, for some x3: x3 E ^letter- and
x3 E rebi(^'ma 4 ,V,V b letter) and <x b x 2 ,x 3 ,x 4 > E --redeye- [etc.].
The difference between the two propositions is exactly as required by (38):
i. The accusative constituent is outside the scope of negation in the sense that
in (39), the referring by means of the constituent is outside the scope of
NOT.
ii. The genitive constituent is inside the scope of negation in the sense that in
(40), the part corresponding to the constituent is inside the scope of NOT.
in. The accusative constituent in the accusative sentence is referential.
21. "etc." for conditions on the reference basis for polucil3 and for the tense and aspect
effects. "x 4 " represents the sender.
iv. The genitive constituent in the genitive sentence is non-referential.

v. The accusative constituent does not introduce existential quantification in
the proposition formula (39), referents x3 being introduced by universal
quantification.
vi. The genitive constituent does introduce existential quantification, existence
of a constituent-related entity x3 being required in the proposition formula
(40).
Now properties (m) to (vi) are exactly as they would be in a sentence pair ex-
hibiting negation-independent case competition: Our analysis brings out the
important fact that differences in referentiality and existentiality between the
negative accusative sentence and the negative genitive sentence are no effect of
negation, which, after all, is present in both.
7.3. Generalizations
The semantic effects of the genitive are again twofold, as in independent com-
petition: (i) There is an indirect positive effect insofar as a genitive constituent
is required in the application condition for a semantic function that is as fol-
lows: it is associated with the syntactic complement function and is involved in
the construction of the proposition, (n) There is an indirect negative effect in-
sofar as the genitive blocks the application of any semantic function that is as
follows: it is associated with the syntactic nucleus function, and its application
would create a referential meaning of the genitive constituent. Once again, only
(i) will be considered.
Intuitively, the semantic function used in building the proposition is 'group-
confining minus group partitivity'; i.e. in definition schema (34) for "G-
confining"", we simply drop all reference to x5 so as to obtain the main part of
a new definition schema for type-1 confining".
The definition schema must again be conditional but we cannot simply take
over the antecedent of (34), with its reference to a group-friendly concept b and
a group relation d. For a proper construal of the new condition, we must con-
sider the application conditions for group-confining, specified in (35), as a
starting-point.
The most important change from (35) is the strengthening of condition (f)
in (35), which so far reads: "/' is marked i n / s, e, and S as an occurrence of an
ACC/GEN-verb of S." No longer may we allow any ACC/GEN-verb but only
the verbs that are 'genitive verbs' in the sense of Paduceva (2006). As demon-
stated by Paduceva's own attempt, it is difficult if not impossible to come up

with a cut-and-dned determination of these verbs in purely semantic terms.
Rather, they should be characterized by their behavior in the context we are
now considering, roughly as follows. A type-1 negation-friendly verb of (a Rus-
sian idiolect system) S is an ACC/GEN-verb of S that can be used under nega-
tion, and only under negation, with a genitive complement^ (competing with
an accusative complement) such that: The constituent meaning d off2 is a sin-
gularity relation or a group relation;^ and if J is a group relation,/ 2 is marked
as Singular in S. Possibly, all these verbs belong to the semantic classes postu-
lated by Paduceva; it is doubtful, though, that every verb in one of those classes
will also be type-1 negation-friendly
Genitive constituents whose constituent meaning is a quantity relation are
excluded in the definition. A group relation as a constituent meaning is compat-
ible with both Singular and Plural (groups are potential referents of plural
forms); for this reason, it is explicitly required in the above definition that the
genitive constituent be in the Singular. On the other hand, plural forms are not
excluded in the case of singularity relations, due to the existence oipluralia
tantum denoting individuals.
If condition (35f) is strengthened as proposed, both b and J are sufficiently
characterized in the application conditions for type-1 confining once we also
require: b is the lexical meaning of the predicate constituent, and d is the con-
stituent meaning of the genitive constituent. Hence, in defining type-1 confin-
ing, no specific conditions need be imposed on either b or d in the antecedent
of the definition schema, other than requiring that b should be n-place. - The
definition schemata for the semantic mechanism can now be formulated.
7.4. Semantic mechanism and syntactic basis
A relevant semantic mechanism is a pair of a type-1 confining function and its

application condition. The confining functions are given by the following defi-
nition schema:
(41) Suppose that b is an -place concept, n > 2*

tl-confining" ["-place type-1 c o n f i n i n g " ^ b, d) =xXx{ x 2 ' x 4 ' . . . x'
V V<: There is an x3 such that:
22. A singularity relation is a relation-m-mtension d among entities x, V, and V, such

that x is an individual.
23. For n = 3, the schema is to be understood as not including x4' to x'.
b. <x]',x^Zxl...,xJ>e^b:
c. <x 1 ',x 2 ',X3,x 4 ',...,x'>ereb"(/V',V 1 ',Z>).
The application conditions for these functions are as follows:

tl-condition\S) = the set of all </', b, d,f, s, e> such that:
b. M s anyplace concept;
c. d is a singularity relation or a group relation:
d. M s a lexical meaning o f / i n / . , e, and S;
A,f2,...,fm such that:
i. </i,/ 2 , . . . ,fm,f> e c o m p l y ; s, e, S):
n. / 2 i s m a r k e d i n / W n d S a s G e n ( - , S ) :
in. d is a constituent meaning off2 i n / s, e, and S:
iv. if J is a group relation, then f2 is marked in f, s, e, and S as
Sg N (- S);
f. f is marked in /J s, e, and 5 as an occurrence of a form of a type-1
negation-friendly verb of S;
g. f is negated in/, ,, e, and ^.24
We previously decided to associate the semantic functions of quantity-confining

and group-confining with the syntactic complement functions, rather than
directly with the category Genitive. The reasons given for this decision apply
even more strongly in the case of the new confining functions, due to the fact
that their application conditions impose an even stronger requirement on the
government category of the predicate verb. True, it may be argued that we have
also added another condition, that of a negated predicate constituent (42g):
should we not take the syntactic function of negation as the syntactic basis of
the semantic mechanism? However, the negation requirement is only a conse-
quence of the strengthened government condition; the negation effect concern-
ing tl-confining should therefore be construed as indirect, same as the effect of
the category Genitive. - We therefore assume that
(43) <comp[S], tl-confining", tl-condition"(S)>
24. This is to mean that/' is the scope of the (sentence) negator whose domain is the
constituent that h a s / a s its nucleus.
is an element of the Syntactic Function Interpretation of S, where Sis a Russian

idiolect system and n is the number of places of at least one concept that is the
meaning of a type-1 negation-friendly verb such that m = n minus 1 minus the
number of deictic places of the concept.
7.5. Excluding lexical case competition. Intensional verbs
Differences in verb government can also be adduced to solve the puzzle of ap-
parent genitive/accusative competition that is just like type-1 competition but is
not negation-dependent; such apparent competition has been discussed since
Z a l i z n j a k ( 1 9 6 7 ) : ^ a z ^ 0 ? v e t o ( G e n , Sg)/otvet (Ace, Sg). Rather than intro-
ducing anew case (zdatel'nyj padez, 'case of waiting', Zaliznjak 1967: 49), this
may be explained by assuming not one verb but two verbs that differ in lexical
meaning: One verb, governing the accusative, corresponds to German erWarten
'expect', in the sense of expecting something to arrive that exists; the accusa-
tive is referential: 'There is an answer that Anna is expecting.' The other verb.
governing the genitive, corresponds to German warten aw/'wait for', in the
sense of being involved in a waiting process whose aim is of a certain kind; the
genitive is non-referential: 'Anna is involved in a waiting-for-an-answer'. Case
competition, which is non-lexical and requires a single verb, is here mirrored
by government differences between two different verbs whose lexical mean-
ings are such that they jointly represent, in positive sentences, the effects that
type-1 confining has in negative sentences. In the case of such verb pairs, we
may loosely speak of lexical case competition, to be distinguished from syntac-
tic case competition, or case competition, for short, which is the topic of the
present essay.
The proposed analysis may however be questioned, if not in this case then
in other comparable cases. There is indeed an alternative: A single ACC/GEN-
verb is assumed whose meaning is an 'intensional' concept of a certain type
(such as the concept of searching), and a semantic function is associated with
the relevant syntactic comp-function that is operative only when there is a gen-
itive complement of such a verb. Details of sentence meaning composition
could then be as suggested in Lieb (1983: Sections 26.5 and 26.7) for sentences
with English look for.
Given the first analysis, the use of the genitive under discussion is outside
the competition area. Given the second analysis, it falls within the area as an
additional instance; its treatment similar to other uses analyzed in this essay
appears possible. (Borschev et al. 2008 argue that, adopting the 'property-type
hypothesis', the genitive of negation and the 'genitive of intensionality' may be

'unified'. See also Partee 2008 for relevant discussion.)
It remains for us to consider the much-discussed situation of the genitive
competing under negation with the nominative, rather than the accusative.
8. Type 2: Genitive vs. nominative
8.1. Sample propositions
For sample sentences, we choose the pair going back to Apresjan (1966: 193):
(44) a. Otvet iz polka ne prisel

answer from regiment not arrive
Norn Masc N Sg N
'The answer from the regiment has not arrived.'
b. Otveta iz polka ne prislo.
answer from regiment not arrive
Gen Masc N SgN
'There was no answer from the regiment.'
In either case, we assume sentence accent on the predicate constituent, marked

by the aspect category Perfective and the tense category Preterite in both sen-
tences. The other verb-form categories that are relevant here remain to be
established. As a lexical meaning of the predicate constituent, we take the
partly deictic concept of 'arriving at speaker's place'. This concept is four-
place, involving an event x b an agent x2, an utterance x3, and a speaker x4; the
places for x3 and x 4 are deictic.
What are the propositions for the two sentences? They may be assumed to
be strictly analogous to the propositions that were postulated in (39) and (40)
for the sentence pair used in (37) to exemplify negation-dependent accusative/
genitive competition:
(45) a. Nominative sentence (44a):

For all x2, if V l refers by otveh iz2polka3 in V to x2, then NOT:
There are x b x 3 , and x4 such that:
i. < x b x2, x3, x4> e e4 arrive ; AND
ii. < x b x2, x3, x4> E r e b V m e / 5 , V, V b -arrive-); AND
in. x3 corresponds to V for V l ; AND
iv. XA corresponds to Vi for V b AND

v. [effects of tense and aspect].
b. Genitive sentence (44b):
NOT: there are x b x 3 , and x 4 such that:
i. for some x2:
a. x2, V, and V\ are related by Lotvetax iz2polka^; AND
B. <Xi, x2, x3, XA> e e4-arrive-; AND
y. < x b x2, x3, x4> E r e b \ ^ m / 0 5 , V, V b -arrive-); AND
ii. toiv[=(a.iii)to(a.v)].
(Conditions (B) and (y) correspond to (a.i) and (a.n). Condition (a) now takes
the place of the antecedent in (a).) Informally, in uttering the nominative sen-
tence the speaker is asserting that any x2 to which he or she is referring by the
subject constituent has not reached the speaker, whereas the claim made by
means of the genitive sentence is as follows: There is no x 2 such that (i) x 2 is
related to the speaker by the constituent meaning of the subject constituent (the
meaning is denoted above by enclosing the subject constituent in inverted com-
mas), and (n) x 2 has reached the speaker. Moreover, the subject constituent in
the nominative sentence must be used with a definite referential meaning, due
to the fact that it is referential and does not bear the sentence accent (an attribu-
tive or a generic meaning may here be excluded). We therefore have it as part
of the sentence meaning - though not the proposition - that the speaker is refer-
ring by the subject constituent to exactly one x2. In contradistinction, there is no
such part of the sentence meaning when the genitive sentence is uttered, due to
the fact that the subject constituent is non-referential; what is claimed, is the
non-existence of the arriving of any x2 that is as required by the constituent
meaning of the subject constituent.
8.2. Comments: "Perspectival Center"
Partee and Borschev propose an analysis of type-2 case competition by which

the nominative sentence and the genitive sentence in a sentence pair differ in
'Perspective Structure': through a specific choice of a 'Perspectival Center';
the authors oppose the nominative and the genitive sentence as follows (Partee
and Borschev 2007b: 171):
When the THING is chosen as Perspectival Center, its existence is presupposed.

and the sentence speaks of its LOCation and potentially about other properties or
states or actions.
When we choose the LOCation as Perspectival Center, the sentence speaks about
what THINGS there are (or not) in that situation and/or about what is happening
m the situation.
Partee and Borschev further hypothesize (2007b: 172):
[ . . . ] choice of Perspective Structure is [ . . . ] a "diathesis choice", a choice

among two alternative argument structures for verbs that take both a "THING"
and a "LOC" argument, analogous to the argument structure choices (diathetic
alternations) for verbs like spray, load or like give, send.
On our analysis, 'Perspective Structure' can be construed as an automatic by-

product of word and sentence meanings, without involvement of a 'diathesis
choice'.
Consider the nominative sentence, where the subject constituent is referen-
tial. On an IL view, the referential part of a sentence meaning is separate from
the proposition; hence, the potential referents of a referential expression are
specified independently, and may therefore 'stand out' as the Perspectival Cen-
ter, existence of a referent being 'presupposed' in the proposition.
The subject constituent is non-referential in the genitive sentence. The same
verb is used as a predicate in both the nominative sentence and the genitive
sentence (in contrast to sentence pairs with English spray, where two verbs not
one should be assumed: 'spray something on something', 'spray something
with something'). On a defensible interpretation of the second quote from Par-
tee and Borschev (2007b), the verb used as a predicate may be understood to
have as its meaning a concept b such that: If <x b x2, . . . , x> is in the extension
of b, then a location is assigned to the agent-place filler x 2 of event x b either
implicitly (by requiring existence of a certain location through b 's intension) or
as an explicit possibility (by requiring or allowing some x,, i > 2, as the location
of x 2 ); in the second case, we have a verb that requires or allows a locational
complement, possibly optional. When such a verb is used in a genitive sen-
tence, no agent-place filler x 2 is referred to; existence of a filler becomes part of
what is being predicated in the proposition: 'The sentence speaks about what
THINGS there are (or not) in that situation'. At the same time, the locational
aspects of the predicate's lexical meaning remain unaffected, and 'location' can
stand out as the Perspectival Center.
The difference may or may not be analogous to instances of diathesis, but it
does not require any specific syntactic or semantic underpinning as its basis.
In (38), consensus claims were characterized on genitive vs. accusative and
nominative in negation-dependent case competition. These claims are sup-
ported, in a precise form, by our analysis. We still have to identify the underly-
ing semantic mechanism and its syntactic basis.
8.3. The semantic functions
In the proposition formulated in (45b) for the genitive sentence in (44b), the
following part must be introduced by a semantic confining function:
(46) For some x2:

i. x2, V, and Vi are related by cotveta-\ iz2 polkaS; AND
11. <X1,X2,X3,X4>E^.arrlve.;AND
in. < x b x2, x3, x4> E r e b V / 0 5 , V, V b -arrive-).
This part of the proposition can be obtained by means of a semantic function

t2-confining4 ("four-place type-2 confining") that is analogous to tl-confining
but involves the constituent meaning not of an object constituent but of the
subject, in addition to the predicate and its lexical meaning: If d* = 'otveta, iz2
polka,' is the constituent meaning of the subject, then t2-confiningV7 05 ,
arrive-, d*) = Xx{ x 3 ' x 4 ' V V<: (46), with relevant variables primed, d* can
be defined as follows: d* = df Ix" V" Vx": *" e e l answer- A X" E r e b ^ ^ i ,
V", V A answer) A for all x{\ if V l " refers by polka, in V" to x{, then
<x\x{> E ^ f i o m - A ^ ^ E reb2(/z2, V", V^', from).
The semantic functions t2-confining" are obtained by a definition schema
that changes (41), the definition schema for the tl-confining functions, in an
appropriate way:
(47) Suppose that b is an -place concept, > 1 .*

t2-confiningn ["-place type-2 confining"](f. b, d) = df Xx/ x 3 ' . . . x' V
V i : There is an x2 such that:
b. <X1',X2,X3'',..'.,X'>E^:
c. < x 1 ' , x 2 , x 3 ' , . . . , x ' > E r e b a V , V 1 ' , Z , ) .
We obtain the type-2 confining functions by requiring existence of x2, rather

than existence of x3 as we did for the type-1 functions.
Definition schema (42), introducing the application conditions for type-1
confining, may serve as a starting-point for obtaining the conditions that must
be satisfied for applying the type-2 confining functions.
25. For n = 2, the schema is to be understood as not including x3' to x'.

8.4. Towards application conditions
We previously (Section 7.3) introduced type-1 negation-friendly verbs as a sub-

class of ACC/GEN-verbs. Similarly, we now need type-2 negation-friendly
verbs; however, these are simply identical to the NOM/GEN-verbs, where
"NOM/GEN-verb" is informally denned as "verb that can be used under nega-
tion, and only under negation, with a 'first' complement in the genitive, pro-
vided the verb form used is a 'permitted form'." (It is not yet entirely clear how
the verb or verbs byf - lexical words one of which must be the copula that has
the relational 'be' as its meaning - are related to the NOM/GEN class; see
Partee and Borschev 2007a for discussion.)
-Unpermittedforms comprise: (i) the so-called o-forms, i.e. the Singula^
Neuter v forms of the Preterite, all of them Unspecific for Person (Unsp Ps ); (n)
the Plural forms of the Preterite, which are not only Unspecific for Person but
also Unspecific for Verbal Gender (Unsp VG ); (iii) 3P Singular and 3P Plural
forms of the Present and the Future.
Typically, it is only forms (i) that are mentioned in discussions of genitival
subjects. However, 3P Sg forms of the Present and the Future must clearly be
included. Inclusion of Plural forms, Unspecific for Person in the Preterite and
3P in the Present and in the Future, is more debatable but may be defended in
view of sentences with these forms that are analogous to 'negative existential
sentences'with forms (i).
Now suppose we do take the genitive constituent in relevant sentences, such
as (44b), to be the subject. This raises a well-known problem: The requirements
of subject/predicate agreement need not be satisfied either with respect to Num-
ber (Singular otveta, in (44b) could be replaced by Plural otvetov,) or Gender
(otveta, is M a s c N , ^ m / 0 l is Neuter v ). When permitted Present or Future forms
are used, there may be lack of number agreement.
At least the two following solutions may be suggested: A. We retain the
genitive constituent as a subject, and accept the violation of agreement re-
quirements (the traditional solution). B. We reject the genitive constituent as a
subject.
As a matter of fact, a third solution may also be considered. Using catego-
ries of unspecificity: Unspecific for Person, for Verbal Number, and for Verbal
Gender, an additional categorization is introduced for each permitted form that
employs these categories, removing agreement violations when the genitive
constituent is construed as the subject. We originally tried this out in detail.
with uncertain success. We refrain from reproducing the discussion here be-
cause for independent reasons, it is Solution (B) - rejecting the genitive con-
stituent as a subject - that may have to be adopted.
For now we follow Solution (A), formulating the application conditions for
t2-confining accordingly.
8.5. Application conditions. Syntactic basis
The following formulation is analogous to (42):

t2-condition\S) = df the set of all </', b, d,f, s, e> such that:
b. Ms an 1,-place concept;
c. b is a lexical meaning of/' in /. s, e, and S:
d. for m = n minus 1 minus the number of deictic places of b, there are
fhf2,...,fm, such that:
i. </i,/ 2 ,. . . , / m , / ' > e c o m p l y ; s, e, S):
n. /> is marked i n / > , e , and S as G e n ( - S ) :
in. d is a constituent meaning of* i n / ., e, and S:
e. / is marked i n / ., e, and S as an occurrence of a form of a NOM/
GEN-verbof^;
f. / ' is marked in / s, e, and S as {Unsp Ps (-, 5), Neuter v (-, S)} or
{Unsp Ps (-, S), Unsp V G (- S)} or {3P(- S)>;
g. / i s negated i n / ,, e, and S.
(The three parts of the alternative in (48f) account for, respectively, permitted
forms of type (i), type (n), and type (m), see Section 8.4.) In a marked deviation
from previous application conditions, the type-2 conditions do not impose any
particular requirements on the constituent meaning J of the genitive constituent
/ b which is in subject position: J may be a quantity relation, group relation, or
singularity relation; a l s o , / may be in the Singular or in the Plural.
Once again, it is the syntactic complement function that should be taken as
the syntactic basis of the semantic mechanism: Both condition (f), requiring
that the predicate constituent should be an occurrence of a permitted form, and
condition (g), requiring that the predicate constituent should be negated, are in
a sense implied by requirement (e), asking for NOM/GEN as a verbal govern-
ment category.
We therefore assume that
(49) <comp[S], t2-connning, t2-condition"(S)>

is an element of the Syntactic Function Interpretation of any Russian idiolect

system S such that: n is the number of places of at least one concept that is the
meaning of a NOM/GEN-verb of S, and m = n minus 1 minus the number of
deictic places of the concept.
8.6. Modification of the analysis. Concluding remarks
There is the following serious objection to the preceding analysis of type-2

competition: The genitive sentence in a type-2 competition pair represents an
impersonal verbal construction, due to the nature and use of the verb forms
permitted as a predicate. Standard analyses of type-2 competition consider the
genitive constituent to be the subject. However, supplying an agent - in a broad
sense of "agent" - explicitly by means of a non-nominative subject (a frequent
move in the study of Slavic languages, cf Kosta (2009) for relevant literature)
runs counter to the nature of impersonality, which is exactly this: not supplying
an agent explicitly by means of a subject. The following modification of our
analysis accounts for this objection.
Impersonality in Russian can be rendered in at least two ways: Either no
subject is assumed, or an 'empty' subject is postulated; since empty subjects
cannot enter into agreement relations, there is no subject/predicate agreement
to be violated either in the first or the second case. We tried out the no-subject
solution in connection with type-2 competition, without convincing results; and
eventually adopted the empty-subject solution.
On a valency-type approach - followed in Integration^ Linguistics - subjects
are complements, and complements may be empty (empty complements must
be distinguished from complements exhibiting ellipsis, which are non-empty).
A complement may be empty only if it can replace a non-empty complement.
retaining grammaticality. There are two cases. Either (1) appearance of an empty
complement may be rooted in the government properties of the underlying
lexical word, such as a verb, the empty complement being required as a stand-
in for so-called optional complement constituents (the IL solution to the notorious
problem of optional complements); or (2) appearance of an empty complement
may be due to the categorization of an individual word form, e.g. a verb form.
Case 1 is exemplified by sentences such as English "He sent a book", where
the government properties of the verb send characterize any indirect object
constituent as optional, which in IL terms means that there is the following
complement triple for the sample sentence: <heh a3 book,, f >; f = the empty
set. Quite generally, empty complements, including empty subjects, are identi-
fied with the empty set.
Case 2 is exemplified in English by the forms of the Imperative, which may

be used with subject you ("You shut up!", different from: "You, shut up!") but
are normally used without you. In a sentence like "Shut up!", the empty set
figures as a stand-in for an optional subject constituent: f is a complement - a
subject- of shuhup2.
It is not easy to determine if impersonality in a type-2 genitive sentence in
Russian should be construed as exemplifying Case 1 or Case 2. After trying
out Case 1 with dubious results, we settled on Case 2, in conformity with
the following fact: It is only the permitted forms - characterized by their
categorizations - that may be used in a type-2 genitive sentence. How, then, are
such sentences to be analysed?
Consider, once again, the proposition formula (45b) for the genitive sen-
tence (44b), Otveta izpolka nepnslo., here repeated as:
(50) NOT: there are x b x3, and x4 such that:

a. for some x2:
i. x2, V, and Vi are related by 'otveta] iz2 polkaS; AND
11. <X1,X2,X3,X4>E^.arnve.;AND
in. < x b x2, x3, x4> E r e b V / o 5 , V, V b arrive); AND
b. x3 corresponds to V for V l ; AND
c. x4 corresponds to Vi for Vi; AND
d. [effects of tense and aspect].
We previously took (a) in (50) to represent the effect of a semantic function

associated with a syntactic complement function, in agreement with the fact
that the genitive constituent was construed as a subject. We now postulate an
empty subject so as to render impersonality, and construe the genitive constitu-
ent otveta, iz2polka3 as a modifier or adjunct of the piedicate/vtffo, or, prefer-
ably, as a modifier of the empty subject opriSlo5. The modifier function holds
because the predicate is a permitted form and, possibly, its lexical meaning
satisfies certain conditions; there is an empty subject; the modifier constituent
is in the genitive; and there is sentence negation. (It may be argued that a geni-
tive constituent is obligatory in such sentences, allowing for ellipsis; hence, the
genitive constituents are disqualified as modifiers of the predicate. However,
such constituents may be required by the occurrence of sentence negation rather
than by verb valency.)
We now assume that there is a semantic function associated with the modi-
fier (or adjunct) function, applying in sentences like (44b) only if the modifier
constituent satisfies the above-mentioned requirements. In (50), the function
accounts for (a.i) to (a.m); the variable "x 2 " is not bound by an existential
quantifier when the function has operated, due to the fact that the variable rep-
resents an empty subject. Binding the variable by an existential quantifier ren-
ders an effect of subsequently applying a semantic function associated with the
compi function, given an empty subject.
This re-analysis sheds new light on 'the property-type hypothesis' for the
genitive in type-2 competition, as envisaged by Partee and Borschev (2007b).
Borschev et al. (2008). Assuming that the genitive constituent is a subject, the
semantic effect of the genitive, rendered by t2-confining, is an intensional rela-
tion whose relata do not include the agent-place filler x 2 (see above, (47)).
However, on the re-analysis the corresponding relation does include x 2 among
its relata. This allows us to determine property of x2, informally: the property
of being related by the relation that is an (indirect) semantic effect of the geni-
tive. The re-analysis therefore supports a 'property-type hypothesis' that is at
least compatible with Partee and Borschev's.
The semantic function associated with the modifier function is just like a
t2-confining function except for leaving a variable like "x 2 ", filling the agent
position, existentially unbound. It is tempting to suggest similar semantic func-
tions for dealing with case competition other than type-2 competition, func-
tions that leave unbound a variable like "x 3 ", a filler of the affected-object posi-
tion. We might thus obtain a uniform treatment for the genitive sentences in all
types of case competition: First, an empty complement of the predicate (as an
exemplification of Case 1, not Case 2) is assumed, and then the genitive con-
stituent is construed as a modifier. However, this proposal, which does not ac-
count for the restriction to permitted forms in the case of type-2 competition.
also breaks down in view of the fact that outside type-2 competition the empty
complement must be a stand-in for direct-object constituents but may be pro-
hibited as such by the government properties of the underlying verb: A direct-
object constituent may be obligatory in an accusative sentence, hence, no empty
direct object may figure in a corresponding genitive sentence. (With some
verbs, direct-object constituents may be optional, but hardly do we wish to end
up with different analyses of case competition depending on the obligatory or
optional nature of such constituents.)
The analysis outlined in the present Subsection is a modification of our pre-
vious analysis of type-2 competition. The modified analysis must still be spelt
out explicitly and in detail. Even so, it appears to account for the nature of the
genitive sentences in type-2 competition as instances of impersonal construc-
tions and, at the same time, avoids all agreement problems.
In conclusion, it now appears that verb valency - both quantitative and qual-
itative, and including the subject as a complement - is fundamental to the entire
semantics of case competition in Russian. Verb valency must be considered
even in our re-analysis of type-2 competition, where some potential effects of

verb valency are taken to actually have a different basis.
References
Apresjan,JurijD.
1966 Ideiimetodysovremennojstmkturnojlingvistiki [Principles zndMethods
of Contemporary Structural Linguistics.]. Moscow: Prosvesceme.
Babby Leonard H.
1980 Existential Sentences and Negation inRussian. Ann Arbor: Karoma Pub-
lishers.
Babyonyshev, Maria, and DmaBrun
2002 Specificity matters: Anew look at the new genitive of negation. In Formal
Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting 2001.
Jmdfich Toman (ed.), 47-66. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.'
Bailyn,JohnF
2004 Case of Q. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The OttawaMeet-
Wg 2005, OlgaAnmudova.WaylesBrowne.MariaL.Rivero.andDanijela
Stojanovic (eds.), 1-36. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Birkenmaier, Willy
1979 Artikelfunktionen in einer artikellosen Sprache: Studien zur nominalen
Determination im Russischen. (Forum Slavicum 23.) Munchen: Fink.
Blaszczak, Joanna
2009 Negation and clause structure. In Die slavischen Sprachen/The Slavic
Languages: Bin Internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Ge-
schichte und ihrer Erforschung/An International Handbook of their His-
tory, their Structure and their Investigation, Sebastian Kempgen, Peter
Kosta, Tilman Berger, and Karl Gutschmidt (eds.), vol. 1, 431-468.
(Handbilcher zur Sprach- und Kommumkationswissenschaft 32.) Berlin:
deGruyter.
Borxas, Frank M., and Christian, Reginald F.
1971 Russian Syntax: Aspects of Modern Russian Syntax and Vocabulary. 2nd
ed. Oxford: Clarendon.
Borschev, Vladimir, Elena V. Paduceva, Barbara H. Partee, Yakov G. Testelets, and Igor
Yanovich
2008 Russian genitives, non-referentiahty, and the property-type hypothesis. In
FormalApproachestoSlavicLinguistics:TheStonyBrookMeeting2007,
Andrei Antonenko, JohnF. Bailyn, and Christina Y. Bethm (eds.), 48-67:
(FASL 16.) Ann Arbor: Mchigan Slavic Publishers.
Borschev, Vladimir, and Partee, Barbara H.
2002a The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of
Theme-Rheme structure reconsidered. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de
Prague (nouvelle serie)/Prague Linguistic Circle Papers 4: 185-250.
Borschev, Vladimir, and Partee, Barbara H.

2002b The Russian genitive of negation: Theme-rheme structure or perspective
structure? Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10: 105-144.
Chvany, Catherine V
1975 On the Syntax ofBE-Sentences in Russian. Cambridge, Mass, Slavica.
Durst-Andersen,Per
1996 Russian case as mood. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 4 (2): 177-273.
Franks, Steven
1995 Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Friedrich, Svetlana
2009 Definitheit im Russischen. Frankfurt am Mam: Peter Lang.
Gamkrehdze, Thomas V, and Vjaceslav V Ivanov
1995 Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans:AReconstruction and Historical
Analysis of a Proto-Language and Proto-Culture. (Trends in Linguistics:
Studies and Monographs 80.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Originally pub-
lished in Russian in 1984.
GivonTalmy
1975 Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. In Word Order and Word
Order Change, Charles N. Li (ed.), 47-112. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Gladrow, Wolfgang
1998 Determination des Substantivs. In Russisch im Spiegel des Deutschen:
Eine Einfuhrung in den russisch-deutschen und deutsch-russischen
Sprachvergleich. Korrigierte und erganzte Neuausgabe, Wolfgang Glad-
row (ed.), 48-63. (Berliner Slawistische Arbeiten 6.) Frankfurt am Mam:
Peter Lang.
Gorskova, Klavdya V, and Xaburgaev, Georgy A.
1981 Istoriceskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka [Historical Grammar of the
Russian Language]. Moscow: Vyssaja skola.
Guiraud-Weber, Marguerite
1984 Les propositions sans nominatifen russe moderne. (Bibhotheque russe de
l'lnstitut d'Etudes Slaves 69.) Paris: Institut d'Etudes Slaves.
Jakobson, Roman
1971 Beitrag zur allgememen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen
Kasus. In Selected Writings, vol. 2, 23-71. The Hague: Mouton. Origi-
nally published in 1936.
King, Tracy H.
1995 Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian. Ph.D. diss., University of
Stanford.
Klemn, Emily
1978 Quantification, partitivity and the genitive of negation in Russian. In
Classification of grammatical categories, Bernard Comrie (ed.), 163-
182. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.
KornfilUaklm
1996 Naked partitive phrases in Turkish. In Partitives: Studies on the Syntax
and Semantics of the Partitive and Related Constructions, Jacob Hoek-
sema (ed), 107-142. (Gronmgen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics 14.)
Kosta, Peter
2003a Negation and adverbs in Czech. In Investigations into Formal Slavic
Linguistics: Contributions of the Forth European Conference on Formal
Description of Slavic Languages, Peter Kosta, Joanna Blaszczak, Jens
Frasek, Ljudmila Geist, and Marzena Zygis (eds.), 601-616. (FASL 4.)
Frankfurt am Mam: Peter Lang.
Kosta, Peter
2003b Syntaktische und semantische Besonderheiten von Adverb und Negation
im Slavischen (unter besonderer Berucksichtigung des Tschechischen,
Russischen und Sudslavischen). Zeitschrtiftfur Slawistik 48: 377-404. '
Kosta, Peter
2009 Satzglieder und impersonale Konstruktionen im Slawischen. In Die slav-
ischen Sprachen/The Slavic Languages: Bin Internationales Handbuch
zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung/An Interna-
tional Handbook of their History, their Structure and their Investigation.
Sebastian Kempgen, Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger, and Karl Gutschmidt
(eds.), vol. 1, 391-415. (Handbucher zur Sprach- und Kommumkations-
wissenschaft 32.) Berlin: de Gruyter.
Krys'ko,VadimB.
2006 Istoriceskij sintaksis russkogo jazyka: Ob"ekt iperexodnost' [Historical
Syntax of the Russian Language: Object and Transitivity]. 2nd ed. Mos-
cow: Azbukovmk.
Kuroda,Sige-Yuki
1972 The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax.
Foundations of Language 9: 153-185.
Lavrent'ev,AleksejM.
2001 Kategorijapadeza i lingvisticeskaja tipologija: Namateriale russkogo ja-
zyka [The Category of Case and Linguistic Typology: The Example of the
Russian Language]. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk^ Gosudarstvennyj Umversitet.
Leiss, Elisabeth
2000 Artikel und Aspekt: Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit. (Studia
Lmguistica Germamca 55.) Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lieb,Hans-Hemnch
1979 Principles of semantics. In Selections from the Third Groningen Round
Table, Frank W. Heny and Helmut S. Schnelle (eds.), 353-378. (Syntax
and Semantics 10.) New York: Academic Press.
Lieb,Hans-Hemnch
1983 Integrations Linguistics. Vol. 1. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory
17.) Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lieb,Hans-Hemnch
1992 Integrations Semantics: An integrative view of linguistic meaning. In
Current Advances in Semantic Theory, Maxim Stamenov (ed.), 239-268.
(Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 73.) Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lieb,Hans-Hemnch
1993 Integrations Linguistics. In Syntax: Bin internationales Handbuch zeit-
genossischer Forschung/An International Handbook of Contemporary
Research, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld.
and Theo Vennemann (eds.), vol. 1, 430-468. (Handbticher zur Sprach-
und Kommumkationswissenschaft 9.) Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lieb,Hans-Hemnch
2005 Notions of paradigm in grammar. In Lexikologie/Lexicology: Bin interna-
tioficilcs Hcificlbiicri ZUT NcitiiT iificl Stvuktuv vofi JVoftcffi iificl JVoftschcitzcfi/
An International Handbook on the Nature and Structure of Words and
Vocabularies, Alan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job, and Peter
R. Lutzeier (eds.), vol. 2, 1613-1646. (Handbticher zur Sprach- und
Kommumkationswissenschaft 21.) Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lieb,Hans-Hemrich
2007 Die Semantik des partitiven Gemtivs beim Verb, am Beispiel des Rus-
sischen. Manuscript, Freie Umversitat Berlin.
LutinSergejA.
2007 Zagadki roditel'nogo: Roditel'nyj prhmennyj [Mysteries of the genitive:
The genitive with nouns]. Russkijjazyk za rubezom 4: 47-55.
Neidle, Carol
1988 The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Nolda, Andreas
2007 Die Thema-Integration: Syntax und Semantik der ,gespaltenen Topika-
lisierung' im Deutschen. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 72.) Tubin-
gen: Stauffenburg.
Paduceva, Elena V.
1997 Roditel'nyj sub"ekta v otncatel'nom predlozenh: Smtaksis ill seman-
tika? [The genitive subject in a negative sentence: Syntax or semantics?]
Voprosyjazykoznanija [Questions of Linguistics] 2: 101-116.
Paduceva, Elena V.
2005 Esce raz o genitive sub"ekta pri otricanh [More on the genitive subject
accompanied by negation], ^ r o ^ ^ t e ^ ^ [Questions of Linguis-
tics] 5: 84-99.
Paduceva, Elena V.
2006 Gemtiv dopolnemja v otncatel'nom predlozemi [The genitive object in nega-
tive sentences]. Voprosyjazykoznanija [Questions of Linguistics] 6: 21-42.
Partee, Barbara H.
2008 Negation, mtensionahty, and aspect: Interaction with NP semantics. In
Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect,
Susan Rothstem (ed.), 291-317. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Partee, Barbara H , and Vladimir Borschev

2002 Genitive of Negation and scope of negation in Russian existential sen-
tences. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann
Arbor Meeting 2001, Jmdhch Toman (ed), 181-200. (FASL 10.) Ann
Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Partee, Barbara H., and Vladimir Borschev
2006a Information structure, perspectival structure, diathesis alternation, and
the Russian Genitive of Negation. In Proceedings of the Ninth Sympo-
sium on Logic and Language, Beata Gyuns, Laszlo Kalman, Chris Pmon.
and Karoly Varasdi (eds.), 120-129. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of
Sciences and Eotvos Lorand University.
2006b The Genitive of Negation in Russian: Multiple perspective on a multi-
faceted problem. Paper presented at the First Meeting of the Slavic Lin-
guistics Society, Indiana University, Bloommgton, September 8-10.
http://people.umass.edu/partee/docs/SLS06handout.pdf.
2007a Existential sentences, BE, and the Genitive of Negation in Russian. In
Existence: Semantics and Syntax, Ileana Comorovski and Klaus von
Heusmger (eds.), 147-190. (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 84.)
Dordrecht: Springer.
2007b Pros and cons of a type-shifting approach to Russian Genitive of Nega-
tion. In Language, Logic, and Computation: 6th International Tbilisi
Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation, Balder D. ten Cate
andHenk W. Zeevat (eds.), 166-188. Berlin: Springer.
Radecker, Joachim
1985 Komplexe Analyse von Texten der Textsorte Rezension. (Arbeitsbenchte
und wissenschafthche Studien 114.) Halle: Martm-Luther-Umversitat
Halle-Wittenberg.
Ravic,RD.
1971 O vybore padeza prjamogo dopolnenya pn perexodnyx glagolax s otn-
camem v russkom jazyke [On the choice of case for the direct object with
transitive verbs accompanied by negation in Russian]. In Fonetika, fo-
nologija, grammatika: K 70-letiju A. A. Reformatskogo [Phonetics, Pho-
nology, Grammar: On the Occasion of A. A. Reformatsky's 70th Birth-
day], Ruben I. Avanesov (ed.), 254-265. Moscow: Nauka.
Reformatskij,AleksandrA.
1967 Vvedenie v jazykovedenie [An Introduction to Linguistics]. 4th ed.
Mosow: Prosvesceme.
Robblee, Karen E.
1996 Effects of the lexicon and aspect on nommative/gemtive case variation.
Journal of Slavic Linguistics 4 (2): 344-369.
Sackmann, Robm
2006 Integrations Linguistics (IL). In The Encyclopedia of Language and Lin-
guistics, Keith Brown, Anne H Anderson, Laurie Bauer, Margie Berns,
Graeme Hirst, and Jim Miller (eds.), 2nd ed., vol. 5, 704-713. Amster-
dam: Elsevier.
Sackmann, Robm
2008 An introduction to Integration^ Linguistics. In Explorations in Integra-
tional Linguistics: Four Essays on German, French, andGuarani, Robm
Sackmann (ed.), 1-20. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 285.) Am-
sterdam: Benjamins.
SeljakinMixailA.
2000 Spravocnikpo russkojgrammatike [ARussian Reference Grammar]. 2nd
ed. Moscow: Russky jazyk.
Semeren'i,Oswal'd
1980 Vvedenie v sravnitel'noe jazykoznanie [An Introduction to Comparative
Linguistics]. Moscow: Progress.
Spath, Andreas
2003 Zur Grammatik des Negationsgemtivs im Russischen. In Linguistische
Beitrage zur Slavistik: X. Jungslavistlnnen-Treffen Berlin 2001, Robert
Hammel and Ljudmila Geist (eds.), 206-222. (Specimma Philologiae
Slavicael39.)Munchen:Sagner.
Stamseva,DmaS.
1966 ViniteVnyj padez v vostocno-slavjanskix jazykax [The Accusative in
Eastern Slavic Languages]. Sofia: Bolgarskaja Akademya Nauk.
Svedova,NatahjaJu.(ed.)
1980 Russkajagrammatika [Russian Grammar]. Moscow: Nauka.
Timberlake,Alan
1975 Hierarchies in the Genitive of Negation. Slavic and East European Jour-
nal 19: 123-138.
Timberlake,Alan
2004 A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ueda,Masako
1993 Set-membership interpretations and the genitive of negation. Russian
Linguistics 17: 237-261.
Vamikka, Anne, and Joan Mating
1996 Is partitive case inherent or structural? In Partitives: Studies on the Syn-
tax and Semantics of the Partitive and Related Constructions, Jacob
Hoeksema (ed.), 179-208. (Gronmgen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics
14.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zaliznjak,AndrejA.
1967 Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie [Russian Noun Inflexion]. Moscow:
Nauka.
How can the polysemy of syntactic categories be
conciliated with semantic coherence?
Syntactic and lexical factors for the emergence of
a global signification of the imparfait in French
Marie-Helene Viguier
0. Introduction
Because of its contradictory uses, the French imparfait occupies a central place
in research about the French tense system. The rule for a coherent communica-
tion "one form - one meaning" does not seem to be observed, especially for this
tense. Contrary to the authors who impose a unique meaning for syntactic cat-
egories, I will argue in the present paper that the possibility for a syntactic
category to bear a plurality of meanings must be foreseen in the theory of lan-
guage. Using the example of the imparfait in French, I will show how a plural-
ity of meanings is compatible with a unified semantics for a category. However,
this presupposes integrating syntactic, lexical, and possibly morphological and
intonational parameters into the conception of a sentence and connecting them
somehow to the category meanings. The framework for my analysis shall be
provided by Integrational Linguistics.!
The first part of this paper provides an overview of the various uses of the
French imparfait in the indicative in order to defend the idea that the imparfait
is polysemic. The second part shows how the polysemy of syntactic categories
is treated generally in Integrational Linguistics. In the third part, I will apply
these theoretical principles to the French imparfait, more precisely to its mean-
ing in hypothetical ./-clauses. The main ideas of this essay and the remaining
problems are summarized in the last section.^
1. I follow the treatment of the semantics of syntactic categories proposed in Lieb

(1983: 329-331, 1993: 440, 462-463), discussed and applied in Viguier (2007:
213-214, 216, 223-229, PartC).
2. Thispapensbasedonparagraphs3,8, 15.3,21 and22 (esp. 22.4) of Viguier (2007).
For further details about my proposals for the semantics of the French imparfait in
combination with moods, see Viguier (2007: 326-385).
188 Marie-HeleneViguier
1. The contradictory meanings of the French imparfait and the

monosemic approach
The uses of the indicative imparfait can be described as follows:
1. According to the first use, which I propose to call the standard use, what
is expressed is that at a particular time in the past (a time which has been ver-
balized in the co-text of the occurrence of the imparfait before), a certain event
was "ongoing." The imparfait is "past" and "imperfective," according to the
characterization in Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994: 125-126): "In more
concrete terms, an imperfective situation may be one viewed as in progress at a
particular reference point, either in the past or present, or one viewed as char-
acteristic of a period of time that includes the reference time, that is, a habitual
situation" (emphasis mine). (For our purposes, it can be disregarded that the
event can be a single one or, in a habitual sentence, a generalization over sev-
eral events.) (1), for instance, implies that the speaker assumes that the time at
which Annie was crossing the street is known by the hearer and is "active for
him" at the moment of the utterance. By uttering (1), the speaker clarifies what
the case was at this specific time.
(1) Annie traversal la rue.

Annie cross-iND.iMPF3 the street
'Annie was crossing the street'
In the other uses, one or both features (past and imperfective) of the stan-
dard use are modified, or the modality ("real") changes.
2. In the absolute use, only "past" remains unchanged. The event is a dura-
ble property of an entity, or, if several entities are involved, a durable relation
between entities, and the imparfait signifies that one of them (or all of them,
depending on the verb: see Viguier 2007: 342-353) belongs entirely in the past
For example, in (2), the use of the imparfait presents "Helene" as a person from
the past, characterized in her nature as the daughter of "the king of Poland." In
(3), one the protagonists (the patients or Pasteur) or both belong(s) to the past
at the moment of utterance, and the affective relation (denoted by aimaient) is
3. Wrthm the word-for-word glosses, I will use the following notations: "IND" for
"INDICATIVE", "COND" for "CONDITIONAL", "IMPF" for "IMPARFAIT".
"PLUPERF" for "PLUPERFECT", "CP" for "COMPOUND PAST", and "SP" for
"SIMPLE PAST."
The polysemy of syntactic categories and semantic coherence 189
seen as durable. For this particular use, imperfectivity is not applicable because
the event is not seen as ongoing (see (4)) and there is not (and there cannot be)
an implied time (see (5); see Molendijk 1990; Vet 1999).
(2) Helene etait la fille du rot de Pologne.

Helene be-iND.iMPF the daughter of-the king of Poland
'Helen was the daughter of the king of Poland.' (Molendijk 1990: 18)
(3) Les malades aimaient Pasteur.

the patients Hke-iND.iMPF Pasteur
'The patients liked Pasteur' (Zemb 1978: 298)
(4) Welene etait la fille du rot de Pologne lorsque,

Helene be-iND.iMPF the daughter of-the king of Poland when
soudain. . .
suddenly
'Helen was the daughter of the king of Poland, when, suddenly
(Molendijk 1990: 18)
(5) llbutesavre, Helene etait la fille du rot de Pologne.

all her life Helene be-iND.iMPF the daughter of-the king of Poland
'For her entire life, Helen was the daughter of the king of Poland.'
3. According to the narrative use, the temporal feature is maintained, but the
aspectual feature changes (or at least does not lead to an imperfective reading).
While the event is in the past, the sentence does not necessarily indicate what
the case was at a particular time (see the bold expressions in (6)). The event
should not be understood as ongoing but in its entirety. For instance, disparais-
sait does not mean "was involved in a process of disappearing" but "dis-
appeared (completely)." When comparing the imparfait to the passe simple
or the passe compose, it has been observed that the information is made
more "actual" and appears with particular relief (see Stavinohova 1978: 21;
Blumenthal 1986: 103; Wilmet 1997: 389).
(6) C est alors qu' un des trois membres de I' equipage qui
it is then that one of-the three members of the crew who
etait porte a leur secours etait assomme d'
himself take-iND.PLUPERF to their help stnke-iND.iMPF.PASsiv with
un coup de borne. II ne pouvait etre remonte et
a blow of boom he not can-iMPF be brought-back-up and
disparaissah dans les flats.

dxsappear-iMPF m the waters
'At that moment, one of the three members of the crew who had helped
them, was struck with a blow of the boom. He could not be brought back
up and disappeared in the waters.'
(Le monde, cit. in Bres 1999: 96)
4. In ./-clauses in the imparfait (hypothetical use), the event is modally

"unreal" - compared to ./-clauses wrth the present tense or the compound past
- and temporally "present or future" (compared to ./-clauses wrth the pluper-
fect). Aspectually, the imparfait is unmarked, as shown by the fact that both a
global time adverbial We pendant une heure ('for one hour') and a non-global
adverbial like the stressed depms une heure ('since one hour ago') or dejd in the
sense of 'already (a little)' are compatible with it.
(7) [Sflf avals comme tor vmgt ans/Jete couvnrars

if I have-imiMPF like you twenty years I you cover-coND.PRES
de promesses.
of promises
'If I were twenty like you / 1 would cover you with promises.'
(S. Regiani)
5. According to the counter/actual use, the event is also unreal and not nec-
essarily seen as in progress. Contrary to the hypothetical use, however, the
event is in the past. In addition, the imparfait has more expressiveness than the
conditional - which is also possible in this type of sentence (see Stavinohova
1978, Viguier 2007: 371, 375).
(8) Un pas de plus et vous etiez dans le gouffre!

one step of more and you be-iND.iMPF in the abysm
'One more step and you would have been in the abysm!'
(M. Maeterlinc, cit. in Caudal, Vetters, and Roussane 2003: 70)
6. To conclude about unreal uses, tepntimmary ("preludique") imparfait

is a use observed in the language of children in which the event is unreal and
present (but not "non-past," as the unacceptability of (10) shows).
(9) Onetait des pirates et on avart trouve un tresor

we be-iND.iMPF pirates and wefind-iND.PLUPERFa treasure
'We were pirates and we would have found a treasure.'
(10) lOn etait des amis et Annie, elle venait manger

we be-iND.iMPF fnends and Annie she come-imiMPF eat
chez nous demain soir.
by us tomorrow evening
'We were friends, and Annie would be coming to eat at our house
tomorrow evening.'
The last three types of use listed below may by all means be analyzed as
illustrations of indirect speech acts or indirect discourse given that despite the
non-past meaning, either the past property of the standard use is still activated
(hence, seems to be applied by the speaker for pragmatic purposes, likely in a
conventionalized way) or the pragmatic component is particularly determining.
7. In the so-called imparfait oipoliteness, the event is in progress like in the

standard use, but it is current. It seems plausible that in this case, the speaker
presents a current request as past in order to give the hearer space (because it is
considered polite).
(11) J'avals juste une petite chose a vous demander.

I have-iND.iMPFjust a little thing to you ask
'I just have a little thing to ask you.'
8. Thefuturate imparfait (see (12), (13)) is used for present or future events
which have been already mentioned in the past (or if the speaker acts as if it
were so), see Wunderlich (1970: 139-140) and Zifonun et al. (1997: 1699)
about an analogous use of the German preterit.
(12) Votrenom, c> etait?

your name it be-iND.iMPF
'What was your name again?'
(13) Quandest-ce, dejd, qu' elle allait chez le me deem? Je

when is it again that she go-iND.iMPF to the doctor I
neme rappelle plus.
notmyselfremember more
'When is it again that she was going to the doctor? I do not remember'
(Moeschlerl993:64)
9. Finally in the hypocoristic use (observed in dealings with little children

or pets), the event is present and an important pragmatic secondary effect has
been noted: the speaker seems to "speak instead of the addressee" (see Bres
2003b: 118-122). However, the imparfait on its own is not responsible for this
pragmatic effect since./?*, other tenses can be used in association with it (see
Bres 2003b: 112-113), and second, the imparfait can also retam its standard
(past) meaning despite the hypoconstic effect. But as Bres (2003b: 123-124)
notes, the atypical temporal meaning of the rmparfart ("present") - in this use
at least-leads to a hypoconstic reading.
(14) Commeil etait sage!
how he be-iND.iMPF good
Commeil aimait bien sa maman!
how helike-iND.iMPFwellhismom
'How good he is! How much he likes his mom!'
(Grevisse[1936]1986:1292)
To summarize, the imparfait has the following semantic features according
to variation of use:
Type of semantic effects

Uses Temporal Modal Aspectual Pragmatic
Standard past real imperfective -
Absolute past real - -
Narrative past real a type of perfective accentuation
Unreal in si-clauses non-past unreal - -
Counterfactual past unreal accentuation
Preliminary present unreal - -
Politeness present real imperfective politeness
Futurate non-past real - -
Hypoconstic present real indirect dialogue
Figure 1. Semantic properties of the different uses of the imparfait (a dash indicates
that for a given use, there is no effect of the kind described)
According to a monosemic approach, the imparfait maintains the same singular

meaning in all its uses. Faced with the functional plurality of the imparfait, two
possible attitudes can be observed.*
1. The "purists" look for a minimal semantic basic value that would remain
unchanged in all the occurrences of imparfait. They accept neither neutraliza-
tion nor "filtrage" (selection of some properties of the basic meaning and omis-
sion of others depending on the co(n)-text, following the terminology in Bres
2003a: 5). Given fat, first, the imparfait is used to express past, present, and
4. These attitudes correspond to the "attitude A5" and "attitude A4" in Confais (1995:
63).
future events, second, it is not always imperfective, and third, it is used for both
real and unreal sentences, one must either assume a series of tense metaphors
(like Weinnch 1964) or abandon any reference to time and any aspectual or
modal feature. These purists have no other choice than to assume an under-
specification of the time, aspect, and modality parameters: "We ascribe to this
tense an u n d e r s p e n d semantics that is able to receive multiple interpreta-
tions; we will make the case that it is the semantically inconsequent nature
of this tense that explains this multiplicity of uses." (Caudal, Vetters, and
Roussane 2003: 61, translation mine); In practice, this attitude is problematic
because in numerous sentences, the imparfait can not be used precisely due to
modal, temporal, or aspectual incompatibilities - or it can be used but it induces
a pragmatic textual effect. Furthermore, it generates effects even with minimal
elements in the context (see Bres 1999: 91 about the isolated single sentence
Welle rentrait 'he/she was coming home'). Finally, even purist monosemists
cannot forgo neutralization since even the authors cited above assume partial
neutralization of the aspectual properties in the unreal uses (see Caudal, Vetters,
and Roussane 2003: 69-70).
2. Most monosemists assume a basic meaning which appears differently

depending on the context. Defenders of this thesis are, for example, Guillaume
([1929] 1965), Warnant (1966: 365), Waugh (1987: 2), Berthonneau and Kleiber
(1993), Bres (1999, 2003a,b), or Haillet (2003). According to such a concep-
tion, a general interpretation like "past, imperfective, and real" is, in princi-
ple, compatible with "present, neutral, and unreal" in ./-clauses, provided that
5. Original quote: "Nous attnbuons a ce tiroir une semantique sous-speficiee, suscep-

tible de recevoir de multiples interpretations; nous avancerons l'hypothese que c'est
a la nature semantiquement inconsequente de ce temps que l'on doit cette multipli-
e d des usages."
6. Although Bres (1999: 88, 2003b: 124) qualifies himself as purist monosemist, he
assumes that due to the interaction between the core meaning of the imparfait and
the context, the event is not necessarily understood as demanded by the core mean-
ing, but that either nothing or only one feature of the core meaning remains visible.
See his significant formulation: "Let us take, as an experiment, one and the same
simple sentence in the imparfait: il/elle rentrait ['he/she was coming home']. What
does it show? The time implicated by the process to come home crossing the time-
line from a point localized in the past. This sentence, I 'dunk' it into two different co-
texts: [ . . . ] " (Bres 1999: 91, translation mine, emphasis mine; M.-H.V.). Original
quote: "Prenons, a titre d'expenence, un meme enonce tout simple a l'imparfait: W
elk rentrait. Que me donne-t-il a voir? Le temps imphque par le proces rentrer en
tram de s'msenre en traversee de la hgne du temps a partir d'un point de saisie situe
dans le passe. Cet enonce, je le 'trempe' dans deux cotextes differents [ . . . ] . "
contextual elements can be held accountable for the selection or for the omis-
sion of some features of the basic meaning.
But the functional diversity of the rmparfart can in no way be justified by the
context. Let us take an example where the influence of the context on the final
reading has been explicated in a precise way. Caudal, Vetters, and Roussane
(2003: 68) ascribe to the imparfait the invariant meaning Nontranslnactuel, a
mixture onan transUwnnel 'non transitional' and mactuel 'unactual'. Inactuel
means that by using the imparfait, the speaker does not say anything about the
validity of the event at the time of utterance - the imparfait brings out different
facets of inactuel depending on the co(n)-text: a temporal one as "past" if tem-
porality is given by the context, or a modal one as "non real" in non-assertive
sentences (i.e. in hypothetical and counterfactual uses, see Caudal, Vetters, and
Roussane 2003: 68-70). Among other things, non transitionnel has the effect
that, at least in assertions, only the internal phase of the event is explicitly
predicated, so that it is left unspoken whether or not the resulting phase is
reached. In ./-clauses, the non-assertive component provided by the elements
Hypothese, Consecution of the sentence structure explains that the event is un-
derstood as unreal and that not only the internal phase of the situation must be
expressed - in other words, the imparfait is unmarked aspectually (see Caudal.
Vetters, and Roussane 2003: 69). This analysis, however, is not tenable for the
following reasons.
First, these conditions for unreality (and, as a result, aspectual neutrality)
are too vague. They cannot justify why the imparfait has no unreal interpreta-
tion in (16) and (17) as opposed to (15), although the co-textual ingredients
(Hypothese, Consecution) are realized. This demonstrates in fact that it is not
the non-assertive elements per se but the presence of ri that leads to unreality
and aspectual neutrality.
(15) Si Yannig venait, on manger ait des crepes.
if Yannig come-iND.iMPF we eat-coND.PRES crepes
'If Yannig came, we would eat crepes.'
(Caudal, Vetters, and Roussane 2003: 68)
(16) ISupposons que Yannig venait. Mors, on
suppose-iMPERATivE.PRES that Yannig come-iMPF then we
mangeraU des crepes.
eat-coND.PRES crepes
'Let us suppose that Yannig came. Then we would eat crepes.'
(17) Dans le cas oil Yannig venait, on mangerait
in the case where Yannig come-iND.iMPF we eat-coND.PRES
des crepes.
crepes
?'In case Yannig came, we would eat crepes/
Second, the imparfait making in (16) produces a past effect whereas nothing
in the co(n)-text is said about a localization in time; in (18) an interpretation as
unreal exists despite the temporal context provided by tout a Vheure ('earlier').
Thus, temporality does not specify the past vs. unreal meaning of the event.
(18) Tout a Vheure, vans faisiez un pas de plus, vous ettez
earlier you make-iND.iMPF a step more you be-iND.iMPF
dansle gouffre.
in the abysm
'Earlier, one more step and you would have been in the abysm/
Third, this analysis does not correctly predict how inactuel will turn out
temporally given a sentence - why in standard assertions the event is confined
to the past (not to the past and future), why in ./-clauses it is located in the pres-
ent or the future (not only in the present like in the hypoconstic use), and why
in the counterfactual use, it is located in the past despite its being unreal. In
principle, a monosemic analysis of the imparfait would be maintainable if at
least the components of its meaning occurred systematically - for example, if
in assertions it always led to "past" and if in non-assertive sentences it always
led to "present"; in that case, one could say that inactuel results in "non pres-
ent" in assertions (hence, would influence the sentence temporally), and in
"non real" otherwise (hence, would influence the sentence modally). Yet as the
counterfactual use illustrates, it is understood as "past" and "unreal" simultane-
ously. As we can see, the dimensions of time and modality do not compete with
each other. Rather they coexist and vary independently^
7. In analogy, Sthioul (1998) can be reproached for confusing temporality and modal-
ity whereas they should be combined: it can not be sufficient to interpret P + S"
(that is: the event is seen from a point of view that is outside of the time of utterance)
for the preliminary and the hypoconstic imparfait in the sense of a passage in an-
other speaker's world (instead of as an anteriority), because for the unreal uses of
imparfait, we would have to speak about both a passage in another speaker's world
and an anteriority. Moreover, sentences with the preliminary imparfait and those
with hypoconstic imparfait have to be interpreted differently, even if one recognizes
a passage in another speaker's world in both types of uses. If precise descriptions
and application conditions for the respective interpretations are not given, vague
instructions are unusable.
8. For an argument against a rigid theory of an overall meaning of tenses, see also
Comne (1985: 18-23).
Remark. Cosenu (1976) argues for the existence of a Gesamtbedeutung, an

'overall meaning', of each functional umt, corresponding to the different pos-
sible uses. He underlines that the overall meaning justifies these uses because
otherwise it would be impossible to explain "why the speakers of a language
use the same forms - for different meanings and in new sentences and contexts
which they have never heard before" (Cosenu 1976: 48, translation mine).'
This idea is questionable because children do not use the imparfait in hypo-
thetical ./-clauses on their own since they incorrectly employ the conditional in
this situation. Moreover, this incorrectness also happens to many adults, some-
times even the most educated. On the other hand, it has been noticed by Sten
(1952: 95) that native speakers never make mistakes concerning the aspect (i.e.
putting the compound past instead of the imparfait or conversely). For this rea-
son, I believe that in unreal ./-clauses, the speaker's only choice is between the
imparfait and the pluperfect (see the clear opinion of Pollak 1960: 21-22 con-
cerning this question). Rather, the existence of the imparfait in hypothetical
./-clauses seems to have a historical background (see Pollak 1960: 24).>
In my opinion, monosemists have made a mistake by concentrating on find-
ing unity or at least an internal connection among the meanings of a syntactic
category, although this should in fact be seen as a question of historical linguis-
tics. On the contrary, it is crucial for theoretical as well as for didactical pur-
poses to describe, as correctly and precisely as possible, both the different
meanings of a syntactic category and the conditions in which these meanings
are available. Analyses should aim to foresee which meaning(s) of a syntactic
category are possible given a certain sentence. In this sense, Moeschler et al.
(1998) conceive the meaning of a tense category as an algorithm (i.e. a set of
ordered instructions) which leads to different concrete interpretations follow-
ing the pragmatic principle of "optimal relevance," defined in Sperber and
Wilson (1986) or Wilson and Sperber (1993). In this way, the variety of read-
ings is already foreseen in the basic meaning of a tense: "To Guillaume's
conceptual monoguism, we thus propose to counter a procedural monoguism:
in a procedural schema, the various uses appear in the form of different possible
outputs of a unique procedure that refers, in its entirety, to the signification of
9. Original quote: "warum die Sprecher emer Sprache dieselben Formen gebrauchen.
- fur verschiedene Redebedeutungen und in neuen, mcht wiederholten, sondern von
ihnen konstruierten Satzen und Zusammenhangen."
10. For a criticism of the monosemist analysis of Cosenu (1976), see also Blumenthal
(1986: 15).
the given morpheme" (Sthioul 1998: 59-60, translation mine)." As we can

see, this approach is rather polysemic in so far as the meaning of a tense is
considered as the set of its several meanings connected to the respective condi-
tions in the context. Similarly in the conception of Lieb (1983, 1993: 439), the
semantic content of a category is the set of semantic functions that are associ-
ated with the category, with each function connected to precise conditions of
application. Yet unlike the authors of Moeschler et al. (1998), these conditions
are syntactic, lexical, or morphological, so that the variety of interpretations
can be handled with in the syntactic semantics, and not only in the pragmatics
- but the choice of the "right" interpretation in a concrete utterance is seen, of
course, as pragmatic. This point shall be elaborated upon in the next section.
2. Category semantics within Integrational Linguistics
In the Integrational conception, the semantics of a syntactic category does not

consist of one meaning, but of a set of meanings which are each associated
with a certain condition of application. Consequently, nothing goes against the
fact that the imparfait is associated, outside of hypothetical ./-clauses, with a
past and an imperfective function, and in hypothetical ./-clauses, with a basic
non past- (and unreal-) function. I will illustrate this idea in the following
example.
Let us consider a modern part of Standard French, more precisely a system
S of a Modern Standard French idiolectVI will use the following notations:
11. Original quote: "Au monoguisme conceptuel de Guillaume, nous proposons done
d'opposer un monoguisme procedural: dans un schema procedural, les divers em-
plois apparaissent sous la forme de differentes sorties possibles d'une unique proce-
dure qui renvoie, dans sa globalite, a la signification du morpheme donned
12. The part of a language held by the speaker at a particular time is not homogeneous.
given that it is made up of various varieties (dialects, slang, technical languages:
foreign languages), registers, or individual properties. As a result, Integrational Lim
guistics introduced the concept of "idiolect" to represent the biggest homogeneous
part of a speaker's language contribution. "Homogeneous" refers to the fact that this
part can only belong to a variety of the language in question in its entirety (see Lieb
1980: 197). Note, however, that it can belong simultaneously to several varieties.
Each idiolect has a system which contains a phonetic-phonological (or graphetic-
graphemic in the case of a written idiolect), a morpho-syntactic and a semantic sub-
system and that determines which texts belong to the idiolect.
198 Marie-Helene Viguier
- "Imparfait(- S) for the category "Imparfait in S," i.e. the set of forms of the
imparfait of S (for all 2-plaee relations R between entities/and idiolect sys-
tems S, R(-, ST designates the set of all first components of pairs ofR, i.e.
"{/I <f, S> e R}")*
- "past in S" for the semantic function whose role is to signify in a sentence
that the event is currently over,
- "non-past in S" for the semantic function whose role is to signify in a sen-
tence that the event is currently not yet over,
- "imperfective in S" for the semantic function whose role is to make the sen-
tence understood in an imperfective way, especially to show that the event is
in progress,
- "unreal" for the semantic function which signifies that a statement is pre-
sented by the speaker as "not valid.""
If the spectrum of imparfait meanings that we listed in the first section is cor-
rect, then the "semantic content" of Imparfait(- S) (that is, the set of the se-
mantic functions applied if Imparfait(- S) is used) contains as its elements the
functions past in S, non-past in S, imperfective in S, and unreal, among others.
These functions are applied under certain conditions - for instance, non-past in
S is applied only in hypothetical ./-clauses, whereas unreal can be applied in
hypothetical ./-clauses, in sentence constructions which lead to the counterfac-
tual use, and in children's role-playing games. Semantically relevant syntactic
categories, semantic functions, and application conditions are connected to
each other for all idiolect systems in the so-called "Syntactic Category Interpre-
tation" (SCI) of the idiolect system, a three-place relation assumed in the
semantic part of the system. The SCI of S contains, for instance, the triples
"<Imparfait(-, S), past in S, Cl (S)>," "<Imparfait(- S), imperfective in S.
13. In Viguier (2007: 249) I argued that the imparfait is an aspectual category which
belongs to the tense category Pretent(- S) together with the simple past. The con-
sequence was that temporal effects were ascribed to Preterite, S) whereas aspec-
tual, modal and similar effects were ascribed to Imparfait(-, S). This distinction
however plays no part in my purposes here, so here I shall treat the imparfait tradi-
tionally as a tense category.
14. Past in S and non-past in S (S being any idiolect system) are defined in Viguier
(2007: 332, 296); for a detailed analysis of the imperfective effect see Viguier (2007:
103-110, 326-342); for definition of unreal see Viguier (2007: 368). The semantic
functions past in S, non-past in S, imperfective in S and unreal act directly in that
their values go into the sentence meaning (see Viguier 2007: 296, 302, 332, 333-
334, 368 a. o.).
o2(S)>r "<Imparfait(- S), non-past in S, c 3 (S)>," and "<Imparfa lt (-, S), un-
real, c 4 (S)>," where Cl(S), c2(S), c3(S), and c4(S) are the conditions in which
past in S, imperfective in S, non-past in S, and unreal occur if the imparfait is
used.^ Note that Cl (S) and c2(S) are not identical since the imparfait is not
always simultaneously understood as past and imperfective (see for example
the absolute, narrative, and counterfactual meanings noted earlier). Similarly.
o3(S) and c4(S) are different, since in the counterfactual use, the imparfait has
an unreal but past meaning.
The main question to be answered is the formulation of the application con-
dition of a semantic function which is the interpretation of a syntactic category.
Intuitively, given a verb form occurrence in a sentence, and given the condition.
it must be possible to determine whether the function in question is applied or
not. In other words, the condition must be the set of "cases," more specifically
the set of tuples of a verb form occurrence and a sentence in which the function
occurs. This is precisely the formulation I propose for this condition. The con-
dition is a set of occurrences of word forms coupled to entities of the type of
sentences. But what is a sentence?
According to Integrational Linguistics, a sentence of an idiolect system is a
triple of 1. a sequence of phonological words of the idiolect system, 2. a syntac-
tic structure of the sequence in the idiolect system, and 3. a lexical interpreta-
tion of the sequence in the idiolect system given the syntactic structure." Again,
15. More precisely, the SCI of 5 is divided into two types. The second type contains the
tuples where the semantic function modifies the concept obtained from the original
verb meaning: for example, the function that interprets the passive, changing for
instance the concept of "killing" into the concept of "being killed" (see Lieb 1993:
462, 2002). After many reflections which do not have their place here, I concluded
in Viguier (2007: 332) that the imperfective functions in French actually belong to
this last type of function. For the present demonstration, the distinction between
type 1 and type 2 syntactic interpretations can be disregarded.
16. Strictly speaking, Lieb (1983: 272-273) foresees two other components: a morpho-
lexical interpretation (which assigns a meaning to each of the morphological con-
stituents of the phonological words of the sequence) and a morphological structure
of the syntactic units of the sequence, especially required in order to take certain
accentuation effects into account. The two components are also relevant with re-
spect to syntactic semantic composition. For instance, if a syntactic unit like die
deutsche sprachwissenschaft occurs in a sequence with a meaning of 'the science of
the German language' (and not 'German language-science', i.e. 'German linguis-
tics'), these two components are indispensable: the morpholexical interpretation
assigns -language- to sprach3 and -science- to wissenschaft4, and on the basis of the
morphological structure, it is then possible to combine -language- with -german- and
german language- with -science-. On a bare syntactic level, -german- could only be
the syntactic structure has three components: the constituent structure, winch
organrzes the constituents of the sequence into units and groups, and assigns a
specific type to each, the marking structure, which establishes which syntactic
categories occur in the sentence, and the intonation structure, which contains
the intonational features of the sentence. Consequently, an application condi-
tion for a semantic function in any idiolect system S> is a set of quadruples of
the type < / , / s, e>, where
fhf a sequence of phonological words of S' or a positional variant of such a

sequence (for ex. in S the sequence of a and couru, formally: {<a, 1>,
<couru, 2>}, noted % couru?; the unit sequence of traversait, for-
mally: {<traversaJt, 1>}, noted "traversait?; the sequence anmex tra-
versal la, rueA, or the positional variants of sequences a2 couru, and
traversal)
s: a syntactic structure o f / i n S' (triple <k, m, />)
k: a syntactic constituent structure of f in S' (characterizes the con-
stituents o f / a s particle, noun or verb forms or groups of ST. For-
mally, k is a set of pairs of 1. a set of natural numbers - the positive
integers that correspond to the position of a constituent in the sen-
tence sequence - called the "domain" of a constituent, and 2. a
constituent category of S')
m: a syntactic marking structure o f / i n S' relative to k (characterizes
the primitive constituents of /syntactically as present, active, im-
parfait, plural, etc., and lexically as full verb, intransitive verb, etc.
Formally, m is a set of triples of 1. a set of natural numbers - the
domain of a constituent, 2. a set of marking categories of S>, and 3.
a set of lexical categories of ST)
I: an intonation structure of/in S' (a function that assigns a sequence
of sets of auditory values to the domain of any primitive constituent
of/)
e: a lexical interpretation o f / i n S> relative to s (a function that assigns a
concept to the domain of any primitive constituent of/ If a constituent
has no lexical meaning - as is the case for auxiliaries - this concept is
"the empty concept," noted "b 0 ")
combined with the concept -language-science- (this example is taken from Lieb
1983: 262-263). Since I will not be further concerned with such so-called mixed
sentence meanings in this article, I will not mention morpholexical interpretations
and morphological structures in the context of sentences and, more generally, syn-
tactic meanings.
For example, consider the sentence, noted orthographically, "Annie traversal

la rue," in S (S is a Modern Standard French idiolect system). This sentence is
seen as the triple <f, s, e>, where
/ = annie, traversal^ la, rue,

s = <k,m,l>, where
k = {<{1}, Nf(- S)>, <{2}, Vf(- S)>, <{3, 4}, Nf(- S)>, <{1, 2, 3, 4},
VGr(- S)>}, where
"Nf(-, 5 ) " = the set of forms of nouns of &
"Vf(- ST = the set of forms of verbs of S,'
"VGr(-,S)" = the set ofverb groups of S
On the basis ofk, annie, and la, rue, are associated with the noun forms of
S, traversal is associated with the verb forms of S, and/is associated with
the verb groups of S.
m = {<{!}, {UnmDef (", S),. . .}, {PROPER NAME(- - S), . . .}>.

<{2}, {Sg v (-, S), 3P(- S), Ind(-, S), Impf(-, S), Act(-, S)},
{FVB(- - , S), TRANS(- - S ) , . . .}>, <{3, 4}, {Def(- S),. . . } .
{ F E M I N I N U M ( - , - , S ) , . . . } > } , where
"Unm Def (-, 5 ) " = the set of forms of nouns of S that are unspecified
forDefiniteness,
"PROPER NAME(- - S)" = the category of proper names of S
(note that PROPER NAME is a three-place relation because lexical
words are considered in Integrational Linguistics as pairs: see sec-
tion 3 below),
"Sg v ( _ , S1)" = the set of singular forms of verbs in S.
"3P(- ST = the set of the third person forms in S,
"Ind(- S) = the set of indicative forms in S,
"Impf(- ST = the set of imparfait forms of &
"Act(-,S)" = thesetofactiveformsofS,
"FVB(- - , S)" = the set of full verbs of S.
"TRANS(-, - , S) = the set of transitive verbs in S.
"Def(- ST = the set of definite forms of nouns in S.
"FEMINiNUMC- - , ST = the set of feminine words in S
This formulation means that 1. the first constituent oif{anniex) is unmarked
for Definiteness, 2. traversal is an occurrence of a singular, third per-
son, indicative, imparfait, active verb form of S in f, 3. this verb form
is taken from a transitive full verb of S, and 4. la3 rue, is definite and is a
positional variant of a form taken from a feminine word. Note here that
word forms in Integration^ theory are seen as sequences of phonological

words. Thus, h is mostly their positional variants that occur in sentence
sequences.
/ = {<{1}, {<{1}, {T(- S), . . . } > , <{2}, {H(- S),. . .}>}>.

<{2}, {<{1}, {T(- S),. . .}>, <{2}, {T(- S),. . .}>, '
<{3}, {H(- S),. . .}>}>, <{3}, {<{!}, {Hf(- S),. . .}>.
< { 2 > , { T ( - , S ) , . . . }>}>}, where
"T(-,S)": the set of low pitches in S.
"Hi-, ST: the set of high pitches in S.
"Hf(- ST: the set of high-to-low pitches in S
e = {<{1}, annie> <{2}, cross> <{3, 4}, street>}, where
" a n n i e " = the concept 'annie', " c r o s s " = the concept 'cross', " s t r e e t " =
the concept 'street'
The syntactic relations between the constituents anmeh traversal and la, rue,
are reconstructed via syntactic functions: That annie, is the subject and la, rue,
is the direct object of traversal^ is for instance reconstructed in saying that the
pair <anmel, la, rue4> is a "complement pair" for traversal relative tof, s, e,
S. If we call 2-place complement (comp^) the function that assigns to any qua-
druple < / ' , , ' , e', S'> the set of triples whose first two components are a comple-
ment pair for the third one relative tof, s>, e' and S', then the triple <anmel, la,
rueA, traversait2> is an element of the set c o m p ^ s, e, S) (that is "<a/e b la,
rue,, traversait2> e comp\f, s, e, S)"). In analogy, a function one-place nu-
cleus (nuci) is conceived, that assigns to any quadruple <f, s', e', S'> the set of
pairs whose first component is the nucleus of the second relative tof, s', e'.
and S\ Thus, to say that traversal is the nucleus of/results in the formula
"<traversait2, annie, traversal la, rue4> e nuc\f s, e, S).
The analysis of the sentence, "Annie traversaU la rue," in S is illustrated in
the Figure 2 (arrows indicate occurrences of syntactic functions in the sentence
<f,s,e>aS).
To determine the application condition of a semantic function given a spe-
cific syntactic category, one can refer to all of the elements presented above.
which are syntactic as well as intonational and lexical parameters from the
sentence in which a verb form occurs. Note that morphological parameters are
also made available by the morpholexical interpretation and the morphological
structure (see note 16). To avoid circularity, however, syntactic semantic ele-
ments are strictly excluded. In the following section, I will illustrate the condi-
tion in which non-past in S occurs if Imparfait(- S) is used.
._. comp
* +^
/' i
1
1 l^-^.jiuc 2
;' VGr *,
nucV ^ '
1
^ puc / ^"Nf
Nf" Vf
I 1 2 3 4
f- { annie traversait /a rwe
T H T T H Hf T
{UnmDef,...}, {3P, Sgv, Ind, {Def, - } ,
m {PROPER Impf,...}, {FEMININUM}
NAME,...} {FVB, TRANS, ...}
annie- cross- street-

Figure 2. Diagrammatical representation of the syntactic trrple <f, s, e> ( / = annie,
traversait, la3 rue4) in a Modern Standard French idiolect system (S). (For
lack of space, (" S)" and (" - S)" are omitted after the names of syntac-
tic categories.)
3. Application of Integrational Linguistics to the polysemy of the French

imparfait
In what follows, S once again designates a particular Modern Standard French

idiolect system. The following variables will be used:
S': idiolect systems

/ b . . . JnJ{,. . . ,fn',f,f: sequences of phonological words and positional
variants of them
s, s': entities of the kind of syntactic structures
m, ': entities of the kind of syntactic marking structures
*, *': entities of the kind of syntactic constituent structures
/, /': entities of the kind of intonation structures
e, e': entities of the kind of lexical interpretations
The imparfait has a meaning as "non-past" in hypothetical ./-clauses and only

there. As a consequence, the application condition for the function non-past in
S when using Imparfait(- S) is the set of quadruples <fhf, s, e> where 1., 2.,
3., and 4. hold:
1. A is not from an auxiliary - in other words, the concept assigned by e to the

domain ofA is not the empty concept. Formally, ' ^ ( D o m a i n ^ ) ) + b 0 ." This
is to avoid analyses where an effect mistakenly applies to auxiliary forms on
their own.
2. A is in the indicative imparfait. This is formalized through the syntactic
marking function "mark," which assigns the set of triples </i', K, J'> to any
quadruple </', ,', e', S'> where K is a syntactic category of S' (for example.
the category of verbal forms of S>) and./' is a set of marking categories of S'
such that {,' is a positional variant of an element of K and of each of the
categories from J'. That fx is in the indicative imparfait is formalized as %
is marked as verb Aorm in the indicative imparfait relative t o / s, e, and S,"
i.e. "</i, Vf(-, S), {Indicative(-, S), Imparfait(-, S)}> E mark(y; s, e, S).
3. A occurs in a verb group introduced by the subjunction si. The first point to
be clarified is the identity of si. In the literature, six kinds of ./-clauses are
distinguished - hypothetical (19), c o n t r a s t s (20), prepositional (21), con-
cessive (22), explicative (23) and completive (24)." Here I assume that it is
due to six different subjonctions which I call si^, si2\ si?, si? si? and
./^respectively (W-superscnpts are reminders of "(lexical) word").
(19) Si Yannig vient, on mangera des crepes

if Yannig come-iND.PRES we eat-iND.FUTURE crepes
'If Yannig comes, we will eat crepes.'
(20) Si la Ote des sciences est le cceur de Pans, le Quartier

if the Cite des sciences be-iND.PRES the heart of Pans the Quartier
latin en est I'dme.
latin of-itbe-iND.PRES the soul
'If the Cite des sciences is the heart of Paris, the Latin Quarter is its soul/
(Confais 1995: 302)
17. The designations "completive" and "explicative" are taken from Roussane and
Caudal (2002); " c o n t r a s t s " and "prepositional" come from Confais (1995) after
Oswald Ducrot.
(21) Si Pierre est a Paris, il y restera certainement.

if Pierre be-iND.PRES m Pans he there stay-iND.Fi certainly
'If Pierre is in Pans, he will certainly stay there.' (Confais 1995: 302)
(22) S'il prend le tram de temps en temps, il prefere

if he take-iND.PRES the train from time to time he prefer-iND.PRES
neanmoins Vavion.
nonetheless the plane
'Even if he takes the train from time to time, he prefers to fly/
(23) Si Max est puni, c'est parce qu'il a triche.

if Maxbe-iND.PRES punished it is because he cheat-iND.cP
'If Max is being punished, it is because he cheated.'
(Roussane and Caudal 2002)
(24) La question est desavoir s'il prend le tram on I'avton.

the question is to know if he take-iND.PRES the train or the plane
'The question is whether he takes the train or flies.'
If we put these sentences into the imparfait, we observe that the event is under-
stood as non-past only in combination with the hypothetical subjunction (hence.
in(25)).i
(25) (= (15)) Si Yanmg venait, on mangerart des crepes.

if Yannigcome-iND.iMPF,weeat-coND.PRES crepes
'IfYannig came, we would eat crepes.'
(26) Si la Cite des sciences etait le coeur de Paris, le Quartier

if the Cite des sciences be-iND.iMPF the heart of Pans the Quartier
latin en etait Vame.
latin of-itbe-iND.iMPF the soul
'If the Cite des sciences was the heart of Paris, the Latin Quarter was its
soul.'
18. This can be explained by the fact that the conditioning element to be presented as
"not holding" by unreal is already intricately implied in c o n t r a s t s , concessive, and
explicative clauses, or at least supposed in prepositional clauses. The difference
between these clauses and hypothetical clauses is observable by the fact that the
simple past can interestingly occur only in the former (see Caudal, Vetters, and
Roussane 2003: 63).
(27) Si Pierre etait a Paris (la semaine derniere), il y

if Pierre be-iND.iMPF in Paris the week last he there
est surement reste.
be-iND.PRES certainly stay-PAST PARTICIPLE
'If Pierre was in Pans last week, he has certainly stayed there/
(28) IS'il prenait le train de temps en temps, il

if he take-iND.iMPF the train from time to time he
preferait neanmoins V avion.
prefer-iND.iMPF nonetheless the plane
'Even if he took the train from time to time, he preferred to fly/
(29) SrMaxetaU punt, Cest parce qu'tt

if Max be-iND.iMPF punished it be-iND.PRES because he
avait triche.
Cheat-IND.PLUPERF
'If Max was being punished, it is because he had cheated.'
(30) La question serait de savoir s'il prenait le train

the question be-coND.PRES to know if he take-iND.iMPF the train
oul' avion.
or the plane
'The question would be to know whether he took the train or flew.'
Next,/! seems to have to be the nucleus of a verb group introduced by an oc-

currence of si^. Upon further examination, however,/ can also be the nucleus
of a verb group that is itself the nucleus of a verb group introduced by an occur-
rence of si?, or A can be the nucleus of a verb group that is nucleus of a verb
group that is itself nucleus of a verb group introduced by an occurrence aEsi?
and so on. For example, in (31), sh introduces yannig2 ne3 venaU.pas, and not
yannig2 venaitA (the constituent of which venait, is the nucleus). According to
my analysis, yannig2 venait4 is the nucleus of yannig2 ne3 venait4pas5.
(31) SrYanmg ne venait pas, on mangerart de la ratatouttle.

if Yannig not come-iND.iMPF not we eat-coND.PRES some ratatouille
'If Yannig did not come, we would eat ratatouille.'
In other w o r d s , / must be a "most internal nuci-core" of a constituent that is a

complement of an occurrence of si? following the definition of "most internal
nuci-core" in Budde (2000: 355). I introduce the concept of "most external

introductory element" (see (32)). The most external introductory element of a
constituent/!' relative to a quadruple </', s>, e>, S'> is t h e / ' that is completed
by the constituent w h o s e / ' is a most internal uuc^-core. To conclude,/ must
have an occurrence of si? as its most external introductory element.
(32) For all syntactic quadruples </', s', e', S'>.

most-external-introductory-element relative t o / ' , ,', e', and S' [notated:
"me-inrroduct(/', s', e', Sy\ is the function a such that:
i. the arguments of a are the constituents of/' relative to s', e', and S':
n. for all arguments {,' of a, the value a ( / ' ) is t h e / ' such that a. or b ,
a. there is a n / " such that: for all/ 2 ' w h o s e / ' is a most internal nuc*-
core relative t o / ' , s',e', and S',f2' is a component of a complement-
s-tuple f o r / " relative t o / ' , ,', e', and ST, a n d / ' is t h i s / " ,
b. there is n o / " as in a., a n d / ' is the empty set.
Now t h a t / ' is an occurrence of a certain word in a quadruple </', e\ s\ S'>

means that l.f' is a positional variant of one of the possible forms of that word
and 2. the concept that is assigned to the domain of/' by e' is the lexical mean-
ing of that word. In Integrational Linguistics, a word is seen as a pair of a "word
paradigm" F and a "word meaning" V. F is a set of pairs of a word form and
its syntactic categorization (i.e. a set J' of syntactic categories that contain the
word form). T h a t / has an occurrence of si? as its most external introduc-
tory element therefore means: 1. that the most external introductory element
h o f / is a positional variant of a word f o r m / such t h a t / is first component
of a pair < / J> in the word paradigm of si?, and 2. that the concept as-
signed to the domain of/ 2 by e is the word meaning of si?. If we call
"Pos" the function which assigns the set of its positional variants to any
sequence, we obtain the condition upon / relative to / s, e, and S: "(V/2)
(/ 2 = me-introduct(/ s, e, S ) ( / ) - ( 3 / ) (3P) (EL/) (/ 2 e P o s ( / ) A < / ./> E
19. "Be 5 an idiolect system and < / ,, e> a syntactic tnple of S.

f" is a m o r f /ter/ MC i- CO r e of/' in/given ,, e, and 5 iff:
a. / ' is a constituent of/given s,
b. there is a biggest n > 0 and a sequence of constituents ^ of /gi
such that for all," e {1, . . . , - 1 } :
(!) <fi,fi+l>snvia\f,S,e,S),
(ii) /"=/i,
(m)/'=/."
(Budde 2000: 355, translation mme)
P A <P, e(Domain(f2))> = sitf)," to be read, "For all most external introduc-

tory element^ o f / relative t o / s, e, and S, there is a / , a / and a J, such that:
- / 2 i s a positional variant of/.

- the pan o f / and J is an element of /, and
- the pair of P and the lexical interpretation of the domain of/2 is identical with
the word ,/ 1 w."
4. Lastly, the question of whether the main clause of a hypothetical ./-clause

must be in the conditional arises. However, if we ignore indirect and free indi-
rect discourse, the verb constituent can only be in the conditional, according to
my analysis (see (33)). Moreover, a ./-clause can constitute its own sentence -
for instance optative or interrogative sentences like (34) and (35) respectively
Finally, the presence of the conditional in the main clause would not be suffi-
cient for the activation of the non-past meaning, as (36) shows. For these rea-
sons, no condition should be made on the tense and mood in the main clause.
(33) Si Yannig venait, on mangeait des crepes.

if Yannig come-iND.iMPF we eat-iND.iMPF crepes
'If Yannig came, we ate crepes.'
(34) Ah,sifetais riche!

ah ifIbe-iND.iMPFnch
'Ah, if I were rich.' (Roussane and Caudal 2002)
(35) Sronprenait le tram?

ifwetake-iND.iMPFtherrain
'What about taking the train?'
(36) *Tu prenais le train, ca te reviendrait mains cher.

you take-iND.iMPF the train it you be-coND.PRES cheaper
- Y o u took the train, it would be cheaper.'
To summarize, non-past in S occurs when using Imparfait(- S) in the quadru-

ples of c 3 (S), where
C3(S) = the set of quadruples < / , / s, e> such that a. and b ,

a. the concept assigned t o / by e is not the empty concept
b. i. / i s marked as verb form in the indicative imparfait relative t o /
s,e,mdS,
ii. the most external introductory element of/i relative to/, s, e, and
Sis an occurrence of the hypothetical .,-subjunction.
Thxs corresponds to the following formal expression (given the conventions set
above):
c3(S) = {<fhf, s, e> |

e(Domain(f1)) 4- bo
A ((</!, Vf(-, S), {Indicative(-, S), Imparfait(-, S)}> e mark(/ s, e, S)
A (V/2) (f2 = me-introducta s, e, S)(/i) - (3/ 3 , 3P, 3-/)
(f2 e Pos(/ 3 ) A </3, J>SPA <P, e(Domain(/ 2 ))> = !*))))}.
The conditions for the remaining interpretation triples of the imparfait in S

( Cl (S), c2(S), c4(S) etc.) are formalized analogically. In my analysis, the well-
known use "past i m p e r f e c t a " corresponds to the cases where the semantic
functions past in S and imperfecta in Sboth occur, that is in the quadruples of
the intersection set C l ( S ) n c 2 ( S ) .
Remark. It becomes clear that the theory of Integration^ Linguistics allows
us to take care of the semantic variety of the imparfait, in that each meaning is
associated with the co-text of the occurrence of the imparfait. Nevertheless, it
is important to note that it does not mean that a new function must be assumed
for each use of the imparfait. In Viguier (2007: 354-355, 383), I have attributed
the politeness and hypoconstic uses to the meaning "past and imperfective" of
the imparfait and I have analyzed them as conventionalized indirect speech
acts. Furthermore, I have considered the futurate use as a case of indirect speech
(Viguier 2007: 357). While it is possible to take into account that the speaker
uses a tense metaphorically, this option is chosen only in justified cases (for
instance, if the original meaning plays a part in the use) and not for a theoretical
necessity as the case would be within a monosemic approach. In addition, this
seems to me the only way to take diachronic changes of the semantics of a tense
into account, namely if the use of a tense is first observed metaphorically in
indirect speech acts and eventually as leading to a new meaning.
4. Summary and perspectives
Faced with the fact that syntactic categories can have several uses, this essay
argues that not all uses should be considered as pragmatically different uses of
the same meaning. Rather, a syntactic category of an idiolect system can have
a whole palette of meanings, formalized as semantic functions. In order to
210 Marie-Helene Viguier
avoid giving the procedure an ad-hoc character, these functions are associated
with application conditions in the semantic part of the idiolect system.
By specifying the application condition of the non-past meaning of the im-
parfait in a Modern Standard French idiolect system, we have assumed syntac-
tic and lexical criteria. These are not confined to the verb form in question but
can concern constituents in the direct environment of the verb form, like the
hypothetical subjunction which introduces the whole verb group. Intonational
as well as morphological criteria can also be mentioned as conditions for using
a semantic function. For example, if one considers the hypoconstic imparfait as
a meaning of the imparfait (and not as one of its indirect uses), the typical into-
nation observed in this case (see Wilmet 1997: 395; Bres 2003b: 119) should be
seen as a condition. To summarize, syntactic polysemy can only be taken into
account provided that 1. the syntactic theory foresees multidimensionality (es-
pecially integrating syntactic, lexical, and intonational elements in the sentence
conception) and 2. it is possible to access these elements in order to build the
sentence meaning.
After accepting that syntactic categories can have more than one meaning.
the difficulty consists only in describing the meanings and their application
conditions as accurately as possible. I would like to give an example and make
my own suggestions. Consider the narrative imparfait. The aspectual and
speaker-specific effect can be described in a relatively satisfying way (see
Viguier 2007: 358-362), but its application conditions turn out to be hard to
identify First, in most cases this meaning concerns telic events (achievements
in 8 1 % of the cases, according to Bres 1999: 95), but not always (for an ex-
ample, see (37)).
(37) Claude Frollo avart repns precrprtamment la cle et

Claude Frollo take-back-iND.PLUPERF quickly the key and
un instant apres il etait surle sommet de la tour.
one moment later he be-iND.iMPF on the top of the tower
'Claude Frollo had quickly taken back the key, and one moment later he
was at the top of the tower.'
(V. Hugo, Notre Dame de Paris, cit. in Bres 1999: 95)
Given that telicity does not only depend on lexical words (see Comne 1976:
45), it may be necessary to identify the precise syntactic conditions of telicity
before formulating the condition of the narrative meaning. In Viguier (2007:
359), I chose to explain the narrative imparfait's correlation with telic events
not through an application condition but rather by its aspectual property which
is the most visible for telic events (so that the presence of the narrative meaning
and, consequently, of the textual effect, is made more obvious). Second, for the
narrative imparfait, a logical textual relation is necessary; as Molendijk (1990)
shows, the lack of a logical textual relation explains why the imparfait in (39).
contrary to (38), cannot be understood as narrative. Hence, note that as soon
as "M. Brown" is the secretary of "M. Chisnutt," the sentence (39) becomes
acceptable.
(38) Le commandant sejeta sur Vinterphone et hurla

the commandant pounce-iND.sP on the interphone and screech-imsP
qu'il avait a parley a M. Chisnutt. Trois minutes plus tard,
that he have-iND.iMPF to speak to Mr. Chisnutt three minutes later
M. Chisnutt se presentait chez le commandant.
Mr. Chisnutt appear-iND.iMPF before the commandant
'The commandant pounced on the interphone and screeched that he had
to speak to Mr. Chisnutt. Three minutes later, Mr. Chisnutt appeared
before the commandant.'
(after a sentence from St. A. Steeman cit. in Tasmowski-De Ryck 1985:
66)
(39) ILe commandant sejeta sur I' interphone et hurla

the commandant pounce-iND.sP on the interphone and screech-iND.sP
qu' il avait a parler a M. Chisnutt. Trots minutes plus
that he have-iND.iMPF to speak to Mr. Chisnutt three minutes more
tard, M. Brown se presentait chez le commandant.
late Mr. Brown himself present-iND.iMPF before the commandant
'The commandant pounced on the interphone and screeched that he had
to speak to Mr. Chisnutt. Three minutes later, Mr. Brown appeared
before the commandant.'
It is again unclear how it can be expressed with an application condition. The

oddness of (39) may be a consequence of the textual effect given the fact that
in the narrative imparfait, the event is understood more or less as "surpris-
ingly," "momentous" or even "tragic." In Viguier (2007: 361), I translated these
ideas through a semantic function which makes the speaker signify that he be-
lieves that the existence of the event is "notable" (intuitively understood as
"deserves the attention of the hearer"), in addition to his basic statement. Given
a context, if the hearer does not understand in which regard it may be notable
that the event takes place, he shall exclude the narrative meaning of imparfait
and the sentence is not acceptable (see Viguier 2007: 362, rem. 3). Finally, the
narrative imparfait occurs only in "closed" narrative segments (in (40) but
not in (41), see Jayez 1998: 144). In (40) however, this observation cannot be
explained by the fact that the "notable" component of the event (that is: that the
wife calls for aid) would not be understandable since the sentence remains odd
even if an explanation is added (see (42)).
(40) Vers 20 heures, il eutun malaise. Sa femme llappelait a

near 8 o'clock he black-out-iND.sP his wife call-imiMPF for
Vaide.
help
'Near 8 o'clock at night, he blacked out. His wife was calling for help.'
(Jayez 1998: 144)
(41) Vers 20 heures, il eutun malaise. Sa femme appelait a

near 8 o'clock he black-out-imsP his wife call-iND.iMPF for
Vaide et reussissait a faire venir un voisin.
help and succeed-imiMPF to let come a neighbor
'Near 8 o'clock at night, he blacked out. His wife called for help and got
a neighbor to come.' (Jayez 1998: 144)
(42) Sa femme qui etait d'habitude toujours bien trapfiere pour

his wife who be-iND.iMPF normally always all too proud to
appeler de Vaide. Eh bien: Vers 20 heures, il eutun malaise.
call for help well near 8 o'clock he black-out-iND.sP
Elle ??appelait a Vaide.
she call-iND.iMPF for help
'Normally his wife was always too proud to call for help. Near 8 o'clock
at night, he blacked out. His wife was calling for help.'
Instead of symmetric schemata and unified overall meanings, I suggest concen-

trating on a precise description of 1. the different meanings of a category (and
in this respect, we should proceed analytically instead of synthetically), and 2.
the morphological, syntactic, lexical, and possibly intonational factors that.
given a sentence, make one meaning possible as opposed to another.
References
Berthonneau, Anne-Mane, and George Klerber

1993 Pour une nouvelle approche de l'rmparfart: l'imparfait, un temps ana-
phonque meronormque. Langages 112: 55-73.
Blumenthal, Peter
1986 Vergangenheitstempora, Textstrukturierung und Zeitverstandnis in der
franzosischenSprachgeschichte. Stuttgart: Sterner.
Bres, Jacques
1999 L'imparfait dit narratif tel qu'en lui-meme (le cotexte ne le change pas).
Cahiersdepraxematique 32: 87-117.
Bres, Jacques
2003a Presentation. Langue francaise 138: 3-7.
Bres, Jacques
2003b Ma1S oui, il etait un joli temps du passe comme les autres, le petit rmpar-
fzithypoconstique. Langue francaise 138: 111-125.
Budde,Momka
2000 Wortarten: Definition und Identification. Ph.D. diss., Freie Umversitat
Berlin.
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Paghuca
1994 The Evolution of Grammar Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Lan-
guages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Caudal, Patrick, Carl Vetters, and Laurent Roussane
2003 L'imparfait, un temps inconsequent. Langue francaise 138: 61-74.
Comne, Bernard
1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comne, Bernard
1985 Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Confais,Paul
1995 Temps, mode, aspect: Les approches des morphemes verbaux et leurs
problemes a I'exemple du francais et de I'allemand. Toulouse: Presses
UmversitairesduMirail.
Coseriu, Eugenic
1976 Das romanische Verbalsystem. Tubingen: Narx.
Grevisse, Maurice
1986 Reprint. Le bon usage. 12th ed. Original edition 1936. Gembloux: Duculot.
Guillaume,Gustave
1965 Temps et verbe: Theorie des aspects, des modes et des temps. Pans:
Champion. Original edition, Pans: Champion, 1929.
Haillet, Pierre P.
2003 Representations discursives, pomt(s) de vue et sigmfie unique du condi-
tiormel. Langue francaise 138: 5-47.
Jayez, Jacques
1998 DRT et imparfait: un exemple de traitement formel du temps. In
Moeschleretal. (1998), 123-154.
Lieb,Hans-Hemrich
1980 Zur semantischen Rechtfertigung syntaktischer Beschreibungen. In
Empirische Rechtfertigung von Syntaxen: Beitrage zum Wuppertaler
Kolloquium vom 25.-29. September 1978, 193-211. Bonn: Bouvier Ver-
lag Herbert Grundmann.
Lieb,Hans-Hemrich
1983 Integrational Linguistics. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lieb,Hans-Hemnch
1993 Integrations Linguistics. In Syntax: Bin Internationales Handbuch Zeit-
genossischer ForschunglAn International Handbook of Contemporary
Research, Joachim Jacobs, Arnrm von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and
Theo Vennemann (eds.), vol. 1, 430-468. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lieb,Hans-Hemnch
2002 Lexical words and word paradigms. Paper presented at the conference
"Operations on Argument Structure: Focus on Japanese and German"
(Berlin, 7 * - 8 * March 2002).
Moeschler, Jacques (ed.)
1993 Temps, reference et inference. Langages 112. Pans: Larousse.
Moeschler, Jacques, Jacques Jayez, Momka Kozlowska, Jean-Marc Luscher, Louis de
Saussure,andBertrandSthioul(eds.)
1998 Le temps des tenements: Pragmatique de la reference temporelle. Pans:
Kime.
Molendijk,Arie
1990 Le passe simple et I'imparfait: Une approche reichenbachienne.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Pollak, Wolfgang
1960 Studien zum Verbalaspekt'im Franzosischen. Sitzungsberichte der Os-
terreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische
Klasse 233,5. Wien: Rohrer.
Roussane, Laurent, and Patrick Caudal
2002 Contributions semantique et discursive des constructions en si. Presented
at the firth International Conference of Chronos (Gronmgen, 1<A-21*
June 2002). Appeared 2005 as "Semantique et pragmatique des proposi-
tions en SI" in Temporalis et attitude: Saturation du discours et
expression de la modalite, Arie Molendyk and Co Vet (eds.), 51-66.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell; Cam-
bridge, Mass, Harvard University Press.
Stavmohova,Zdenka
1978 Les temps passes de I'indicatif dans le francais contemporain. Brne:
Umv.J.E.Purkyne.
Sten,Holger
1952 Les temps du verbe fini (indicatif) en francais moderne. Copenhague:
Munksgaard.
Sthioul,Bertrand
1998 Temps verbaux et point de vue. In Moeschler et al. (1998), 197-220.
Tasmowski-DeRyck,Lihane
1985 L'imparfait avec et sans rupture. Langue francaise 67: 59-77.
Vet, Co
1999 Les temps verbaux comme expressions anaphonques: chromque de la
recherche. In Temps verbaux et relations discursives, Walter De Mulder
and Co Vet (eds.), 113-130. Louvam-la-Neuve: Duculot.
Viguier,Mane-Helene
2007 Tempussemantik: das franzosische Tempusystem. Eme integrative Ana-
lyse. Ph.D. diss., FreieUniversitat Berlin.
Warnant,Leon
1966 "Moi, j'etais le papa": L'imparfait preludique et quelques remarques rela-
tives a la recherche grammaticale. InMelanges de grammaire francaise
offerts a M. Maurice Grevisse pour le trentieme anniversaire du Bon
Usage , 343-366. Gembloux: Duculot.
Waugh, Lmda R.
1987 Marking time with the passe compose: toward a theory of the perfect.
Lmgvistia*Investigations U:\-A1.
Wemnch,Harald
1964 Tempus: Besprochene und erzahlte Welt. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer
Wilmet,Marc
1997 Grammaire critique dufrancais. Louvam-la-Neuve: Duculot.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
1993 Pragmatique ettemps. langages 112: 8-24.
Wunderhch, Dieter
1970 Tempus und Zeitreferenz im Deutschen. Munchen: Hueber
Zemb, Jean-Marie
1978 VergleichendeGrammatikFranzosisch-Deutsch:Comparaisondedeux
systemes. Mannheim: Bibhographisches Institut.
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, and Bruno Strecker
1997 Grammatikder deutschen Sprache. Vol. 3. Berlin: de Gruyter
On lexical and syntactic licensing of category
mixing*
TatianaNikitina
1. Category mixing in the syntax and in the lexicon
Theories of grammar differ in the role they attribute to abstract grammatical

relations such as subject, object, oblique, and adjunct, which are also referred
to as grammatical, or syntactic, functions. Within Lexical-Functional Grammar
(Bresnan 2001; Kaplan and Bresnan 1982; Dalrymple 2001), grammatical rela-
tions are treated as primitives; the same view is shared, among others, by Rela-
tional Grammar (Perlmutter and Postal 1983; also other papers in Perlmutter
1983). > They are denned, contra Chomsky (1965, 1981), at their own level of
structure and are not derivable from either phrase structure configurations or
semantic roles. As a consequence of this treatment of grammatical relations.
there are two tiers of structure involved in the realization of arguments: on the
one hand, an argument is mapped to a particular grammatical relation; on the
other, the grammatical relation in question is realized in a particular structural
configuration in accordance with the phrase structure constraints of the lan-
guage. Sets of abstract grammatical relations (such as subject, object, oblique)
are selected by individual predicates and are encoded in the lexical entry as part
of its subcategonzation pattern. Constraints on syntactic structure define the
possible configurations in which the abstract grammatical relations can be ex-
pressed; they can be represented by phrase structure rules or by other means
(see, e.g., Bod 2006 on exemplar-based models). The constraints on possible
configurations are independent of the individual lexical properties of words
other than their syntactic category.
Divorcing grammatical relations from structural positions makes it possible
to account for phenomena where the two dimensions play a role independently
* I thank Joan Bresnan, Beth Levin, Peter Sells, and Paul Krparsky for comments on
those parts of my data and analysis that draw on my dissertation.
1. The distinction between grammatical relations and surface realization is already
present, in some form, in Pamm's grammar (Kiparsky and Staal 1969); on the im-
portance of distinguishing between grammatical relations and surface realization or
surface case see, among others, Johnson (1974); Shibatam (1977).
218 TatianaNikitina
of each other (see Gnmshaw 1982 for arguments for incorporating grammatical
relations into linguistic theory). In this paper I discuss an example of such
a phenomenon, for which a theory distinguishing between the two tiers of
structure - selection of grammatical functions, on the one hand, and their real-
ization in syntax, on the other - provides an elegant account. The phenomenon
in question is category mixing, denned as a combination of syntactic properties
of more than one category within a construction that has a single lexical head.
I discuss two instances of category mixing with nominalization of verbs, one
from Italian and the other from Wan (Mande), where some of the characteristic
syntactic properties of the deverbal noun are explained by the noun's affinity
with the verb. I suggest that an adequate account of nominalization in these two
languages should make reference to both levels of structure, i.e. both to sets of
abstract grammatical relations and to constraints on their syntactic realization.
Classic examples of mixed categories are nominalizations, which often be-
have syntactically as if they were nouns but at the same time combine with
some or all of their complements as if they were verbs (Comne 1976; Comne
and Thompson 1985; Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993, 2003). The inconsistent syn-
tactic behavior is illustrated in (1) with an agentive nominalization from Gikuyu
(Bresnan and Mugane 2006; Mugane 2003). In (la), the nominalization be-
haves as a regular noun; in particular, its object participant is expressed in the
same way as a possessor of a regular noun.^ In (lb), however, the same nomi-
nalization is the head of a mixed category construction: it has a nominal distri-
bution but combines with the applicative suffix and takes two objects, as if it
were a verb in the applicative form.
(1) Gikuyu (Bresnan and Mugane 2006):

a. mu-in-i uyu w-a nyimbo
1-sing-NMLZ I.DEM 1-ASSOC lO.song
'this singer of songs'
b. mu-in-ir-i a-ndu nyimbo uyu
l-sing-APPLic-NMLz2-person lO.song I.DEM
'this singer of songs for people' (lit. 'this singer people songs')
The construction in (lb) differs from the one in (la) in combining syntactic
properties of a noun phrase with those of a verb phrase. Intuitively, the con-
2. Throughout the paper I use the term "object participant" to refer to the argument of
a nominalization that corresponds to the object of the base verb. Not all nominaliza-
tions, of course, retain the verb's arguments (see Grimshaw 1990; Rappaport Hovav
and Levin 1992; Laczko 2000); this paper only deals with nommahzations that do
retain the arguments in question.
struction in (lb) is verbal internally (the nominalization combines with its de-
pendents as if it were a verb) but nominal with respect to its external distribu-
tion (the construction as a whole occurs in the same syntactic environments as
a regular DP). A significant portion of research on category mixing has been
concerned with developing formal accounts of the mixing of verbal and nomi-
nal properties of this kind (Lefebvre and Muysken 1988; Pullum 1991; Lapointe
1993; Malouf 2000; Hudson 2003; among many others). Within the framework
of Lexical-Functional Grammar, Bresnan (1997) proposed treating mixed
category constructions as constructions with extended heads, where the same
lexical item instantiates two different syntactic units in the phrase structure (the
lexical head is allowed to be "shared" by two different phrasal projections). A
slightly simplified version of Bresnan and Mugane's analysis of the Gikuyu
nominalization is represented in (2): the entire construction is a DP with a nom-
inal head, but the noun takes complements (here, two objects) in the same way
as a verb does, as if it instantiated both a nominal and an embedded verbal
structure. This syntactic duality is represented somewhat informally by associ-
ating the nominalization both with the head of an external NP and the head of
an embedded VP; further argumentation and a detailed discussion of the anal-
ysis can be found in Bresnan and Mugane (2006).
(2) Nominal external and verbal internal syntax in Gikuyu:

DP
NP D
N VP uyu
^ ^ t ^ ^ 'this'
mu-in-ir-i V NP NP
'singer' y^\ / \
a-ndu nytmbo
'people' 'song'
In order for the construction in (2) to be grammatical, the language must license
a special syntactic configuration where a noun instantiates a verbal structure,
which allows nominalizations to combine with their complements in the same
way as verbs do. The construction must therefore be licensed by the constraints
on syntactic configurations, or by the phrase structure rules of the language. In
other words, the grammar of Gikuyu should allow verb phrases to occur as
co-heads of nouns within larger NPs, as in (2).
On the other hand, the construction must also be licensed at the lexical level.
or at the level of abstract grammatical relations. To combine with a complement
220 TatianaNikitina
as if it were a verb, the normalization in (2) must select for an object function
that can be realized in the given configuration. In most languages, the ability to
select for an object function is a property of a particular kind of deverbal nouns.
which distinguishes them both from regular non-derived nouns and from other
types of nominalization. The distinguishing property of the agentive nominal-
ization in Gikuyu can be stated at the lexical level as the ability to retain the
selectional properties of the verb, hence other nominalization types need not
behave in the same way (Nikitina 2008).
The licensing of the object grammatical function by the lexical properties of
the agentive nominalization in (2) supplements the syntactic licensing of the
mixed category construction by the phrase structure rules. In what follows I
suggest that distinguishing between the two licensing mechanisms, and accord-
ingly, between grammatical functions and their syntactic realization, is impor-
tant in accounting for the typology of nominalization and category mixing in
general. I will discuss two instances of category mixing where, unlike in
Gikuyu, no special syntactic "hybrid" configuration corresponds to the mixed
selectional properties of a nominalization, i.e. category mixing exists at the
lexical, but not at the syntactic level.
The consequences of the lack of a special construction that can express the
abstract grammatical functions selected by the nominalization may vary de-
pending on the overall syntactic structure of the language. In some cases, the
absence of a construction with mixed syntax may block the expression of a
particular argument, resulting in argument ineffability. In Section 2, I discuss
an example of such ineffability as manifested in the behavior of Italian nomi-
nalized infinitives. In other cases, the lack of a specialized mixed category
construction may have strikingly different consequences. This is illustrated in
Section 3 with a study of nominalization in Wan, a Mande language, where
postpositional arguments of verbs are normally expressed externally to the VP,
and hence do not need to be licensed by a verbal head in the syntax. Due to the
VP-external position of PPs, the lack of a special construction with mixed syn-
tax has no effect on the expression of oblique arguments with nominalizations.
While the study of mixed category constructions concentrated mostly on
their syntax, the distinction between the two licensing mechanisms has received
very little attention. An adequate treatment of category mixing should, how-
ever, account not only for the variety of attested syntactic constructions but also
for constraints on realization of certain arguments within a given configuration.
and for multiple options for their realization, including instances where no
mixed category construction is present. As I show in this study, syntactic theo-
ries that treat grammatical relations independently of syntactic configurations
in which the relations are realized provide the necessary tools for developing
such an account: they can capture mrxed selectional properties without assum-
ing a corresponding mixture of phrasal projections.
2. Nominalized infinitives in Italian: Retention of object function
2.1. Constraints on realization of object participants
In a number of Romance languages, including Italian, Catalan, and Spanish.

infinitives can be used in nominal environments in combination with an article:
In Italian, for example, infinitives can be introduced by the definite article illlo.
by demonstratives questo, quellquello, and sometimes by the indefinite article
unluno (Skytte, Salvi, and Manzini 1991: 559-560, 562). Such constructions
have a nominal distribution and appear in the same syntactic positions as reg-
ular noun phrases.
With respect to their internal structure, constructions of this type fall into
two classes, depending on the category of the head. One is a mixed category
construction in which an infinitive projects a nominal structure: although the
construction as a whole is nominal, the infinitive can combine with an object
and be modified by an adverb, just like regular verbs (Zucchi 1993: 54-55).
(3) U sua scnvere quella lettera rmprowrsamente

the his/her wnte.iNF that letter suddenly
'his/her suddenly writing that letter'
In this mixed category construction, all elements following the infinitive be-
have as if the head were a verb (they are part of a verbal projection), while all
elements preceding the infinitival noun are consistent with the head being a
noun. The infinitive can take an object and be modified by an adverb while at
the same time it is preceded by a determiner and a possessive pronoun, as in (3),
or by an adjective, as in (4).
(4) il sua continue eseguire la canzone

the his/her continual p e r f o r m s the song
impeccabiknente (Zucchi 1993: 55)
impeccably
'his/her continually performing the song impeccably'
222 TatianaNikitina
The structure of the mrxed category construction is represented in (5), where

the infinitive introduces a VP structure but all higher nodes are nominal, hence
the preceding adjectives.^
(5) DP
D "" ^ ^
il A VP
suo scrivere quella lettera improwisamente
Besides appearing in the mixed category construction, the infinitive can be

n o m i n a t e d lexically. Nouns derived from infinitives appear in regular noun
phrases, where they can combine with genitive Jz-phrases and be followed, as
well as preceded, by adjectives (Zucchi 1993: 222).
(6) tt mormorare sommesso del mare

the whisper.NMLZ soft ofithe sea
'the soft whispering of the sea'
Unlike the infinitival constructions in (3)-(4), constructions with deverbal

nouns cannot admit adverbs (7a) or take objects in the same way as verbs do
(7b). The differences between the entirely nominal syntax of this construction
and the mixed syntax of the infinitival construction in (5) is explained by the
difference in the lexical category of the head: what appears to be the same form
behaves as a deverbal noun in the former but as a verb in the latter; hence, the
relevant form is glossed as infinitive in (3)-(4) but as a nominalization in (6)
and (7a,b).
(7) a. to scrivere interminable I* interminabilemente di

the wnte.NMLZ unending unendingly of
Sibilla (Zucchi 1993: 222)
Sibilla
'the unending writing of Sibilla'
3. This structure is in many ways parallel to the structure of English constructions with
gerunds, which are commonly analyzed as mixed categories in which a nonfrmte
form of the verb projects a DP (Abney 1987; Pullum 1991).
b.il rievocare (*la guerra) degli anziani (Zucchi 1993: 223)

the re-evoke.NMLZ the war of.the elders
'the revocation of the war by the elders'
The nominal structure of examples of this kind is illustrated in (8). Since no

verbal projection is present in (8), no adverbial modification is allowed in (7a).
and the object participant cannot be expressed as a bare DP in (7b).
(8) DP
D N'
il N PP
rievocare degli anziani
As illustrated in (7b), Italian does not allow a deverbal noun to combine

with an object DP. One would expect that, with nouns derived from transitive
infinitives, the participant corresponding to the verb's object would be realized
as a prepositional Jz-phrase, just like the participant corresponding to the verb's
subject in (7a,b). Surprisingly, however, Jz-phrases cannot be used to express
object participants with nominalized infinitives.
(9) a. *z7 recitare dellapoesia (Zucchi 1993:237)

the recite.NMLZ of.the poem
b. */' esporre del libra al pubblico (Skytte, Salvi, and
the expose.NMLZ of.the book to.the public Manzini 1991: 560)
The ungrammatically of the examples in (9) is puzzling, since the same par-
ticipants can be realized in a Jz-phrase with a different kind of nominalization.
which does not involve an infinitive. This is illustrated in (10) with deverbal
nouns derived by a suffix.
(10) a. la recitazione dellapoesia (Zucchi 1993: 237)

the recitation of.the poetry
'the recitation of the poetry'
b. /' esposizione del libro al pubblico (Skytte, Salvi, and
the exhibition of.the book to.the public Manzini 1991: 560)
'the exhibition of the book in public'
224 TatianaNikitina
The restriction on the encoding of object participants with deverbal nouns can-
not be explained by a syntactic constraint on the use of Jz-phrases. Thus, in (6b)
and (7a,b) a nominalized infinitive combines with a Jz-phrase referring to the
subject participant. The restriction also cannot be due to a semantic constraint
on the mapping of object participants to Jz-phrases, since participants with the
same semantic role can be expressed, with other kinds of nominalization, in a
c/z-phrase; cf (10), where the subject participant was left unexpressed, or (12),
where the subject participant is expressed in another Jz-phrase or introduced by
c / a ^ e J z ' o n the part of.
(12) La descrizione di Mana di Giannilda parte di Gianni e troppo

the description of Maria of Gianni on the part of Gianni is too
lusinghiera. (Giorgi 2001: 293)
flattering
'Gianni's description of Maria is too flattering/
Still, for some reason object participants cannot be expressed in the fully nom-
inal construction with nominalized infinitives.* A similar restriction on realiza-
tion of arguments of nominalized infinitives is attested in Catalan (Alsina 1996)
and in Spanish (Plann 1981; Ramirez 2003).
In sum, in Italian, as well as in some other Romance languages, argument re-
alization with nominalized infinitives is subject to additional restrictions, com-
pared to other kinds of nominalization. With nouns derived from infinitives, ob-
ject participants cannot be expressed in Jz-phrases. The restriction is unexpected
on the assumption that realization of arguments is determined by the range of
available syntactic options: nominalized infinitives are used in constructions
with regular nominal syntax and should not differ from other kinds of nominal-
ization with respect to the range of syntactic options available for realization
of their arguments. As I show in the next section, this restriction receives a
straightforward explanation once abstract grammatical functions selected by
individual lexical items are distinguished from phrase structure constraints that
define a set of configurations in which the grammatical functions can appear.
2.2. Retention of object functions results in ineffability
To explain the difference in the expression of object participants with nominal-

ized infinitives and other kinds of nominalization, reference should be made not
4. Cf. Zucch! (1993: 237): "But I don't have any principled account of why only in-
transitive verbs are allowed to undergo infinitival nominalization".
to the set of available syntactic options (which does not differ in the two cases
in any relevant respect), but rather to the noun's selectional properties, or the
set of abstract grammatical relations associated with it. The set of grammatical
relations is constrained by nominalization rules, which may retain the selectional
properties of the verb with some types of nominalization but not with others (in
the latter case, arguments are mapped onto grammatical functions commonly
associated with nouns, such as possessor). This explains the contrasting behav-
ior of infinitival nouns and other types of nominalization in Italian.
Regular deverbal nouns are associated with grammatical functions that are
commonly associated with nouns: all argument roles that a noun may inherit
from the base verb must be mapped onto the possessor function and are realized
as a di-phrase, subject to language-specific constraints on argument-to-function
mapping. The same scenario is described by Rappaport (1983) for deverbal
nouns in English: in cases where argument roles of the verb are preserved with
a deverbal noun, they are mapped onto a set of nominal grammatical functions
(such as possessor, expressed by a pre-nominal genitive, and an 0 /-oblique
function, introduced by the preposition of). Crucially, Rappaport argues that
this mapping proceeds independently of the grammatical function that the argu-
ment role was assigned by the verb (e.g., whether it was expressed as the verb's
object or subject) but rather is sensitive to the argument's semantic role. In
other words, the way the argument role is expressed with a regular deverbal
noun need not be fully predictable from the way it is expressed with the verb.
Similarly, a set of argument-to-function mapping rules would assign grammat-
ical functions (such as ^/-possessor) to argument roles of regular deverbal
nouns in Italian, including arguments that may be expressed as objects with
verbs.
The situation is different with nouns derived from infinitives, which not only
preserve the argument roles of the base verb but also partly retain their gram-
matical function assignment. Unlike other kinds of nominalization, infinitival
nouns are derived by a nominalization rule that requires them to retain the verb's
object function, if there is one. This explains why object participants are inef-
fable with nominalized infinitives, but not with other types of nominalization:
the phrase structure rules of the language do not license object functions as
complements of a noun (again, with regular deverbal nouns, the object partici-
pant must be mapped onto a different function, that of possessor), cf the way
in which this situation is described by Alsina (1996: 90): "a transitive verb.
with an obligatory object, cannot be nominalized in Romance, because its ob-
ject argument is obligatory but cannot be expressed in the nominalized form".
The difference between infinitival nouns and other nominalizations is sum-
marized in (13), where selection of grammatical functions is treated separately
226 TatianaNikitina
from the syntactic realization of those functions. Within the framework of

Lexical-Functional Grammar, this differentiation corresponds to the distinction
between f-structure argument functions and c-structure positions to which they
are mapped. While phrase structure rules remain constant, different f-structure
argument functions may be selected by different kinds of nominalization.
(13) Nominalized infinitives vs. other kinds of nominalization in Italian

nominalization type selectional properties realization of
grammatical functions
nominalized infinitive object function retained: object function ineffable
N<o BJ > ma nominal construction
other kinds of object participant possessor function
nominalization mapped onto a possessor realized as a ^-phrase
function: N<POSS>
To summarize, my analysis of nominalized infinitives in Italian is based on

the distinction between lexical licensing (the nominalization rule requires that
some of the verb's grammatical functions be retained) and syntactic licensing
(or the set of language-specific constraints on the expression of various gram-
matical functions within noun phrases and verb phrases). The distinction ex-
plains restrictions on the expression of object participants with nominalized
infinitives in terms of obligatory category mixing at the level of f-structure at-
tributes: nouns derived from infinitives are required to retain a grammatical
function which the syntax of NPs cannot express.
3. Nominalization in Wan: Retention of oblique functions
3.1. Ways of expressing oblique participants with nominalization
The example of Italian nominalized infinitives illustrates how a multidimen-

sional approach to syntax can account for instances of category mixing that
involve no specialized mixed category construction but are instead manifested
in mixed selectional properties (the nominalization retains the object function
selected by the base verb). In the case of Italian this pattern of mixing resulted
in ineffability of certain arguments in the nominal construction. I now turn to a
case of category mixing that produces a very different effect but can be ac-
counted for in the same way.
In this section I discuss argument realization with nominalized verbs in

Wan, a Southeastern Mande language spoken in Cote d'lvoire. I will argue that,
like in Italian, nominalization in Wan retains some grammatical functions of
the original verb, and in particular, its oblique functions; the consequences of
this retention, however, are very different. Most importantly, unlike in Italian.
nominalizations in Wan have more options for expressing their arguments than
regular non-derived nouns, even though Wan has no special "hybrid" construc-
tion that would be characterized by mixed syntax. I will show that this some-
what paradoxical pattern is due to the peculiar syntactic structure of Wan.
namely, to the placement of the verb's postpositional arguments outside the VR
Nevertheless, this pattern of category mixing can be accounted for once the two
independent licensing mechanisms are recognized.
Wan has a number of different kinds of deverbal nouns. Some of them are
derived by suffixation, others by adding a free-standing nominalizer to the verb.
The suffix -* derives nominalizations that function as heads of possessor NPs.
In Wan, possessive constructions as formed by juxtaposing possessor NPs and
the head noun, without any additional marking; in the examples below, the
nominalized verb introduces a modifier of the head noun.^ In all three cases, the
nominalization is the head of a possessor NP; within that NP, the nominaliza-
tion's arguments are realized as possessors (i.e. they are juxtaposed to the head
noun).*
(14) a. [a zd-rin, ze
3SG come-NMLZ reason
'the reason of his coming'
b. [p5 / 3 - ^ N P gdli
thing eat-NMLZ money
'money for eating' (lit. 'money of eating of something')
5. Like almost all other Mande languages, Wan draws a distinction between two types
of possessive construction, which is often characterized in terms of alienable vs.
inalienable possession. In Wan, the two constructions differ in the form of the pos-
sessive pronoun. Since this issue is orthogonal to the present study, it is not dis-
cussed further in this paper; for details, see Nikitina (2008).
6. All examples come from the author's field notes. Abbreviations are used as follows:
ACT - suffix deriving action nouns, ALIEN - possessive pronoun used with free nouns
("alienable" possession), COP - copula, DEF - definite marker, NEG - negation, N ^ Z
- n o m i n a t i n g suffix, PL - plural marker, PROG - marker of the progressive aspect.
REFL - reflexive pronoun; ISG, 3SG, 3PL - 1* person singular, 3 * person singular, and
3 * person plural pronoun, respectively.
228 TatianaNikitina
c W -]NP Mr,
lsogo-NMLZ village
'the village of my destination' (lit. 'village of my going')
The suffix -wa derives action nouns from verbs as well as abstract nouns from
adjectives and other nouns. The distribution of action nouns is the same as that
of regular, non-derived nouns; e.g., in (15) action nouns appear in the subject
position. Note that in Wan, the word order is S-O-V-X, with subjects and ob-
jects preceding the verb and all other arguments and adjuncts following it.
(15) a. [73 p5 mile fila-wa]^ a m5-le.

surface thing PL DEF bleach-Acx COP last-PROG
'Bleaching of the clothes is taking a long time.'
b. [Laa g5U be-wa]m e s5-y y m 5.
2SG.ALIEN money ask-Acx DEF please-NEG ISG to NEG
'I don't like it when you ask (me) for money'
Finally, verbs can be nominalized by adding to the non-finite form of the verb
a free-standing marker e, which coincides with the definite marker used with
nouns (cf 15b) and is most likely related to it historically (see Nikitina 2008 for
discussion). Nominalizations of this kind can be used in all nominal syntactic
positions; in (16), the nominalized verb appears within an adverbial PP.
(16) A ga ft kld]m>e le.

3PL went ISG arrive NMLZ after
'They left after my arrival'
I will not discuss further the differences between the various types of nominal-
ization. Most importantly for this study, they behave in the same way with re-
spect to their argument realization properties (Nikitina 2009b).
Unlike Gikuyu, Wan has no mixed category construction where a noun
would be allowed to take an object complement. Whenever a transitive verb is
nominalized, the object participant can only be expressed as a possessor.?
7. It may not be obvious that object participants are realized as possessors, since in
Wan, as in many other Mande languages (Innes 1967), objects of transitive verbs
and possessors of relational nouns are expressed by identical forms. In Nikitina
(2008) I argue that the distinction between possessors and objects can be made on
grounds other than then surface realization alone. In particular, the presence of an
object participant interacts in a certain way with the expression of the subject
To consider how oblique arguments of the base verb are realized with nom-
inalizations, it is necessary to introduce an essential property of the syntax of
Wan that concerns the position of PPs. In Wan, the distribution of postposi-
tional phrases is extremely restricted; in particular, postpositional phrases are
not allowed NP-internally. Notions expressed by NP-internal PPs in English
are encoded in Wan in possessive constructions. Such possessive constructions
are often ambiguous as to the relation between the head noun and the possessor.
cf the following example, which cannot be disambiguated by using a postposi-
tion, since PPs are not licensed within noun phrases.
(17) Leme (-ma) hotel

Leme to P gift
'gift to Leme' (can also mean 'gift of Leme', 'gift from Leme', etc.)
Sometimes a relational noun provides some additional information about the

semantic relationship between the head noun and the possessor NP In (18), a
relational noun is used to specify the spatial relation. Even though many rela-
tional nouns look identical to postpositions, only nouns, and not postpositions.
are allowed NP-internally.
(18) te ta
fire surfaceN meat
'meat on the fire' (lit. 'meat of the fire's surface')
Besides not occurring within noun phrases, postpositional phrases in Wan also
do not occur within verb phrases. The only syntactic position where a PP can
appear is outside all major constituents, following the main verb. This peculiar
structure can be illustrated with an example where a postpositional argument is
selected by an embedded verb. Consider the sentence in (19). The verb kiinh
'climb' takes an oblique argument that is realized as a PP following the finite
verb.
(19) E kuna [yre e go].

3SG climbed tree DEF in
'He climbed the tree.'
participant, suggesting that instead of having a unique syntactic realization (i.e.

being expressed as the object function, in a position restricted to objects), the object
participant competes with other arguments for being realized as a possessor.
230 TatianaNikitina
In (20), the same verb kunZ 'climb' is embedded as a complement of the matrix
verb sagla 'start' and appears in the position preceding the matrix verb.* Cru-
cially, the oblique argument of the embedded verb can no longer be expressed
next to it but instead must appear in the position following the main verb.
(20) a. S O rvP1 V FIN PP

E kU sagla [yre e go].
3SG climb started tree
'He began to climb the tree.'
b. *E kimh yre e go sagla
3SG climb tree DEF in started
The PP argument appears outside all major constituents, including the one
formed by the verb that selects for it. The syntax of PPs can be accounted for in
terms of the structure in (21) (only the relevant parts of the tree structure are
represented). The only position where postpositional phrases appear is follow-
ing the main verb, in the position of adjuncts to the finite clause, or the IP.
Functionally, a PP appearing in this position can realize a grammatical function
associated with any verb appearing in the sentence: it can realize an argument
or an adjunct associated with either the finite verb or any other verb embedded
in the sentence; see Nikitina (2009a) for details and further argumentation. This
flexibility is represented in (21) by the functional annotation on the PP: the PP
can correspond to an oblique argument (OBL) or an adjunct (ADI) of any gram-
matical function (GF) expressed in the sentence: its subject's oblique (sum OBL.
if a verb is embedded in the subject), its oblique's adjunct (OBL ADJ, if a verb is
embedded in an oblique), etc.'
(21) The position of PPs in Wan sentence structure:

IP
IP PPGF * OBL I GF* ADJ
NPSUBJ r
8. Most disyllabic verbs change the tone on their last syllable to mid in the past tense.
hence the tonal difference between the finite and the non-finite uses (19 vs. 20).
9. The Kleene stars in the functional annotation (GF*) allow the PP to be associated
with verbs that are embedded even deeper in the structure, such as with nommahzed
verbs embedded in the possessor of an object NP (OBJ POSS OBL). Such examples,
although infrequent, do occur (cf. 28) but are not discussed in detail in this paper. '
Having introduced the basics of the sentence structure of Wan, I now turn
again to the main subject of the present discussion - realization of oblique argu-
ments with nominalized verbs. Constructions with nominalization fall into two
types. One type is purely nominal: all arguments of the nominalized verb are
expressed NP-internally in a way identical to possessors of regular nouns. In
this construction, oblique arguments are realized within the NP as noun phrases
and not as postpositional phrases. This argument realization option is illustrated
in (22), where participants that would be expressed in PPs with a verb (in both
cases with the postposition^ 'with') appear as possessor NPs with the dever-
balnoun.
(22) a. Wmtyhp gfilhp gbe

orange go-NMLZ manner
'the way of going with oranges' (lit. 'manner of going of oranges')
b. [[gbM]m witter gbe
dog hunt-NMLZ manner
'the way of hunting with dogs' (lit. 'manner of hunting of dogs')
An alternative way of expressing an oblique argument is illustrated in (23).

Instead of being realized as a possessor NP preceding the head noun, the oblique
argument of the nominalized verb can appear as a PP outside the noun phrase.
as an IP-level adjunct to the entire finite clause.
(23) Yaa wte-y gbe m e \gbM muya^

3SG+COP hunt-NMLZ manner show-PROG dog PL with
[e gbe /^]p P .
REFL SOU tO
'He is showing to his son the way of hunting with dogs.'
syntactic constituent. Hence, the nominalization cannot be analyzed as a noun

that simultaneously projects nominal and verbal phrasal units, or as a lexical
head of a "hybrid" construction consisting of a combination of nominal and
verbal projections. Even though only deverbal nouns can select for oblique
functions, which can be realized as PPs, the syntactic configuration in which
such nouns appear is entirely nominal and does not differ in any way from the
configuration in which regular, non-derived nouns are found.
232 TatianaNikitina
(24)
IP PP
IP PP to his son
NPSUBJ I' with dogs
he + COP manner of hunting show-PROG
The lack of a single constituent that would include both the n o m i n a t e d verb
and its oblique argument makes this construction a special case of category
mixing, which cannot be accounted for in terms of exclusively configurational
approaches. In no obvious way does the nominalization in (24) project a mixed
category construction consisting of interleaved verbal and nominal projections
(cf, e.g., the mixed projection approach of Borsley and Kornfilt 2000, building
on "mixed extended projections" of Gnmshaw 1991). Similarly, the properties
of this construction are not captured by exclusively lexicalist accounts, such as
the dual category account of Lapointe (1993, 1999), which explains category
mixing by the existence of dual category words that project mixed phrase struc-
ture configurations. In Wan, no mixed projection is associated with a deverbal
noun, and the deverbal noun and the PP in (24) cannot even be analyzed as parts
of the same projection, in the first place.
Still, the syntax of nominalization differs in an important respect from the
syntax of regular, non-derived nouns: nominalizations, but not regular nouns,
can be associated with PP arguments. To explain this difference, it is necessary:
as in the case of Italian nominalized infinitives, to accept that category mixing
does not have to be manifested in a special construction with mixed syntax:
rather, an explanation has to refer to the interaction of language-particular con-
straints on phrase structure configurations, on the one hand, and the mechanism
of lexical licensing, i.e. to the noun's ability to retain certain selectional proper-
ties of the verb, on the other. The proposed account is summarized in the next
section.
3.2. Retention of a grammatical function without syntactic consequences
In Wan, nominalization optionally retains the oblique grammatical functions as-

sociated with the base verb. In the phrase structure, oblique functions are real-
ized as postpositional phrases in a position that is not licensed by any particular
verbal or nominal head (as such PPs do not form a constituent with the element
that selects for it). Due to this property of the syntax of Wan, the expression of
an oblique grammatical function with nominalizations is automatically licensed
by phrase structure constraints: no special hybrid construction is required in
order for an oblique argument of a nominalization to be realized in the same
way as it is realized with a verb.
Unlike the n o m i n a t e d infinitives of Italian, which must retain the ob-
ject selection of the corresponding verb, nominalization in Wan retains the
oblique functions. Unlike in Italian, the retention of partly verbal selectional
properties is only optional. Alternatively, the corresponding arguments may be
mapped onto possessor functions that are realized NP-internally in a possessive
construction.
(25) D [ml [M 6 wa wia-y]m,]m er, m5.

ISG person house DEF underside enter-NMLZ voice heard
'I heard someone enter the house.'
The availability of two alternative argument realization options (retaining the

oblique function vs. remapping the argument onto a possessor function) is a
consequence of the language-specific properties of the particular nominaliza-
tion rule. Although the sentence structure of Wan allows any noun to take a
postpositional argument, only nominalizations make use of this option, despite
the fact that semantically, the relation between non-derived nouns and their
modifiers can be very similar to the relation between a nominalization and its
oblique argument. For example, the noun hotel 'gift' denotes an entity trans-
ferred from a giver to a recipient; yet the noun is not derived from a verb, and
therefore cannot be associated with a postpositional phrase. The recipient and
the giver are expressed NP-internally as possessor NPs.
(26) Lemebatel
Leme gift
'gift to Leme' ('gift of Leme', 'gift from Leme', etc.)
The difference between non-derived nouns and nominalizations follows

straightforwardly from restrictions on the lexical licensing of oblique func-
tions, which are only selected by verbs. A noun can only select for an oblique
function if it has retained the selectional properties of the verb from which it
was derived, hence there is no way for a non-derived noun to be associated with
a PP.
234 TatianaNikitina
To summarize, the nommalization pattern discussed in this section is pecu-

liar as an instance of category mixing without any mixed phrase structure.
There is no construction combining verbal and nominal projections, i.e. no
lexical item projects a mixture of verbal and nominal phrasal categories, yet the
behavior of nominalizations differs from that of non-derived nouns in a way
that can only be explained by their affinity with verbs. Differentiating between
the lexical and syntactic licensing of category mixing accounts for this pattern:
category mixing is allowed at the level of lexically encoded selection of gram-
matical functions (deverbal nouns may retain selection of oblique functions),
but has no correlate at the level of phrase structure and does not require any
special configuration.
4. Conclusion
Lexical-Functional Grammar is one of a number of syntactic frameworks that

make an explicit distinction between two levels of argument realization. On the
one hand, selectional properties of lexical items are encoded as a set of abstract
grammatical functions (lexical licensing); on the other, the abstract grammatical
functions are realized in syntactic configurations according to the phrase struc-
ture constraints of the language (syntactic licensing). I have discussed two in-
stances of category mixing that are accounted for in a straightforward way
within this kind of two-dimensional framework. I have argued that, in both
cases, category mixing occurs at the level of selectional properties only. Indi-
vidual nommalization rules may require the derived noun to retain certain
grammatical functions of the corresponding verb, which the language will seek
to express with a nominal head, within the set of phrase structure configurations
available (which may sometimes turn out to be impossible). Treating selection
of grammatical functions independently of phrase structure constraints allows
to account for such instances.
In the two cases discussed above, the mixed selectional properties have very
different effect on realization of the nominalization's arguments. In the case of
Italian nominalized infinitives, the syntax of the noun phrase provides no way
of expressing an object grammatical function. This results in additional restric-
tions on expressing the object participant with infinitival nouns. In the case of
Wan, on the other hand, the syntax of the language is so flexible with respect to
the licensing of PP arguments that the expression of postpositional arguments
is automatically licensed with nominalized verbs. As a result, no specialized
mixed category construction is required to express oblique functions retained
by deverbal nouns.
On lexical and syntactic licensing of category mixing 23 5
In spite of the obvious differences between the two examples of category

mixing, they are accounted for in the same way within a theory of category
mixing that distinguishes between selection of grammatical functions and their
surface realization. This analysis is not limited to cases of category mixing
instantiated overtly by constructions with mixed syntax but has the potential of
accounting for gaps in the realization of arguments, as in the case of Italian,
where the puzzling property to be explained is the absence of an expected con-
struction rather than the presence of a syntactic hybrid. Due to this flexibility,
the analysis presented in this paper is suitable for exploring the typology of
category mixing understood as a consequence of the interaction between the
language-specific phrase structure constraints and the properties of derivational
rules.
References
Abney, Steven P.
1987 The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. diss., MIT.
Alsma,Alex
1996 The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Bod,Rens
2006 Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples. The
Linguistic Review 23: 291-320.
Borsley, Robert D. and Jaklm Kornilt
2000 Mixed extended projections. In The Nature and Function of Syntactic
Categories, Robert D. Borsley (ed), 101-131. (Syntax and Semantics
32.) San Diego: Academic Press.
BresnanJoan
1997 M x e d Categories as Head Sharing Constructions. In Proceedings of the
LFG 97 Conference, Miriam Butt and Tracy H. King (eds.). Stanford:
CSLI Publications.
BresnanJoan
BresnanJoan and John Mugane
2006 Agentive nommahzations in Gikuyu and the theory of mixed categories.
Întelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on Themes by Ronald
M. Kaplan, Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple, and Tracy H. King (eds.).
201-234. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Chomsky, Noam
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Fons.
236 TatianaNikitina
Comne, Bernard.
1976 The syntax of action normnals: Across-linguistic study. Lingua 40: 177-201.
Comrie, Bernard and Sandra A. Thompson
1985 Lexicalnommahzation. fr Language Typology and Syntactic Description.
Timothy Shopen(ed.), vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon.
349-398. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalrymple,Mary
2001 Lexical Functional Grammar. San Diego: Academic Press.
Giorgi,Alessandra
2001 La struttura interna dei sintagmi nominali. In Grande grammatica italiana
di consultazione, Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi, and Anna Cardmaletti
(eds.), nuova edizione, vol. 1: Lafrase: I sintagmi nominale e preposizio-
nale, 287-328. Bologna: II Mulmo.
Gnmshaw,Jane
1982 Subcategonzation and grammatical relations. In Subjects and Other Sub-
jects: Proceedings of the Harvard Conference on the Representation of
Grammatical Relations, December, 1981, Annie Zaenen (ed.), 35-55.
Bloommgton: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Gnmshaw,Jane
1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Gnmshaw,Jane
1991 Extended projection. Unpublished ms., Brandeis University, Waltham.
Hudson, Richard
2003 Gerunds without phrase structure. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 21:579-615.
Innes, Gordon
1967 Gemtival phrases in Mande languages. African Language Studies 8:
160-167.
Johnson, David E.
1974 On the role of grammatical relations in linguistic theory. Papers from the
Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 269-283. Chi-
cago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Kaplan, Ronald M. and Joan Bresnan
1982 Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical represen-
tation. In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Joan
Bresnan (ed.), 173-281. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Kiparsky, Paul and J. Frits Staal
1969 Syntactic and semantic relations in Pamm. Foundations of Language 5:
83-117.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
1993 Nominalizations. London: Routledge.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
2003 ActionnommalconstructionsmthelanguagesofEurope.In# O M r a 5 e
Structure in the Languages of Europe, Frans Plank (ed.), 723-760.
On lexical and syntactic licensing of category mixing 23 7
Laozk6,Tibor
2000 Derived nommals, possessors, and Lexical Mapping Theory in Hungarian
DPs. In Argument Realization, Miriam Butt and Tracy H. King (eds.),
189-227. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Lapointe, Steven G.
1993 Dual lexical categories and the syntax of mixed category phrases. ESCOL
'93: Proceedings of the Tenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics,
199-210.
Lapointe, Steven G.
1999 Dual lexical categories vs. phrasal conversion in the analysis of gerund
phrases. In UMOP 24: Papers from the 25th Anniversary, Paul de Lacy
and Anita Nowak (eds.), 157-189. Amherst: University of Massachu-
setts, Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
Lefebvre, Claire and Pieter Muysken
1988 Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Malouf, Robert P.
2000 Mixed Categories in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Stanford. CSUPuUicztions.
Mugane,JohnM.
2003 Hybrid constructions in Gikuyu: Agentive nominalizations and mfimtive-
gerund constructions. In Nominals: Inside and Out, Miriam Butt and
Tracy H. King (eds.), 235-265. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Nikitma,Tatiana
2008 The mixing of syntactic properties and language change. Ph.D. diss..
Stanford University.
Nikitma,Tatiana
2009a The syntax of PPs in Wan, an "SOVX" language. Studies in Language
33: 907-930.
Nikitma,Tatiana
2009b The function and form of action nommahzation in Wan. Mandenkan 45:
17-28.
Perlmutter, David M.(ed.)
1983 Studies in Relational Grammar. Vol. 1. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Perlmutter, David M. and Paul M. Postal
1983 Toward a universal characterization of passivization. In Studies in Rela-
tional Grammar, David M. Perlmutter (ed), vol. 1, 3-29. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Plann, Susan
1981 ThetwoeZ + i i i f o i i t i v e c o n s t r n ^ ^ 203-240.
Pullum, Geoffrey K.
1991 English nominal gerund phrases as noun phrases with verb-phrase heads.
Linguistics 29: 763-799.
Ramirez, Carlos Julio
2003 The Spanish nommahzed infinitives: A proposal for a classification.
Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 117-133.
238 TatianaNikitina
Rappaport, Malka
1983 On the nature of derived nommals. In Papers in Lexical-Functional
Grammar, Lon Levin, Malka Rappaport, and Annie Zaenen (eds.), 113-
142. Bloommgton: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin
1992 - e rnommals:Implicationsforthetheoiyofargumentstructure.In^ t o
and the Lexicon, Tim Stowell and Eric Wehrh (eds.), 127-153. (Syntax
and Semantics 26.) San Diego: Academic Press.
Shibatam,Masayoshi
1977 ' Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language 53: 789-809.
Skytte, Gunver, Giampaolo Salvi, and M. Rita Manzim
1991 Frasi subordinate all'mfmito. In Grande grammatica italiana di consult-
azione, Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi, and Anna Cardmaletti (eds.),
nuova edizione, vol. 2: / sintagmi verbale, aggettivale, awerbiale: La
subordinazione, 483-569. Bologna: II Mulmo.
Zucchi,Alessandro
1993 The Language of Propositions and Events: Issues in the Syntax and
Semantics ofNominalization. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
AUTO- and INTER- versus (?) SE:
Remarks on interaction and competition between
word formation and syntax
KatrinMutz
1. Introduction
In this paper I want to look at the differences and the parallels between the
Romance derivational prefixes AUTO- and INTER- and the morphosyntactrc
marker SE} It will show that the functional domain and the scope of the pre-
fixes and the marker are in large part identical so that the question of whether
we have to deal with competition, with cooperation or with division of labor
between the two structural options is at hand.
In order to describe in an adequate manner the functioning of the mor-
phemes, a multidimensional model is needed in which the different levels of
functioning of the predicate-dependent and predicate-modifying structures are
located (cf Bresnan 2001; Wehr 1995; Gnmshaw 1990). I will provide a sketch
of this model in Section 2. In the following two sections the functional domain
of both the prefixes and SE will be outlined. Both impose similar restrictions on
their host, operate in a similar way on its argument structure, and break open
the unmarked default linking scheme of the underlying verb. The fifth section
presents examples in which the prefixes and the morphosyntactic marker SE
co-occur and cooperate in the same construction. This kind of interaction leads
to new interesting questions concerning the analysis and representation of the
markers under scrutiny and their hierarchical relationship to each other and is
to be seen in the light of the general discussion of the boundaries between the
two modules of morphology and syntax, or between lexicon and grammar re-
spectively The paper ends with an outlook on requirements a language model
has to fulfill in order to be able to deal with the described phenomena.
1. AUTO- is a Romance morpheme representing the here discussed French and Italian
form auto-. INTER- is a Romance morpheme representing the French and Italian
forms inter- and entre-. SE is a Romance morpheme representing the French and
Italian forms se and si.
240 KatrinMutz
2. The levels of representation. A brief sketch
Many frameworks distinguish three levels of representation: 1. the semantic or

conceptual component (LCS 'lexical conceptual structure' or LSS 'lexical se-
mantic structure'), 2. the semantico-syntactic component AS ('argument struc-
ture') in which the arguments are ordered due to their place in the thematic hi-
erarchy, and 3. the level of syntactic realization (Arquiola 2003; Bresnan 2001:
Sells et al. 1987; Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1994; Booy 1992; Gnmshaw
1990). In this view the LCS is responsible for the representation of the semantic
properties of the arguments and the AS specifies the valency and the syntactic
position of the arguments (external vs. internal), i.e. gives information impor-
tant for the realization of the arguments:
lexical semantics
| Lexico-semantic projection
a-structure
| Lexico-syntactic projection
final syntactic structure (cf Bresnan 2001: 306)
My modelling of representation posits 5 levels, with the AS consisting of two

sublevels(cf.Zubizarretal987):
1. the level of reference (RefS):

2. the level of conceptual semantic structure (LCS): information concerning
the semantics of the predicate, the aktionsart, the specific semantic roles
involved, etc.;
3. the level of argument structure (AS), divided in
3a. a sublevel of semantic argument structure (SemAS), and
3b. a sublevel of syntactic argument structure (SyntAS);
the semantic argument structure is an extraction of the conceptual semantic
level and concerns only, as the name says, the semantic arguments which
contains generalized semantic roles, e.g. actor/undergoer or protoagent
(Proto-A)/protopatient (Proto-P);
4. the level of realization structure: e.g. information concerning the syntactic
function of the arguments and their constituency (which can be morpho-
logical and/or syntactical) (RS);
5. the level of information structure (IS), e.g. theme, rheme (cf. Wehr 1995).
AUTO-and WTER-versus (?)SE 241
The single levels are interconnected via a linking device, i.e. the levels are
mapped onto each other. Adopting a funcionalist perspective the mapping is
directed and takes place from the above to the below: the referential structure
leads to the LCS, the LCS to the semantic AS which is then mapped onto the
syntactic AS. In the last step the arguments are projected onto the realizational
structure, taking simultaneously into account the informational discourse struc-
ture.
The following illustrating examples of the active vs. passive voice and the
verbal vs. nominal construction show clearly the essentiality of the posited
levels (not all information of the respective levels are given, but only the infor-
mation concerning us here):
(1) Jean blesse Mane

'Jean hurts Mane'
RefS participant, 1 participant 2
LCS CAUSEfe BECOME (hurt ()))
SemAS Proto-A, Proto-P,
SyntAS A i g l , - external Arg 2, - internal
RS NP,-subject NP,-object
IS Theme, Rheme,
(2) Marie est blesse par Jean

'Mane is hurt by Jean'
LCS CAUSE (x BECOME (blessee (y,)))
SemAS Proto-A, Proto-P;
SyntAS (Argl,) Arg2 ; -external
RS "PP",-Obliquus N P , - subject
IS Rheme, Theme,
(. . .) = not realized in structural position (named argument-adjunct by
Gnmshaw 1990: 108-109, 1 4 3 ) - " . . ." = facultatively realized
(3) Jean defend Marie. (Cette action est sans success)

'Jean defends Mane. (This action has no succes)'
RefS participant,! participant 2
LCS CAUSE (x BECOME (defendue (*)))
SyntAS Argl, external Arg 2, internal
RS NP,-subject NP ; -direct object
IS Theme, Rheme,
242 KatrinMutz
(4) La defense de Marie par Jean (est sans succes)

'The defense of Mane by Jean (has no success)'
(Mute 2004; S t e p p i n g 1996)
LCS CAUSE (x BECOME (defendue (y,)))
SyntAS (Argl,) (Arg2;)
RS "PP" (âr-Obliquus) "PP" V o b l i q u u s )
IS within the theme within the theme
(...) = not realized in structural position
" . . . " = facultatively realized
3. SE: forms and functions

As is generally known, SE has a gamut of different functions, shown in nu-
merous studies (e.g. Gnmshaw 1982; Melis 1990; Wehr 1998; Mutz 2005). It
is still a question, though, how many functions have to be differentiated. My
research leads me to the postulation of the following proto-functions of se for
standard French (see 3.1. to 3.4. below)*. All these functions have in common
that they cause the predicate in question to become intransitive^ (cf Gnmshaw
1982, 1990; Alsina 1996; Mutz 2005).
Depending on the respective function SE influences in a different manner
the Sem-AS and/or the Synt-AS and causes, in consequence, a different kind of
realization or non-realization of the arguments. In Mutz (2004) I introduced the
term mapping-operator for the marker SE, which disturbs the unmarked map-
ping between semantic roles, syntactic positions, grammatical functions and
informational discourse roles as it takes place in active sentences of the respec-
tive predicates.
3.1. Proto-reflexive function

(5) on s'etait unpen sails {?m 9)
we got ourselves dirty'
2. I leave apart the se as it is found in l e g a l i z e d verbs such as s 'evanouir 'to faint', se

repentir 'to regret', se douter de 'to foresee', se rendre 'to set out (for)'. In these
verbs se synchromcally does not have any productive function. Oesterxercher (1992)
talks of lexical pseudo-refiexrves.
3. Studies which clarnr an argument position for SE in the reflexive and reciprocal
function are, e.g. Walterert (1998), Kellmg (2004).
4. "PN-standsforthesource^^/Mcoto^SempeandGoscmny 1993).
AUTO- and INTER- versus (?) SE 243
(6) nous aliens nous cacher quelque part on nous pourrons fumer tranquille-
ment(m:95)
'we will hide somewhere where we can smoke in tranquillity'
(7) en drsant. [...] qu'il allart se tuer (PN: 146)

'by saying [ . . . ] that he will kill himself
As can be seen from the examples above, SE marks the reflexive function, i.e.
it indicates that we have to deal with only one extralingual referent (in the sin-
gular or in the plural) which holds both the agent and the patient (or beneficient)
role; these two semantic roles merge on the Sem-AS (cf Mutz 2005: 131); the
Synt-AS, then, is left with only one argument, unspecified for external or inter-
nal status. This single argument, due to the subject condition, is mapped onto
the subject position. Because of the merging process, the reflexive SE construc-
tion shows both unergative and unaccusative characteristics (cf. Alsina 1996:
98-113); see the representation in the multilevel scheme:
(8) Jeanseblesse
'Jean hurts himself
RefS participant,
LCS CAUSE (x BECOME (blesse (y,)))....
SemAS Proto-A,= Proto-P,
SyntAS Aigl/Aig2, - external/internal
RS N P , - subject
IS Theme,
3.2. Proto-reciprocal function
(9) its ont commenge a se donner des grfles (PN: 69)

'They have started slapping each other's faces'
(10) an lieu de courir tous a laporte, de nous bousculer, de nouspousser et

de nousjeter nos cartables a la tete comme nous le faisons d'habUude,
noussommessortisdoucement(m:15)
'instead of running to the door, pushing each other, shoving each other.
throwing our bags on our heads as we used to do, we left quietly'
With SE expressing the reciprocal function (examples 9 and 10) at least two
participants x and y are involved in the action. The participants accumulate
244 KatrinMutz
simultaneously the semantic roles of agent and patient (or beneficient) and
carry out a complex double action: in the one part of the action participant x
is the agent and participant y is the patientêneficient, in the other part of the
action it is the other way round. How this state of affairs is to be represented is
shown, in rough terms, in (11):
(11) Jean et Mane seblessent

'Jean and Mane hurt each other
LCS CAUSE (x BECOME (blessee (,,))) &
CAUSE (x BECOME (blesse (yk
SemAS Proto-Al, Proto-Pl, &
Proto-A2 ; Proto-P2
SyntAS Argl.+Arg 2 ,
RS N P , - subject
IS Theme,,
3.3. Proto-'anti-causative'function
The following examples show each an anticausative predicate due to the pres-
ence of SE:
(12) lesfleurs volaient de tons les cotes parce que le papier s'etait dechire
(PN: 68)
'The flowers were flying everywhere because the paper has torn'
(13) comme la fois on le vase du salon s'est casse et papa m'a gronde
(PN: 82)
'It was the same when the vase broke and daddy told me off'
SE causes the elimination of the agent argument of the underlying transitive

verb (cf Gnmshaw 1982 who speaks of 'unaccusatives'; Mutz 2005: 131-
132); therefore on the Synt-AS there is only one argument left (the mapped
patient argument), which is then projected onto the subject position due to the
subject parameter in Modern French and obtains the informational role of
the theme. Since the agent argument has been eliminated it cannot be realized
syntactically (Haporte s'ouvrepar Paul, literally: 'the door opens by Paul').
AUTO-and WTER-versus (?)SE 245
(14) La parte s'ouvre

'The door opens'
RefS participant
LCS (BECOME (ouverte ()))
SemAs # Proto-A) Proto-P,
SyntAs Arg2 ; -external
RS N P , - subject
IS Theme,
3.4. Proto-passive function
No argument is eliminated but an indefinite agent argument is supressed on

Sem-AS so that it cannot be mapped onto the Synt-AS (cf. Gnmshaw 1982;
Mutz 2005: 131-132). On this level only the patient argument shows up and is
then realized syntactically as a subject, due to the subject condition. Often a
deontic meaning is achieved: see the following examples and the representation
in the multidimensional argument scheme in (18):
(15) 01) a dit que ga ne faisait rien, que sur la photo ga ne se verrait pas
(PN: 10)
'He said that it didn't matter that one couldn't see it on the photograph'
(16) La Tour Eiffel se voit de lorn (Melis 1990: 90)

'The Eiffel Tower can be seen from far away'
(17) Lei tout sepaye (Geniusiene 1987: 269)

'Here everything has to be paid'
(18) La bouteille s'ouvre facilement

'The bottle can be opened easily'
RefS participant 1 participant 2
LCS CAUSE (x, mdef , BECOME (ouverte (y)))[+ deontic meaning]
SemAS Pioto-A,^ Proto-P,
SyntAS Arg2 ; -external
RS NP ; -subject
IS Theme
5. If the agent is definite it can be realized as an adjunct in a PP.

246 KatrinMutz
4. AUTO- and INTER-: forms and functions
Unlike prefixes as French antt-, pre-, re- or de- winch have a semantic modify-
ing function (expressing local, temporal or negative relations) and leave the
internal structure of the arguments involved more or less untouched, i.e. which
do not modify in a regular manner the argument structure of the derivational
base (cf Iacobini 2004: 106; Bisetto et al. 1990, Bisetto and Scalise 1990),
there are a number of prefixes (e.g. AUTO-, INTER-) having as their primary
function the modification of the arguments obligatorily involved in the action
expressed by the derivational base. Their effectuated modifications correspond
to those produced by SE in its reflexive, reciprocal and anti-causative function.
Like a number of other derivational affixes they select their derivational base in
a regular manner in dependency of their argument structure* and modify it in
the derivational process?
4.1. INTER-
The French reciprocal prefixes entre-linter-* which show up in examples like

entraide 'mutual help', s'entresupporter 'to support each other' or interattrac-
tion 'mutual attraction' (cf. Weidenbusch 1993: 154-157) have the same se-
mantics as the reflexive marker se, described above. As the latter, the former.
i.e. entre-, demands that the underlying verb is transitive and causes its seman-
tic arguments to possess both the roles of agent and patient (or the like, e.g.
Iacobini 2004: 162) in the complex action expressed by the denvate. Inter- as
well attaches in most cases to transitive bases', but can also attach to intransi-
tive ones, e.g. mteragtr 'interact'.
6. -able, e.g., demands a transitive predicate as derivational base, e.g. mangeable 'eat-
able', comptable ' c a l c u l a b l e ' vs. Salable 'flyable' -arrivable 'amvable'.
7. E.g. the suffixes deriving nouns from verbal bases: following the analysis of Gnm-
shaw (1990) in the formation of deverbative nomma actioms (refermg to the action,
not to the result of the action) a syntactic argument is suppressed whereas the se-
mantic argument structure is left unchanged (a different analysis is provided by
Memschaefer2004).
8. As a general tendency, entre- attaches to native/popular bases, inter- to learned ones.
9. Cf. Iacobini (2004: 162) with respect to Italian: "Nelle formaziom verbali il prefisso
espnme una relazione di reciprocity simmetnca fra gh argomenti della base, e si
premette qumdi di preferenza a basi transitive".
In French, formations of entre- with a verbal base are much more frequent
(less frequent, though, than in Middle French) than with a nominal base". The
verbal base to which the prefix entre-linter- attaches, is already constructed
reciprocally with the marker se" (cf Section 5): depending on the context, the
prefix has either the function of intensifying the reciprocal meaning (cf. Iaco-
bini 2004: 162 with respect to Italian) or the function of disambiguating it: Us
se tuent can have a reflexive meaning ('they kill themselves') or a reciprocal
meaning ('they kill each other'); the adding of entre- resolves this ambiguity.
The following examples of French verbal and nominal formations with
entre- are drawn from an internet research with google.fr:
(19) Une famille dont les individus s'entre-supportent mutuellement

(fr.ebookslib.com/index.html?a=sa&b=1450,20.10.07)
'A family where the individuals help each other'
(20) il a fait les hommes qui s'entre-mangent

(atheisme.free.fr/Biographies/Maupassant.htm, 20.10.07)
'He has created the human beings who eat each other'
(21) Cette annee avec ma bande de collegues on doit s'entre offrir les trues
les plus stupides et onginaux possibles
(www.opiom.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-488.html, 20.10.07)
'This year my collegues and I, we will give each other the most stupid
and original things as presents'
(22) Celle-ci en effet n 'estpas assimilable a la volonte de tous, mais n 'est que
le resultat de Ventre destruction des volontes particulieres ou opinions
quis'opposent
(http://perso.wanadoo.fr/le.parthenon/rousseaudemodroite.htm, 23.6.05)
10. With inter- deverbal formations in French are much rarer (e.g. intercomprendre
(7 x google.fr) vs intercomprehension 'inter-comprehension' (46 000 x google.fr).
interdependre (0 x) vs. interdependance 'interdependence' (325 000 x google.fr):
The same is the case in Italian: formations of inter- with nominal bases (e.g. inter-
comprensione 'mter-comprehension\ interassistenza 'mter-assistance') are much
more frequent than with verbal ones.
11. Reciprocal verbal formations with inter-, though, are also to be found without the
marker SE; cf. Iacobrm (2004: 162) with respect to Italian inter-. "La relazione di
reciprocity fra due argomenti esterm nchiede la costruzione con il si pronommale;
fanno eccezione le poche formaziom con verbi mtransitivi QnteragireT.
248 KatrinMutz
'Tins is actually not due to the will of all but the result of the mutual
destruction of individual wills and opinions which are opposite to each
other'
(23) Ventre-egorgement de trente millions de sesjeunes gens, les merlleurs,

lesplus beaux, les plus braves, c'est la demonstration ecrasante, irre-
sistible, d'une totale impuissance intellectuelle
(www.uqac.uquebec.ca/. . ./classiques/nchet charles/homme stupide/
nchethommestupide.doc, 23.6.05)
'The mutual killing of thirty millions young people, the best, the most
beautiful, the most brave, is the devastating, the irrestible demonstration
of a total lack of intellectual power'
The representation of a reciprocal noun built with INTER- in the multilevelled

structure corresponds to the one in (24)*:
(24) entraide
'mutual help'
RS participant, 1 participant 2
LCS CAUSE (xh BECOME (aide ())) &
CAUSE (x BECOME (aide (y,)))
SemAS Proto-Al, Proto-Pl, &
Proto-A2 ; Proto-P2
SyntAS (Argl,.+Arg 2 , )
RS "PP"-complement
The question how verbs with INTER- are to be represented is treated in

Section 5.
4.2. AUTO-
This prefix is very productive in French, especially in the technical jargon and
is found with the same range of functions in other Romance languages as well,
e.g. in Italian (cf Mutz 2003; Iacobini 2004: 159-161) or in Spanish (Arquiola
2003). A UTO- attaches both to verbal, adjectival and nominal bases with dever-
12. The information structure changes depending on the context; for this reason it is not
considered here.
bative nominal bases being the most frequent ones. The prefix demands a
derivational base winch contains a transitive, dynamic, i.e. agentive verb,
e.g. autodestruction 'self-destruction', autocontrole 'self-control', autocorrec-
tion 'self-correction', vs. *autotravail 'self-work', *autoarrivee 'self-arrival'.
At least three different functions of AUTO- have to be distinguished: a re-
flexive one, an anti-causative one and an agent-focussing one (cf Mutz 2003,
2004). In the following we treat only the reflexive and the anti-causative func-
tion because only these two are morphological equivalents to the morpho-
syntactic construction with S&\ AUTO- in these functions acts upon the agent
argument of the underlying verb in the same way as the marker SE does (see
above).
4.2.1. Reflexive AUTO-
In this section we will analyse exclusively examples like in (25) and (26), i.e.
nominal formations which are derived from verbs. They are the most produc-
tive ones in French (for the analysis of non-deverbal formations see Mutz 2004:
364-365):
(25) Sommes-nous entres sans retourpossible dans une ere dont Vhonzon est
lautodestructiondelhumanite?
(www.nouvelobs.com/articles/p2120/a271852.html, 18.2.06)
'Have we entered, without the possibility of return, an era which ends
with the self-destruction of the human kind?'
(26) Elisabeth Furtwdngler a ecrit en ce sens dans son ouvrage: Son pere a
decrit la fagon dont Vautocritique et Vautodechirement torturaient
Vadolescenr
(www.furtwangler.net/doc/dheudrom.doc, 18.2.06)
'Elisabeth Furwangler has written in this sense in her work: "His father
has described the way in which the self-criticism and the tearing apart of
oneself has tortured the adolescent'"
In the nominalization process of the verbs the SemAS and the SyntAS remain
intact, as Schepping (1996) and Meinschaefer (2004) have demonstrated con-
vincingly The only thing that changes in the noun with respect to the verb is the
realization of the arguments (PP instead of NP) and, in consequence, also the
13. The agent-focussing prefix auto- is perhaps to be seen as a functional equivalent of

a morphosyntactic construction with lui-meme.
250 KatrinMutz
function of the realized arguments (prepositional complement instead of sub-

ject or object). Other analyses speak of the suppression of the syntactic agent
argument in the nominalization process (cf Gnmshaw 1990: 141)".
Like the marker SE, the prefix^ UTO- causes on the SemAS the co-indication
or merging of the agent argument of the underlying verb with the patient argu-
ment (cf. Mutz 2004: 360-361). Due to downward mapping we have on the
SyntAS only one argument left wich owns characteristics both of the agent and
the patient and which facultatively appears on the RS as an prepositional ad-
junct. The analysis of Arquiola (2003) of Spanish auto- is a little bit different
from mine: he claims that auto- acts both upon the 'lexical syntactic level of
representation' (which corresponds to our SyntAS) and the 'lexical semantic
structure' (which corresponds to our LCS). On the lexical syntactic level it
binds two arguments, on the lexical semantic level it demands a proto-agent.
(27) I'autodestruction de I'ordinateur

'the self destruction of the computer'
RefS participant,
LCS CAUSE fe (BECOME (detruit (y,)))
SemAS Proto-A, = Proto-P,
SyntAS (Argl/Arg2)
RS " P P " - complement
4.2.2. Anti-causative AUTO-
Of the anti-causative^ f/ro-type many less formations are attested in Romance.

e.g. Fr. autoallumage, Ital. autoaccensione, autocombustione 'auto-ignition':
see the following Italian examples:
(28) la temperatura dr autoaccensione del metano (540 Q e doppra rispetto

ai combustibili liquidi
(digilander.iol.it/magicar/serv01.htm, 18.2.06)
'The temperature of self-ignition of the methane (540 C) is twice as
much as the temperature of liquid fuels'
14. This analysis causes problems with reflexive AUTO-nouns as shown in Mutz 2004:
361-364, since, in Gnmshaw's analysis, the reflexivizmg process causes, as well.
the suppression of the external argument.
(29) A causa dell'olio di semi di lino, esiste il pericolo di autocombustione

deltessuto
(www.lacasadxterra.xt/documenti/casa/ICA.shtml, 18.2.06)
'Because of the linseed oil there is the danger of auto-ignition of the
cloth'
The prefix demands, as in the case of the reflexive function, the transitivity of
its (de)verbative base and the existence of an agent argument. The anti-causative
auto- causes the elimination of the semantic agent argument on the SemAS
which then cannot be mapped onto the SyntAS. The remaining patient argu-
ment is the only argument which can be syntactitcally realized, facultatively as
a prepositional complement or adjunct (cf Mutz 2004: 368-369), cf Ital.
Vaccensione delfieno daparte di Gianni 'The ignition of the hay by Gianni' vs.
Vautoaccensione delfieno (*da parte di Gianni) 'The auto-ignition of the hay
(*by Gianni)'.
As we can see from this analysis, anti-causative AUTO- acts in the same
way as the marker SE does in its anti-causative function, see the representation
in (30):
(30) autoaccensione delfieno
'auto-ignitionofthehay'
RefS participant 1
LCS (BECOME (acceso (;*)))
SemAS (* Proto-A) Proto-P,
SyntAS (Arg 2,)
RS "PP"-complement
5. The interaction of word formation morphology and syntax and the

question of representation
5.1. Similarities between the word formational and the morphosyntactic

markers under study
The prefixes ,4 t/7-//#7Etf- and the marker SE have many parallels concern-
ing their semantics and their functions (reflexive, reciprocal, anti-causative):
They impose the same restrictions on the verb (transitive agentive base), they
modifiy and rearrange the argument structure of the underlying verb in the same
way as described above (binding of arguments or elimination of arguments on
the SemAS with consequences for the lower representational levels). But can
252 KatrinMutz
one really talk of functional equivalents? Are there no differences between the
respective markers?
5.2. Brief survey of the differences between AUTO-/TNTER- and SE

Besides the higher economy of the morphological expression, what other dif-
ferences can be noted between the two kinds of constructions?
- Whereas A UTO-IINTER- are prefixes the SE is used to be analysed as a clitic

formative.
- Whereas there is no question of whether A UTO- and INTER- belong to the
realm of word formation, the ^-construction is viewed, depending on the
theoretical framework involved and the function under scrutiny, either as a
lexical process and hence more word formational like (e.g. the anti-causative
SE) or as a grammatical, i.e. more syntactical process (e.g. the passive SE).
- AUTO- and INTER- have a different distribution than SE. Whereas the pre-
fixes can attach to different bases (verbal, adjectival, nominal), preferring in
most cases (AUTO-IINTER-) the deverbal nominal one, ^-construction are
exclusively found with verbs. We seem to have here a kind of division of
labor: voice as a genuine verbal morphological category has as one of its
exponents the marker SE. But within the domain of the nominal category the
morphological category voice does not exist (*se destruction, *s'allumage).
In order to be able (e.g. for pragmatic reasons) to express the same diathetic
modifications with (deverbal) nouns the nominal domain has word formation
processes at its disposal" (autodestruction, autoallumage).
- The constructions differ in their realization of their arguments: with the SE-
construction the only syntactic argument is realized as an obligatory NP in
subject position, with the nominal prefixal denvates the realization of the
argument is facultative and in form of prepositional complements.
5.3. Interaction and division of labor

In the verbal domain we can observe interaction between the prefixal formation
and the construction with SE, i.e. we have co-occurrence of the two markers, as
the following examples (31) to (33) illustrate.
With French reciprocal entre- the appearance of the prefix with a verbal base
is not possible without the co-presence of se. Se, on the contrary, does not de-
15. Why we have in French so many verbs wrth entre- but only a small sumber of nouns
wrth thrs prefix is an open question, which cannot be studied here.
mand the coappearance ofentre-, cf. Jean etMarie s'entr'aiment, Jean etMarie
s'aiment^ 'Jean and Mane love each other' but -Jean et Marie entr'aiment
(31) Si nous nous entre-tuons parce que nous avons peur les uns des autres,
alors que nous vivons seulement separespar deux chatnes de montagnes,
comment pournons-nous [...]
(www.partagemternational.ch/actuautr/levevod, 18.2.06)
'If we kill each other because we fear each other, although we live, sepa-
rated from only two mountain ranges, how could we [. . . ] '
In the case of the anti-causative and the reflexive function the same observation
as above can be made: the prefix demands the co-presence of the marker SE but
not the other way round, cf. la voiture s'autoallume, la voiture s'allume 'the car
starts by itself' but *la voiture autoallume and Jean s'autodetruit, Jean se de-
truit 'Jean destroys himself but -Jean autodetruit
(32) Probleme : si Valarme se situe en 2003pour un anniversaire en 2004, le
systeme n'apprecie guere :-(et la machine s'autoallume
(www.pdacool.com/breve.php37id breve=13, 18.2.06)
'Problem: if the alarm is situated in 2003 because of an anniversary
in 2004, the system will not like it [. . . ] and the machine will start by
itself.
(33) C'est quoi ce monde dans lequel une personne que vous aimez souffre,
s'autodetruit, detruit ce qu'ilya autour d'elle
(www.aapel.org/bdp/BLdroitdignite.html, 18.2.06)
'What kind of world is this where someone whom you love suffers, de-
stroys himself and destroys what is around him'.
There are different options of how the double marking of the described func-
tions in verbal constructions could be analysed. Further research is needed
here. It is not clear if the double marking could be analysed as a kind of non-
obligatory congruence. The impossibility of mere prefix-marking to express the
respective functions is due to the morphosyntactic status of the verbal voice
category. To express argument binding or argument elimination in the verbal
domain a grammatical morphosyntactic device is necessary, not a word forma-
tional one. This latter one causes argument modification, without the help of
SE; in the nominal domain. In this respect one could speak of a kind of division
of labor between the two devices: SE is used exclusively in the verbal domain,
the prefixes have a preference of use in the nominal domain. The interplay
between the two is managed via a kind of blocking-relation: in the nominal
16. The ambigmty between reflexive and reciprocal reading is not considered here.
254 KatrinMutz
domain the word formation prefixes act upon the argument structure and block
the setting of SE In the verbal domain it is SE which acts upon the argument
structure but opens the way for the facultative setting of the prefixes. With
pronominal verbs though, i.e. l e g a l i z e d verbs which are always constructed
with SE and with verbs of body care and body movement (so-called middle
verbs, Kemmer 1993), i.e. verbs which express non-other directed actions
(Konig and Siemund 2000) a derivation with AUTO- is not possible or ex-
tremely marked, e.g. se lever 'to stand up': *s'autolever; s'evanouir 'to faint':
*s'autoevanouir; se depecher 'to hurry': *s'autodepecher; se brosser 'to
brush': *s'autobrosser; se maquiller 'to put on make-up' *s'automaquiller.
5.4. Representation based on a functional-lexicalist approach

As we have seen, the reflexive function can be expressed either via a word for-
mational device (with AUTO-) or via a morpho-syntactic strategy (with SE).
Which kind of realization is preferable or possible depends on various lingual
and extra-lingual factors like the category involved, the register, the context
etc. The question of which factors are relevant for the choice of strategy and of
whether we have a ranking of these factors is still a matter of research.
How is the variation between the derivational and the morphosyntactic con-
struction to be represented? On the LCS we have the reflexive predicate un-
specified for any specific category, on the SemAS the agent argument merges
with the patient argument. This merged argument is mapped, as described above.
on the SyntAS, unspecified with respect to the position. Depending on the con-
ditioning factors indicated above and levelled out with the IS, the argument is
then realized either as a (facultative) prepositional complement or, in the case
of a ^-construction, as a NP obligatory in subject position. The non-specificity
concerning the position on SyntAS allows different ways of realization of the
single merged argument. In (34) a simplified model of representation in the
multidimensional scheme is given:
(34) Reflexive predicate PRED
RefS participant,
LCS CAUSE (xh BECOME (PRED (y,))). . .
SemAS Proto-A, = Proto-P,
SyntAS [(]Argl/Arg 2[)]
^conditioning factors and IS
either RS NP-subject
or RS " P P " - complement
For a more elaborated way a representation in the LFG-format is imagin-

able, cf. Bresnan (2001: 303): " [ . . . ] functional structures allow a form-
independent characterization of binding, predication, and control without
the 'configuration* bias' which favors syntactic over morphological forms of
expression"
Since, in our approach, not only word formation processes but any change
with respect to grammatical relations come about by lexical rules (cf. Bresnan
2001: 77: "All grammatical relation changes are lexical"), the interaction be-
tween SE mdAUTO- in the verbal domain can also be described as a switching
of two lexical rules, with the rule governing the ^-construction being the
higher ranked one or the rule applying first.
In our concrete example of a reflexive, reciprocal or anti-causative predi-
cate, it seems (but this is a further matter of research) as if in the case of pri-
mary predicates, i.e. verbal predicates, the lexcial rule of SE is applied first and
then the facultative application of the derivational UTO- or INTER-mhs takes
place (cf. the primacy of the lexical passive rule with respect to the adjectiviza-
tion rule described in Bresnan 2001: 30-39 or the higher ranked rule of the
morphosyntactic active and passive with respect to the rule of formation of
deverbative nouns described in Meinschaefer 2005).
With embedded verbal predicates, i.e. with deverbative complex nouns
or adjectives, the lexical SE-rule is blocked and only the AUTO- or INTER-
rules apply. Here the old principle of the invisibility of the inner structure of
words for syntactic devices (even if governed by lexical rules) seems to play
a role.
A similar lexicalist approach is given by Aranovich and Runner (2001) in
the framework of HPSG: they differentiate between three kinds of lexical rules:
1. lexeme-to-lexeme rules (L-to-L-rules) which concern the lexical semantics.
the semantic roles and the verbal categories involved, 2. word-to-word-rules
(W-to-W-rules), corresponding to the former syntactic transformational rules.
which concern the SyntAS and the valency, and 3. lexeme-to-word-rules (which
concern the linking).
If one follows Aranovich and Runner (2001) in their argumentation the SE-
rules and the prefixing rules are (hierarchically ranked) L-to-L-rules. In our
analysis of the function of the two devises these rules should have access to the
argument structure, in the analysis of Aranovich and Runner (2001), though.
only the W-to-W-rules act upon the argument structure.
There is still a lot of research needed, also with respect to the differ-
ent functions of SE. Could it be that SE in some of its functions is a
W-to-W-rule?
256 KatrinMutz
6. Conclusion
In this article I have demonstrated the interesting variation between the deriva-
tional prefixes A UTO-/INTER- and the morphosyntactic marker SE, then simi-
larities, their differences and their interaction. I have also given a brief sketch
of how to represent their functioning on a multilevel scheme.
But there is still a lot of research needed in the realm of the interaction of SE
and its word formational counterparts A UTO- and INTER-. We need more data
on the basis of an extensive corpus analysis - perhaps also with respect to other
morphosyntactic devices and their variation and interaction with word forma-
tional equivalents, e.g. ital. piccolo 'little, small' and the diminutive suffixes
-mo, -ello, -etto etc. A more formalized representation of the information given
on the different representational levels and their mutual linking has to be elabo-
rated, cf Booij (1992: 62): "What remains to be developed is a more fully ar-
ticulated theory of the structure of representations at LCS, and of the linking or
projection rules that relate LCS to PAS".
The presented data show once more the central role of argument structure.
A modell of grammar or the lexicon cannot do without respecting it, since it
seems to be an important place where morphology and syntax meet.
References
Ackema, Peter, and Maaike Schoorlemmer

1994 The middle construction and the syntax-semantics interface. Lingua 93.
54-90.
Alsma,Alex
1996 The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Aranovich, Raul, and Jeffrey T. Runner
2001 Diathesis alternations and rule interactions in the lexicon. In WCCFL 20:
Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,
Karme Megerdoomian and Leora A. Bar-el (eds.), 1-28. Somerville:
Cascadilla Press.
Arquiola, Elena F.
2003 Morphology, argument structure and lexical semantics: The case of Span-
ish auto- and CO-prefixation to verbal bases. Linguistics 41 (3): 495-513.
Bisetto, Antoinette, and Sergio Scahse
1990 La struttura argomentale nelle parole denvate. Lingua e Stile 25: 563-84.
Bisetto, Antoinette, Mutarello Rossella, and Sergio Scahse
1990 Prefissi e teona morfologica. In Parallela 4: morfologia: Atti del V
Incontro Italo-Austriaco delta Societd Linguistica Italiana. (Bergamo,
2-4 ottobre 1989), Monica Berxetta, Piera Molmelli, and Ada Valentmi
(eds.), 29-41. Tubingen: Narx.
Booij,Geert
1992 Morphology, semantics and argument structure. In Thematic Structure:
Its Role in Grammar, Iggy M. Roca (ed.), 47-64. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Bresnan,Joan
Geniusiene,Emma
1987 The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gnmshaw,Jane
1982 On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In The Mental
Representation of Grammatical Relations, Joan Bresnan (ed.), 87-148.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gnmshaw,Jane
1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT
Hummel, Martin and Rolf Kailuweit (eds.)
2004 Semantische Rollen. Tubingen: Narx.
Iacobmi,Claudio
2004 Prefissazione. In La formazione delle parole in italiano, Maria Gross-
mann and Franz Ramer (eds.), 97-162. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Kellmg, Carmen
2004 Protorolleneigenschaften von Verbargumenten und Suffixselektion bei
deverbalen Nomina auf fr. -age und -(e)ment. In Hummel and Kailuweit
(eds), 341-354.
Kemmer, Suzanne
1993 The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Komg,Ekkehard and Peter Siemund
2000 Intensifies and reflexives - A typological perspective. In Reflexives
Form and Function, Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci S. Curl (eds.), 4 1 -
74. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Memschaefer, Judith
2004 Les constructions nominates passives existent-elles? A propos de la rela-
tion entre nommahsation et passivation en francais. In: Sinner and Veldre
(eds), 83-98.
Metis, Ludo
1990 Lavoiepronominak: La systematiquedes tours pronominaux en francais
moderne. Pans: Duculot
Mutz,Katrm
2003 Le parole complesse in auto- nell'itahano di oggi. In Italia linguistica
anno Milk: Italia linguistica anno Duemila: Atti del XXXIV congresso
interanzionak delta SLI, Nicoletta Maraschio and Teresa Poggi Salam
(eds.), 649-665. Roma: Bulzom.
Mutz,Katrm
2004 Zur Argumentstruktur der deverbalen Ableitungen von auto- In
Hummel and Kailuweit (eds.), 355-374.
258 KatrinMutz
Mutz,Katrm
2005 Refiexiva und Verwandtes im Franzosischen und franzosisch-basierten
Kreolsprachen: Ein Vergleich. In Sinner and Veldre (eds.), 115-136.
Oesterreicher,Wulf
1992 SE im Spamschen: Pseudorefiexivitat, Diathese und Prototypikahtat von
semantischen Rollen. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 43: 237-260.
Scheppmg,Mane-Therese
1996 ZurValenzabgele1teter1tal1emscherNomen.InLex^foCAe^êr0-
manischer Sprachen, Peter Blumenthal, Giovanni Rovere, and Christoph
Schwarze (eds.), 113-123. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Sells, Peter, Zaenen, Annie and Zee Draga
1987 Reflexivization variation: Relations between syntax, semantics, and lex-
ical structure. In Working Papers in Grammatical Theory and Discourse
Structure, Masayo Iida, Stephen Wechsler, and Draga Zee (eds.), 169-
238. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Sempe, Jean-Jacques, and Rene Goscmny
1993 Reprint. Le petit Nicolas. Pans: Folio.
Sinner, Carsten and Georgia Veldre (eds.)
2004 Diathesen im Franzosischen/Les diatheses enfrancais. Frankfurt: Peter
Lang.
Waltereit, Richard
1998 Metonymie und Grammatik Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Wehr, Barbara
1995 SE-Diathese im Italienischen. Tubingen: Narr
Wehr, Barbara
1998 Zur Beschreibung der SE-Konstruktionen im Romamschen. In Neuere
Beschreibungsmethoden der Syntax romanischer Sprachen: Romanist-
isches Kolloquium XI, Wolfgang Dahmen, Gunter Holtus, Johannes
Kramer, Michael Metzeltm, Wolfgang Schweickard, and Otto Winkel-
mann (eds.), 127-148. Tubingen: Narx.
Weidenbusch,Waltraud
1993 Funktionen der Prafigierung. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Zubizarreta, Maria L.
1987 Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Dordrecht:
Fons.
The interaction between morphology and syntax
exhibited by the German writing system
NannaFuhrhop
0. Introduction
Here, two phenomena from the German wnting system wrll be discussed winch
show an interaction between morphology and syntax:
- Nonns are written with initial capital letters.

- Complex words are written without internal spaces.
The writing system of German exhibits grammatical regularities: This is a

basic assumption, which can be supported by many regularities already found.
While the German writing system is phonologically based (phoneme-grapheme
correspondence), the system of capitalizing nouns (Substantivgrofischreibung)
and the system of writing items either separated by spaces or juxtaposed with-
out intervening spaces (Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung) are not phono-
logical at all. Nouns are not accented in any special way nor are they otherwise
phonologically marked. So the system of writing nouns is not phonologically
based. The system of writing items either separately or juxtaposed is also not
phonologically based. Certainly there is a connection between word accent and
the system of dividing text into items separated by spaces, but the connection is
secondary: Due to grammatical structure, a sequence of units is interpreted as
one or more words - in spoken language the stresses are set because of this
grammatical structure and in written language the spaces are set because of this
grammatical structure.
Avery interesting aspect of these phenomena is that every writer has to de-
cide with each act of writing whether something is a noun or not and whether
something is a single word or not, because letters are divided exclusively into
upper and lower case, and items are either separated by intervening spaces or
juxtaposed, i The writer does not decide this in grammatical terms but rather by
writing something in one way or another.
1. Hyphenation as an intermediate step between separation and juxtaposition is a pe-

ripheral phenomenon in German, largely limited to compounds, for example those
260 NannaFuhrhop
The basic rules are simple: A noun is written with an initial capital letter. A
complex word is written without any internal spaces. But the German spelling
reform has shown that there are some cases in which the rules do not yield only
one clear output. In the first version of the German spelling reform (1996), the
attempt was made to establish only one spelling. That is the reason why the
reform had to be revised, especially in the section on separation and juxtaposi-
tion (Getrennt- undZusammenschreibung).
As I will show here, the classification of nouns is morphologically and syn-
tactically based; both levels constantly interact. This is already well known in
the body of research on the German writing system. Additionally, the system of
separation and juxtaposition can also be described by morphological and syn-
tactic criteria. Two principles can be formulated which regulate the area of
separation and juxtaposition, a morphological and a syntactic principle. The
principles constantly interact. Normally, the principles interact in the following
way: The morphological principle yields a set of alternatives; the syntactic
principle chooses one of the alternatives.
At this point I would like to introduce two terms to facilitate further dis-
cussion: The system of writing nouns will be discussed usmg the term 'graphe-
matic noun^. A graphematic noun is a word written with an initial capital letter
even if the word is not at the beginning of a sentence or a heading.
The system of separation and juxtaposition will be discussed using the term
graphematic worcf. A graphematic word is a row of graphemes between two
spaces and without any internal space.
1. The graphematic noun
First I would like to show the interaction between morphology and syntax in
the system of writing nouns. The research in this area is better established and
much more is already well known.
The rule is, 'the first letter of a noun is a capital letter'. What is a noun?
Word classes, or parts of speech, have been discussed in grammatical research
for 2000 years. Here, we do not have to decide what a noun is, we only have to
decide what a graphematic noun is, i.e. we have to describe how nouns are dif-
ferentiated from non-nouns within the graphematic system. A noun can be de-
scribed with recourse to semantics, morphology and syntactic functions. This
problem is much discussed in the graphematic literature. In most schoolbooks
containing acronyms or proper nouns: CD-ROM-Laufwerk ('CD-ROM drive'),

Goethe-Forschung ('Goethe research', i.e. research on Goethe).
The interaction between morphology and syntax 261
(where the writing system is explained to pupils and also to teachers) nouns
were traditionally described lexically (what a noun means) or morphologically
(by inflection). Rober-Siekmeyer (1999) takes a different tack and looks at
things from a syntactic perspective (see also Gunther 2007). Many problems in
the literature stem from taking a morphological-lexical perspective, so Rober-
Siekmeyer is quite justified in applying radical methods at this point in time. The
argument I would like to make, however, is that both systems function concur-
rently. Let me show some specific examples, starting from a lexical perspective.
A prototypical noun denotes a concrete thing (table, chair, man - Ttsch,
Stuhl, Mann). But we also know that there are many other nouns with abstract
meaning (esprit, feeling, love Geist, Gefuhl, Liebe). In English, some of these
are not only nouns (feeling, love), in German, some are not even primarily
nouns (Gefuhl and Liebe are derivatives of the verbs fiihlen and lieben). Nouns
can refer to anything in the world.
With morphological criteria, it is much easier to identify nouns in German.
German nouns have a grammatical gender and German nouns inflect according
to case and number, shown here for the example Abend ('evening'). Abend is a
masculine noun.
(1) a. Abend - nominative, dative, accusative singular?

b. Abends-genitive singular
c. Abende - nominative, genitive, accusative plural
d.Abenden- dative plural
Thus, Abend itself is a morphological noun. This can be seen through inflec-
tional morphology. Abend is morphologically simple from the perspective of
derivational morphology. But for morphologically complex words, we can also
assume criteria from derivational morphology: A noun can be built by means of
a nominal derivational process, meaning a derivational process which creates
nouns. At this point this criterion seems a little strange. The idea will become
clear after the discussion of the graphematic word. The reference to deriva-
tional processes also makes sense from the perspective of meaning. We will see
this below with respect to the differentiation between der Neue (a person who
is new) and der neue (which can only be used as an ellipsis).
Syntactically, nouns are the heads of noun phrases and noun phrases are
used in certain grammatical functions: Typically, noun phrases are used as sub-
jects and objects and as parts of prepositional phrases.
2. Withm the German system of inflection there are many syncretisms, but neverthe-
less German nouns still inflect, especially for genitive and plural.
262 NannaFuhrhop
(2) a. Subject:
Per Abend ist seine Iiebste Tageszeit.
the-NOM evening is his favounte day-time
'Evening is his favourite time of day.'
b. Object:
Erliebt den Abend.
he loves the-Acc evening
'He loves the evening.'
c. Part of a prepositional phrase:
andem Abend- am Abend- nach dem Abend
at the-DAT evening at-DAT evening after the-DAT evening
'in the evening' 'in the evening' 'after the evening'
Not only nouns can function as heads of noun phrases, but also pronouns:
(3) a. Subject:
Dieser ist seme Iiebste Tageszeit
this-NOM-SG-MASc-STRONGis his favourite day-time
'This is his favourite time of d a y '
b. Objekt:
Er Uebt ihn-
he loves him/it-Acc
'He loves him/it.'
c. Part of a prepositional phrase:
an ihm - nach ihm
O n It-DAT-MASC a f t e r It-DAT-MASC
'on it' 'after it'
The main differences between pronouns and nouns is that nouns can normally be
accompanied by an article, pronouns cannot, and that nouns can be modified by
an attribute (der schone Abend 'abeautiful evening'), see Bredel (2010: 226ff).
In most of the cases, it is clear what a noun is and that the elements in ques-
tion are both morphologically and syntactically nouns. But in some cases, the
question of capitalization is not as clear as might be assumed.
LI. Heute abend/Abend ('Ms evenmg')
Before the spelling reform, it was quite common to vtnte Abend m the context
heute abend ('today evening') with an initial lower-case letter. Why did people
do tins? Abend clearly seems to be a noun, so it has to be wntten with a capital

letter. The motivation must have something to do wrth the specific environ-
ment: How does the word abend behave in the environment of heutel
It cannot inflect in this phrase.
(4) heute und morgen Abend -heute und morgen Abende

today and tomorrow evening today and tomorrow evenings
'this evening and tomorrow evening' 'today and tomorrow evenings'
It is possible to say heute undmorgen Abendbut not -heute und morgen Abende.
although two evenings are meant. This test demonstrates a special behaviour of
Abend in this context, which it doesn't otherwise exhibit.
The other point is that in this context only few other words are possible.
(5) heute can combine with

abend morgen mittag nachmittag
evening morning noon afternoon
'this evening' 'this morning' 'this noon' 'this afternoon'
The context is extremely limited. It is not a typical position or function for a

noun, so the words are not identified as nouns by means of capitalization.
Two spellings can be observed: Before the spelling reform one version was
common, after the spelling reform the other is required. But there are differ-
ences between the two: the spelling heute abend is the product of the natural
evolution of the writing system whereas the spelling, heute Abends artificially
stipulated. The German writing system has evolved naturally over the past few
hundred years and its writers understand it intuitively. The spelling of abend in
heute abend shows that the German writing system deals actively with morpho-
logical and syntactic criteria and not with lexical definitions. It is highly context
sensitive. So Abend coming from the lexicon is a noun. But in this particular
use it is not a noun according to morphological and syntactic criteria.
Such special uses are rare, but they exist in the German writing system.
1.2. Der neuelder Neue <?** new one')
Another example is the nominal use of adjectives such as der Neue ('the new
boy/man'). A phrase der Neuelneue can be interpreted in two ways.
264 NannaFuhrhop
(6) a. Peter hat seinen alten Schrank wieder,

Peter has his old wardrobe agam
der neue war ihm zu grofi.
the new-MASc-WEAK-so-NOM was him too big
'Peter has his old wardrobe back, the new (one) was too big for him.'
b. Der Neue in Leas Klasse kommt aus
the new-MASc-WEAK-so-NOM in Leo's class comes from
Luneburg.
Luneburg
'The new boy in Leo's class comes from Luneburg.'
Morphologically, these words are inflected like adjectives even when they are
used as nouns: der Neue ein Neue_r. Both are classified as MASC-SG-NOM. The
former exhibits weak adjective inflection whereas the latter exhibits strong ad-
jective inflection. This kind of differentiation is only possible with adjectives.
In the first sentence, der neue is an ellipsis. The 'missing' noun {Schrank) is
supplied in the first part of the sentence. In the second sentence der Neue refers
to a person. This can be interpreted as a 'syntactic conversion', a regular pro-
cess ('a term for denoting a person can be built by converting an adjective').
With this background, Neue can be interpreted as the head of a noun phrase.
This is not only shown syntactically, but morphologically as well.
If we compare these cases, we can see that a purely syntactic perspective
does not lead to the attested spellings. Syntactically, an adjective can be used as
the nucleus of a noun phrase in German. So neue as well as Neue could be in-
terpreted as heads of noun phrases. Syntactically they would then be used as
nouns. From the perspective of inflectional morphology, the words are inter-
preted as adjectives because they inflect like adjectives in these contexts. From
the perspective of syntax and inflectional morphology there is no real differ-
ence between der neue as an ellipsis and der Neue as a 'nominal adjective'. The
difference is visible from the perspective of meaning and derivational morphol-
ogy: der Neue is built by a regular process which can be seen as a derivational
process. The regularity can be described in terms of meaning: It is a regular
process for constructing terms to refer to persons.
1.3. Im allgemeinenlAllgemeinen ('generally')
Another often discussed case is im allgemernen. It was normally written with

an initial lower case letter; after the spelling reform it has to be capitalized.
What do these different spellings show us?
(7) im allgemeinen
in-DAT-MASc/NEUT-SG common
'generally'
It is used quite similarly to English generally. But it is a phrase consisting of

two graphematic words.
The word allgemein ('common') is an adjective. The word im is histori-
cally a preposition together with an article (in dem). But often, this sequence of
forms is not used in the same way as this phrase. Some uses (also in tm allge-
meinen) are grammaticalized. The degree of grammaticalization can be seen
very well through the behaviour of the form im: The form cannot be decom-
posed to in and dem, which normally should be possible. If the sequence is used
within a noun phrase (tm allgemetnen Fall - in-the general case) the decompo-
sition (in dem allgemeinen Fall) is at least grammatical. Him allgemeinen is
used alone, the decomposition is not grammatical at all (*tn dem allgemeinen).
So it is not only an ellipsis; the sequence is grammaticalized. Syntactically, tm
allgemetnen can be an adverbial. Im allgemetnen was not written as a noun
before the spelling reform, after the reform it should be written as a noun. The
case seems quite simple. We have the preposition / with the remnant of an
article seen in the m of tm. There is no other noun present for which the article
can be used, so allgemeinen should be a noun. Why wasn't it written like a
noun?
We can take another quite similar case: In German, much as in English.
adjectives have comparative and superlative forms:
(8) schnell- schnell-er am schnell-sten

fast fast-coMPAR at fast-suP
'fast' 'faster' '(the) fastest'
The superlative form is built with am. This am is historically a fusion of a

preposition and an article (an dem) analogue to tm (see above). That this form
is grammaticalized can be seen via the ungrammaticality of *an dem schnell-
sten. The superlative form is used predicatively and adverbially, concerning
a grammatical interpretation of superlative forms with am, see Fuhrhop and
Vogel (2010).
(9) a. predicative use:

er tst am schnellsten
he is at fastest
'he is the fastest'
266 NannaFuhrhop
b. adverbial use:
er lauft am schnellsten
he runs at fastest
'he runs fastest'
c. attributive use:
der schnellste Laufer I -der am schnellsten Laufer
the fastest runner the at fastest runner
The attributive form is built wrthout am.

So am schnellsten can be used adverbially much as im allgemeinen. The
cases seem to be quite similar. The writing system does not indicate any other
solutions. Capitalization only marks the decision that something is a noun. It
does not say anything about the question what else something might be. But
allgemeinen in im allgemeinen does not have enough nominal features to be a
graphematic noun. What could the phrases im allgemeinen and am schnellsten
be? There are many otherwise quite similar phrases in which a noun is found
which is the head of a noun phrase:
(10) a. im Kmo -indent Kino

in-DAT-MASC-SG cinema in the-ART-DAT-MASc-SG cinema
b. am Gartenzaun -an dem Gartenzaun
at-DAT-MASc-SGgarden fence at the-ART-DAT-MASc-SG garden fence
'at the garden fence'
So it is possible to interpret im Kmo and am Gartenzaun as prepositional

phrases which contain noun phrases because dem Kino and dem Gartenzaun
are noun phrases. This is not possible for im allgemeinen und am schnellsten
because the fused forms im and am cannot be decomposed. They are fully
grammaticalized.
The intuition of writers to write im allgemeinen in lower case can be
grounded in its grammatical properties. Since the spelling reform, many incor-
rect spellings such as *am Schnellsten can be found.
1.4. Singen/singen CsmgmgTto sing')
Infinitives can be used as nouns, in which case they are normally accompanied
by an article. The writing system capitalizes infinitives in these contexts, mark-
ing them as graphematic nouns.
(11) a. dasschone Singen das Singen meiner Tochter

he mce-iNFLsmg-NOUN the smg-NOUN my-GEN daughter
'the nice singing' 'my daughter's singing'
b. dieKunstdes Singens
the art the-GEN sing-NOUN-GEN
'the art of singing'
c. *die Singens - "die Singen
the-PL sing-NOUN-PL the-PL sing-NOUN
'the singings'
d. sein Singen und mein Singen - *unsere Singen
his singing and my singing our-PL singing
They can take attributes (11a) and they can build a genitive form (lib), so they
can inflect for case. But they cannot inflect for number (lie). This deficit is not
caused by semantics (lid). So the infinitive is syntactically a noun, though at
least morphologically not a prototypical noun.
1.5. Schuldhabenlschuldsein ('to be to blame')
Certain classes of nouns vary with respect to capitalization when they occur in
combination with certain verbs. I would like to exemplify this with a discussion
of the varying behaviour of Schuld ('blame') in the context of the verbs sein
('to be') and haben ('to have').
(12) a. schuld sein - schuld (an etwas) sein

blame to be blame (on something) to be
'to be to blame (for something), to be responsible (for something)'
b. Schuld haben
blame have
'to be to blame'
Both complexes can be translated with to be to blame (for something). They

can be used interchangeably in their simple forms. But when they have a gram-
matical determiner and complements, they behave differently. Thus, they are
written differently: Schuld in schuld sein is not a graphematic noun, in Schuld
haben it is. Let us consider the grammatical behaviour:
268 NannaFuhrhop
Table 1. schuldseinvs. Schuldhaben

alone DEFART INDEFART With NEG NEG(mdef.
attribute (Sentence) Nouns)
erist schuld *die *eme *emegrofle mcht *keme

'he is' Schuld Schuld Schuld schuld schuld
erhat Schuld die erne emegrofle mcht kerne

'he has' Schuld Schuld Schuld Schuld Schuld
'blame' 'the 'a blame' 'a big 'not 'no blame'

blame' blame' blame'
So it makes sense to wnte schuld'Schuld in different ways depending on its

behaviour.
In the context of haben the unit Schuld behaves like a prototypical noun, in
the context ofsein, it does not.
1.6. Results: The graphematic noun
Whether something is marked as a graphematic noun is determined by mor-

phology, not only by inflectional morphology but also by derivational morphol-
ogy. And it is determined by syntactic behaviour. Normally, these criteria yield
the same categorization - as a noun or not as a noun. But in some cases the
criteria yield conflicting results.
- heute abendlheute Abend Abends not be inflected here and it cannot take
an attribute by itself. So from the perspectives of inflectional morphology
and syntactic behaviour it is not a noun. It is a noun because it can be classi-
fied from the lexical point of view as a noun and there is no regular produc-
tive derivational process which converts Abend from a noun to a non-noun.
- der neuelder Neue: Syntactically, these constructions can be used as noun
phrases. But the 'adjectives' still inflect like adjectives. Inflectional morphol-
ogy and syntax thus classify them in different ways (as adjectives on the one
hand, as nouns on the other). But neither syntax nor inflectional morphology
shows any difference between der neue (ellipsis) and der Neue (referring to
a person). A differentiation can be made by derivational morphology.
- am schnellsten: Syntactically this could be a prepositional phrase like am See
('by the lake') (er lauft am schnellsten, er lauft am See 'he runs fastest' - 'he
is running by the lake'). Morphologically, am schnellsten is a superlative

form ('fastest'). It is not quite clear if forming the comparative is an inflec-
tional process or a derivational process. Mam schnellsten is an inflectional
form of the adjective schnell, it should itself be morphologically an adjec-
tive, so it should inflect like an adjective. But am schnellsten cannot be in-
flected, only schnellst- can (der schnellste Laufer 'the fastest runner'). Either
am schnellsten is a special inflectional form for adverbial and predicative
use, or it is built by a derivational process. Then it could be, for example, a
complex adverb. But the given system, with am schnellsten in adverbial and
predicative and schnellst- in attributive contexts, still exists. Due to the com-
plementary distribution, there is no reason to assume that am schnellsten
could be a prepositional phrase built from a preposition and a noun. But
the classification as an adjective is reconstructed morphologically and not
syntactically.
For der Neuelneue both spellings are possible, depending on the meaning or
whether or not they are the result of a derivational process. So the decision has
to be made with respect to derivational morphology. Heute abend not writ-
ten as a noun before the spelling reform. This seems to be the more natural
spelling. Here, abend is not a noun at all, even though no process of deriva-
tional morphology can be observed which would convert it into some other
word class.
In Table 2, the criteria are summarized. The graphematic categorization
only differentiates between noun and non-noun. In other areas, the word classes
are more clearly differentiated. But a category such as 'adjective', for example.
is clearly compatible with 'non-noun'. The fields which agree with the graphe-
matic column are formatted in grey. Two columns are sufficient for a decision.
Because the graphematic system only needs the binary decision of 'noun' or
'non-noun', the table shows very well how the criteria interact and how the
graphematic decision is made.
2. The graphematic word
The system of separation and juxtaposition (Getrennt- und Zusammen-

schreibung) was much discussed in the context of the German spelling reform.
The first version from 1996 collapsed because of difficulties in this area. The
second version of the reform has been in effect since August 2005. The main
difference between the first and the second version is that the second version is
270 NannaFuhrhop
Table 2. Criteria for graphematic nouns
syntax inflectional derivational graphematic

morphology morphology
heute abend non-noun non-noun noun (lexical) non-noun
derneue noun, adjective adjective non-noun

(Schrank) no inflecting
attribute
derNeue noun adjective noun noun
amschnellsten half-noun, adjective?/ adjective?/ non-noun

no attribute, non-noun non-noun
no article
im half-noun, non-noun adjective?/ non-noun

alhemeinen no attribute, non-noun
no article
dasSingen noun half-noun noun noun

(no plural)
schuldsein non-noun non-noun noun non-noun

pleitesein non-noun adjective or noun
much more tolerant with respect to separation and juxtaposition. In typtcal

cases of uncertainly, both vanants are allowed.
The first version of the reform collapsed because this area was not readily
understood.
Let me illustrate the problem with an often-discussed case: alleinerziehend
vs. allein erziehend. The first is as an adjective which describes its referent as a
single parent. The second indicates that its referent does nothing but raise chil-
dren. The spelling reform of 1996 only permitted the variant allein erziehend.
Many people did not understand this spelling, and from a grammatical perspec-
tive, they were correct.
Here, I would like to make the following point: In German, the present par-
ticiple (e.g., erziehend, 'educating') cannot be a verbal form at all and, espe-
cially here, it cannot combine with the auxiliary verb sein ('to be'). A sentence
such as *er ist smgend ('he is singing') is not grammatical in German, neither
is er ist erziehend ('he is educating'). But er ist alleinerziehend is a possible
sentence in German (see also above in Section 2.4). This shows that erziehend
and alleinerziehend exhibit totally different grammatical behaviour. German
speakers know this difference. It is part of grammatical knowledge even if the

speakers cannot formulate it explicitly. This case can be explained by morpho-
logical and syntactic criteria which I will introduce here.
Two principles are responsible for juxtaposition and separation, see Fuhrhop
(2007: 167).
1. The derivational principle: 'Combinations' of two or more stems are written

as one word if they are linked together by a derivational process.
2. The relational principle: Units which can be analyzed syntactically, espe-
cially those which stand in a syntactic relation to other units in the sentence,
are syntactically autonomous words. They are written separately.
The first principle is a morphological principle (see Jacobs 2005: 38ff), the
second is a syntactic one. Both principles are based on a linguistic theory and
for both principles wide assumptions about the morphology and syntax of Ger-
man are necessary.
For the morphological principle, it is new that the principle is based on
derivation, for the syntactic principle, that it is based on syntactic functions. At
this point it is necessary to state what a derivative is in German. The first step
for determining this is to describe what productive derivational processes are in
contemporary German. For the syntactic point of view, we have to decide
which syntactic functions we assume. The two principles always work concur-
rently. Perhaps we will not be able to explain everything with these principles.
but we can illustrate quite a bit. We can assume a core area for separation and
juxtaposition (Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung) and we can describe many
problematic cases which have been frequently discussed, both since the spell-
ing reform and even before the reform.
First, I would like to illustrate that both principles work in tandem and show
how they interact. The spelling reform assumed only a morphological principle
and therefore people were advised to use the dictionary in cases of doubt. But I
would argue that the syntactic principle is also important for the writing system.
2.1. Blumenkohlsuppe - A typical nominal compound
With the combination Blumen-Kohl-Suppe ('cauliflower-soup') I would like to

show how the principles work and also that a morphological principle is not
enough.
Blumenkohlsuppe can be a word in German. It is a well-formed nominal
compound, so it could appear in a dictionary. It does not, however appear in.
272 NannaFuhrhop
e.g., Wahng (2002), so a dictionary does not really help a writer in this case.
But this is not the point here. Take the two examples:
(13) a. Er kocht Blumenkohlsuyye. I

*Er kocht Blumenkohl Suwe.
He cooks cauliflower soup
'He is making cauliflower soup/
b. Er kocht aus Blumenkohl Suppe. I
*Er kocht aus Blumenkohlsuppe.
He cooks out-of cauliflower soup
'He is making soup from cauliflower/
In (13a) Blumenkohlsuppe is the object of kocht. In (13b) Suppe is the object

and Blumenkohl is part of the prepositional phrase aus Blumenkohl.
(14) a. er kocht {Blumenkohlsuppe^

b. er kocht [aus Blumenkohl]^-^ [Suppe]^
This phrase (14b) functions as a sentence adverbial. Thus, the morphological

principle makes it possible to interpret Blumenkohlsuppe as one word, but only
with respect to the syntactic context can it be decided whether it actually is a
single word or not. The examples are a bit contrived, certainly Perhaps they are
even a little ridiculous. But this also demonstrates something: Although they
are ridiculous there is no doubt how to write them.
Blumenkohlsuppe is a compound, built from three nouns. The first noun is
formed with a linking element (Blume Blumen), with a so-called 'paradig-
matic' linking element, which only means that Blumen is a possible word-form
of German.
2.2. Other common compounds in German
Most German nominal compounds (around 80 per cent) are built without a
linking element. The most frequent linking element is the unparadigmatic s
with feminine nouns such as Versicherung-s-vertreter ('insurance agent'):
* Versicherungs can never be a word on its own. So the unparadigmatic linking
elements show that something must be a compound and cannot be anything
else. For all other compounds in German we can construct examples in which
they are written in one word and in which they are written in two words:
(15) er liefert Haustiiren er liefert an jedes Hans Tiiren

he delivers house-doors he delivers at every house doors
'he dehvers front doors' 'he dehvers doors to every house'
What does tins mean? According to the morphological principle, the combina-
tions can be words because they can be results of the process of compounding.
According to the syntactic principle, a decision on their status can be made for
a particular context.
We are looking from the morphological perspective, so we have to assume
which derivational processes are productive for contemporary German, I as-
sume at least compounding and affixation.
For affixed words the case is quite clear: Normally affixes cannot be words
on their own: Sport-ler ('sportsman'), Freund-lich-keit ('kindliness') etc. can
only be written without any internal space.
The most interesting area surrounding the question of graphematic complex
words is compounding. I will show the interaction of the morphological and the
syntactic principle first with noun-noun-compounds. Noun-noun-compounding
is highly productive in German. But we also find other types of compounds.
Besides the noun-compounds, German especially has adjectival compounds:
noun-present-participle combinations will be discussed as a special case in Sec-
tion 2.4. Verbal compounds are rare, but with some of them (e.g., the noun-
verb-combinations such as Radfahren 'to ride a bike/to cycle' und eislaufen 'to
ice-skate') both the graphematic noun and the graphematic word are involved.
so they will be discussed in Section 3.
Although we are dealing with a morphological criterion, both principles are
constantly at work within the writing system.
2.3. The system of nominal compounds
(16) a.Haustur:
der Tischler liefert \Hausturen\0u\ -
'the carpenter delivers front doors'
der Tischler liefert \an jedes Haus]re n|.rase Tiiren
'the carpenter delivers doors to every house'
(See above in Section 2.2.)
b. Verstcherung-s-vertreter, Schwan-en-see
Insurance-<ULE>3-agent Swan-<ULE>-lake
3. 'ULE' means unparadigmatic linking elements, T L E ' means paradigmatic linking

elements. For explanation, see below.
274 NannaFuhrhop
c. Stadt-e-tag, Gott-es-dienst, Liebling-s-getrank

town-<PLE>-day God-<PLE>-serv1Ce darlmg-<PLE>-dnnk
'association of cities' 'church service' 'favourite dnnk'
(16a) tists very common nominal compounds. Morphologically, they can be

written in one word. But in the example der Tischler liefert an jedes Haus
Turen ('The carpenter delivers doors to every house') the combination out of
Haus and Turen is written separately for syntactic reasons: only Turen is object
to liefert and Haus is part of the prepositional phrase an jedes Haus. So the
units Haus and Turen are not part of the same syntactic constituent, therefore
they do not belong together syntactically The interaction between the morpho-
logical and the syntactic principle is the following: The possibilities are given
with the morphological principle, even those of complex words. The actual
interpretation is done by the syntactic principle. So the syntactic principle is
context sensitive while the morphological is not.
(16b) shows other cases, with unparadigmatic linking elements. A word Ver-
sicherungs does not exist in German. It is not an inflectional form. Here, the
morphological principle already makes it clear that only the interpretation as
one word is possible. Versicherungs can only be part of a compound.
In (16c) we have words with paradigmatic linking elements. We can construct
contexts for writing them in one word and also for writing them in two words:
(17) a. Apfelsaft ist sein \LieblinSsSetrdnk^t

apple-juice is his darling-PLE-dnnk
'apple juice is his favourite drink'
b. Apfelsaft ist[des Lieblinzs]^ Getrdnk
apple-juice is the-GEN darling-GEN drink
'apple juice is darling's drink'
We can thus say quite a bit about German compounds and the compounding
process in German. But when combining the parts of possible compounds, we
may not even end up with a word at all. The result could often be a syntagma as
well, depending on its syntactic interpretation. There is only one small class of
compounds whose members show by their form that they are compounds: those
compounds with unparadigmatic linking elements (Versicherungsvertreter 'in-
surance agent'). This is a small class: It is assumed that around twenty percent
of German compounds have a linking element (Wellmann et al. 1974). The
unparadigmatic .-linking element, which is the only productive unparadigmatic
linking element, especially follows suffixes building feminine nouns such as
-ung, -heitl-keit, -itat, etc. So it is a very small class of combinations which
cannot be anything else besides compounds. This means: From a morphological

point of view there are often two possibilities. The compounds shown here can
certainly all be compounds, but the simple parts can also be (morphologically
simple) words as well, except those parts with unparadigmatic linking ele-
ments. Besides the morphological principle, there is the syntactic principle; the
syntactic principle interprets the actual use of the combination.
Linking elements are not always possible. The appearance of linking ele-
ments is highly restricted. So the other reverse situation can also be seen. In-
flected forms cannot normally be the first part of a compound. For example,
Autos ('cars') cannot be connected with the next word (we say Autobahn and
not *Autosbahn 'highway'). This example is intended to demonstrate that the
morphological principle does not always allow two possibilities.
2.4. Noun-adjective compounds and noun-present-participle fusions
Not only nouns can be built by composition, but also adjectives, so we find for
example himmelblau, bleifrei, entscheidungsfreudig.
(18) himmel-blau, bleifrei, entscheidung-s-freudig

sky blue lead free, decision-<ULE>-glad
'sky-blue' 'unleaded' 'decisive'
Nevertheless, adjectival compounds are less frequent than nominal compounds.

But one kind of adjectival compound is highly productive in contemporary Ger-
man, compounds in which the second part is a present participle. And these fu-
sions especially are quite interesting for the present investigation because with
them the interaction between morphology and syntax can be shown very well.
First, I want to describe the special behaviour of the present participle in
contemporary German:
(19) *er tst smgend - *er wtrd smgend

he is sing-PP* he will sing-PP
'he is singing' 'he will be singing'
Both forms are ungrammatical. Historically, there was a future form along the
KnesoferwinisingendMtm contemporary German thisform is ungrammatical.
What else can a present participle be? The present participle is used like an
adjective in contemporary German:
4. T P ' will be used for 'present participle'.

276 NannaFuhrhop
(20) a. Attribute:
die singenden Kinder - sing-end-en
'the singing children' smg-PP-PL-WEAK (adj. inflection)
We die gliicklichen Kinder
'the happy children'
b. Adverbial:
singend kam er urn die Ecke
sing-PP came he round the corner
'singing, he came around the corner'
WQglucklich kam erum die Ecke
'happy, he came around the corner'
But it does not fully behave like an adjective. For example, a comparative form
cannot be built (21a) and it also cannot be the base of an adjectival derivative
(21b):
(21) a. - die singenderen Kinder-sing-end-er-en

sing-PP-coMPAR-PL-WEAK (adj. inflection)
'the more singing children'
like die glucklich-er-en Kinder
the happy-coMP-iNFL children
'the more happy children'
b. *unsingend
'not singing'
Xûnglucklich
'unhappy'
The present participle is regularly built from a verbal form. It still has some
verbal properties. In particular, it can have all the complements of the basic
verb except the subject. The subject of the underlying structure is often the
reference noun in the attributive construction:
(22) a. die Kinder singe* das Lied

The children sing the song
'the children are singing the song'
b. die das Lied smgenden Kinder
the the song sing-PP-iNFL children
'the children singing the song'
c. das Lied singend kam er um die Ecke

the song sing-EP came he round the corner
'singing the song, he came around the corner
In (22a) the underlying verbal structure is shown. Das Lied is the object and
therefore a verbal complement. In (22b) it is shown that the verbal complement
can appear in attribute constructions as well, as it also can in adverbial con-
structions (22c).
The special behaviour of present participles in German can be summarized
in Table 3 (following Fuhrhop and Teuber 2000: 175):
Table 3. The present participle and its properties
Non-verbal properties Adjectival properties

- n o t part of analytical verb - used like an adjective (attributive and
forms adverbial)
Non-adjectival properties Verbal properties

- n o t base for common - for nearly every verb, a present participle can
deadjectival derivation (,,-, be formed
-heitl-keif) - can be accompanied by verbal complements
This hybrid behaviour has concrete effects for the connection between nouns
and present participles: Because of the close connection to verbs, present parti-
ciples can take verbal complements as syntactically autonomous units. Because
of the close connection to adjectives, compounds can be built with present par-
ticiples. This leads to a structural ambiguity:
(23) a. die Tee trinkenden Frauen (complement structure)

b. die teetnnkenden Frauen (compound structure)
the tea dnnk-PP-iNFL women
'the women drinking tea'
In (23a) Tee is a complement of the basic verb trinken, in (23b) teetrinkend is

an adjectival compound. Syntactically, Tee in (23a) is a complement to trink-
end, in (23b) teetnnkend as a whole is an attribute to Frauen. So, both juxta-
posed and separated spelling alternatives are possible; both were found before
spelling reform. For some but not for all noun-present-participle fusions, both
spellings are possible. There are morphological and syntactic restrictions. Only
278 NannaFuhrhop
if a noun occurs without an article, as do mass nouns (such as Tee in example

(23)) or plural forms (like Bucher in example (24)), can structural ambiguity be
produced:
(24) die Bucher lesenden Kinder die biicherlesenden Kinder

the books reading-iNFL children the books-reading-iNFL children
'the children reading books'
And even with these nouns, sometimes only one spelling is possible:
(25) a. The noun has an attribute:

diegriinen Tee tnnkenden Frauen
the green-iNFLtea dnnking-iNFL women
*diegrunenteetnnkenden Frauen
'the women drinking green tea'
b. The noun is accompanied by a determining article:
die den Tee trinkenden Frauen
the-NOM the/this-Acctea dnnking-iNFL women
'the women drinking the [specified] tea'
c. The first part ends with an unparadigmatic linking element:
die entzundungshemmende Salbe
the inflammation<ULE>inhibiting-PP-iNFL ointment
'the anti-inflammatory ointment'
Explanation: The attribute can only determine the noun and not the entire (ad-
jectival) compound. The same is true for the article. This case is very important
for contemporary German because most common nouns must be accompanied
by an article in the singular form. The form entzundungs is not a word-form at
all, but must rather be part of a compound, as shown above in Section 2.4.
It can be seen that the system regulating the distribution of spaces is based
on the interaction of morphology and syntax. This has been shown here using
only a small number of examples. Many others could be added. It has also been
shown how the interaction functions.
3. Interaction between graphematic nouns and graphematic words
One group of cases which was much discussed before the spelling reform con-
cerns forms such as Rad fahrenlradfahren, eislaufen, brustschwimmen. These
originate through the fusion of a noun and a verb.
Two characteristics of German verbs must be mentioned before discussing

special cases: First, they can be separable, and second, they are normally not
formed by compounding. Most particle verbs in German are combinations of a
preposition and a verb.
(26) anfangen, aufhoren, durchsetzen

at-catch on-hear through-place
'to begin' 'to stop' 'to accomplish'
The above mentioned combinations of nouns and verbs behave in a quite sim-
ilar manner:
(27) Radfahren, schUttschuhlaufen, erslaufen, brustschwrmmen

bike drive skate-run ice-run breast-swim
'to cycle' 'to ice-skate' 'to ice-skate' 'to swim breaststroke'
German verb particles are separable in two ways, morphologically (28a) and
syntactically (28b) (see also Eisenberg 2006: 336ff):
(28) a. anzufangen ('to start') - angefangen (perfect participle 'started')

b. er fdngt mit der Schule an ('he starts with school')
Particle verbs in contact are graphematic words. Their spelling has never been
controversial. Ludeling (2001) subjected them to many tests. She ultimately
assumed that they are not words at all because they are not constructed morpho-
logically She assumes that they are ' l e g a l i z e d phrases'. But she did not
say what this means syntactically. Syntacticians (for example Neeleman and
Weerman 1993) argue that they must be morphological.
This is not the place to tackle the rather large question of the precise status
of German particle verbs with respect to morphology and syntax, but we can
make the following point: In most cases, the particle is identical in form to a
diachronically related preposition (an, auf, durch, fiber, unter, zu, etc.), but it
never acts syntactically as a preposition because it never governs a noun, a
pronoun or a noun phrase.
(29) *Sie fdngt an dem Schreiben.

She catch-iNF at the writing
This sentence as a whole cannot be semantically interpreted. Due to the posi-

tion of the preposition after the verb and before the noun phrase, the verb can
280 NannaFuhrhop
only bofangen ('to catch') and not anfangen ('to start'). Tins leads to the con-
clusion that the particle in words tike anfangen cannot be interpreted syntacti-
cally as a preposition.
My point here is to show how the writing system operates with mor-
phological and syntactic principles. The particle verbs are interpreted as mor-
phological units in the writing system. This is not to say that they must be
morphological for every feature, theory or description. I simply say that particle
verbs can be interpreted morphologically in at least one way, even if they be-
have strangely compared with other morphological units.
The cases in (30b) and (31b) are very interesting for the current investiga-
tion because here we find units which on the one hand could be graphematic
nouns in their own right and on the other hand could be parts of complex
graphematic words:
(30) a. radfahren
b. Radfahren
c. ''radfahren
(31) a. eislaufen
b. Eislaufen
c. ?e/5 laufen
The third versions (30c) and (31c), with rad and eis written separately and also
with an initial lower-case letter, were not allowed before the spelling reform.
The first versions (30a) and (31 a) were not allowed after the spelling reform of
1996. The revision of the spelling reform allows eislaufen (31a) but not rad-
fahren (30a). The current spellings are underlined. What is happening here?
Are eislaufen and Radfahren derivatives in the sense that they are built by
a derivational process? They are built by way of back-formation (Wurzel 2000:
37). Let me exemplify the process with the verb bausparen. I am using this
example because it does not have a complete verbal paradigm.
(32) a. bausparen
build-save
'save with a building society'
b. erwitt bausparen-well er bauspart
hewant-iNFL build-save because he build-save-iNFL
'he wants to save with 'because he saves with
a building society' 'a building society'
*er bauspart - *er spart baulBau

he bmld-save-iNFL he save-iNFL build
'he is saving Willi a building sociely'
It is evident that the verb bausparen cannot be produced by any syntactic

process (i.e. univerbation or incorporation) because then it should have a full
paradigm.
The noun Sparer ('saver') is built from the verb sparen ('to save') by regular
derivation (33a). This noun can regularly form a compound such as Bausparer
('someone who saves with a building society', 32b). This noun can be the basis
of a verb created by back formation, bausparen (33c).
(33) a. spar(en) + er - Sparer

b. Sparer + Ban -^Bausparer
c. Bausparer minus -er > bauspar(en)
'to save - saver - buildsaver - to buildsave'
The verbs eislaufen and Radfahren may be formed in the same way. At least
Radfahren has a full verbal paradigm, for eislaufen different native speakers
have different opinions: er fahrt Rad is a possible sentence of contemporary
German. With the sentence " e r lauft Eis on the other hand opinions differ; for
some speakers the sentence is quite good, for some it is ungrammatical.
So morphologically, Radfahren, bausparen and eislaufen can be words.
but they are built by the comparatively rare morphological process of back-
formation rather than by the more common processes of affixation or com-
pounding, and the process is not even fully productive in the sense that new
words are possible in a particular context, but they do not leave this new con-
text as the following examples do.
(34) er springt Kunst from Kunstspringen

he jump-iNFL art artjumping
'he does springboard diving' 'springboard diving'
At first, Radfahren shall be described in detail. Er fahrt RadlSa perfectly good

German sentence. What syntactic function can Rad have here? If we examine
its distribution, we see that it can have an attribute and that it also can take an
article, but in these cases, the meaning is not entirely the same as when neither
are present:
282 NannaFuhrhop
(35) a. er fdhrt das Rad

he dnve-iNFL the-Acc bike
'he rides the bike'
b. er fdhrt em Rad
he dnve-iNFL a-Accbike
'he rides a bike'
c. er fdhrt em grunes Rad
he dnve-iNFL a green-iNFL bike
'he rides a green bike'
With das Rad, ein Rad or, ein grunes Rad, the speaker refers to an existing bi-
cycle and thus necessarily refers to a more specific instance of bicycling, one
that involves that particular bicycle. But in er fdhrt Rad, a more general process
of cycling is referred to, independent of any particular bicycle. We can see a
systematic difference in meaning depending on whether or not Rad occurs with
or without an article or attribute. The idiosyncratic behaviour of the verb Rad
fahren can also be demonstrated with two examples showing specific gram-
matical properties of the combination: First, the perfect of Rad fahren is built
with the auxiliary sein and not with haben which is normal for transitive verbs.
(36) er ist Rad gefahren

he is bike driven
'he has cycled'
Second, plural forms are also possible. It is possible to combine a plural subject
pronoun with a singular form of Rad, even though more than one bicycle is
involved semantically:
(37) wir fahren Rad- wir fahren Rdder

we drive bike we drive bikes
'we are cycling'
Most speakers assume more than one bicycle even with the first sentence. So
Rad in Rad fahren does not behave fully like an independent noun.
Eislaufen is not separable for all German speakers.
(38) ler lauftErs

he runs ice
'he is ice skating'
Importantly, Eis can nerther be accompanied by an article nor can it have an

attribute.
(39) a. *erlauftdasEisl*ein Eis

he runs DEF ice INDEF ice
b. *er lauft das glatte Eis
he runs the slippery ice
This may be the reason that these two combinations are regulated differently
within the context of the spelling reform. The nouns do not behave like proto-
typical nouns. This is because they are syntactically not independent.
4. The power of the principles
As I have shown, the way complex words are written is determined morpho-
logically and syntactically, through the interaction of a morphological principle
and a syntactic principle. Certain cases are difficult because the principles can-
not apply. In other difficult cases, the interaction of the principles results in
more than one possible spelling. For example, combinations of a noun plus a
present participle are structurally ambiguous, so teetrinkend and Tee trinkend
can have nearly the same meaning.
The first type of difficult case occurs when the principles do not apply. This
is the case with Radfahren. Here, the morphological process is weak because
back-formation is not really productive in German; morphologically, Rad
fahren is not clearly a word. It is syntactically weak because Rad is far from
being a prototypical object to the vevbfahren, but it could be accompanied by
an article. So both principles apply but not very strongly. In addition, the prin-
ciples also yield conflicting results, so both spellings are possible for gram-
matical reasons. Because the syntactic principle for eislaufen does not apply at
all, it can only be written in one word.
Derivational processes can be ranked in levels, depending on how strong
they are: Affixation and compounding are strong derivational processes, espe-
cially if they are productive and regular. Back-formation is quite weak. Univer-
bation is not a derivational process in a strong way. A syntactic border is lost
within univerbation. Incorporation can only be assumed in German within
univerbation.
Analogously, syntactic relations can be ranked as well: The strongest syn-
tactic relation in a language such as German is the relation between the verb
and its complements. These relations form the basis of sentence structure. The
284 NannaFuhrhop
strength of the various syntactic relations can be seen by way of historical and
synchronic univerbation. For example, some complex prepositions are raised
by univerbation (examples aufgrund, anstelle):
(40) auf-grund anstelle

on-reason at-stead
'byreason(of)"instead(of)'
The origin is still visible: Both of them are combinations of a preposition and a
noun. They cannot be interpreted syntactically in contemporary German be-
cause of the missing article (aufdem Grund, an derIseiner Stelle). They are
used as parts of adverbials. The original structure was the following:
(41) P r e p - Noun - Genitive attribute to the noun

auf Grund seiner hohen Qualifikation
on reason [his good qualification]-GEN
'by reason of his good qualification'
It subsequently changed to the following structure:
(42) Prep - Genitive complement to the preposition

aufgrund seiner hohen Qualifikation
on-reason [his good qualification]-GEN
'by reason of his good qualification'
A syntactic border was lost between the preposition and its complement - the
noun. The restructuring has affected the internal structure of the adverbial. This
seems possible because all the other parts of the sentence are not involved.
In this presentation of the graphematic word, it might seem that the morpho-
logical principle always comes first. But this is simply due to the method em-
ployed in this presentation, in which I began with the possibilities of German
word formation. The principles themselves are not ranked at all. They rather
interact in tandem.
For graphematic nouns, the result was summarized in Table 2: There are
three areas. The graphematic decision seems to be highly democratic. If two of
three features apply for noun, the element in question is a graphematic noun. If
at least two criteria indicate non-noun, the element can not be a graphematic
noun at all. Can anything be said about the power of the principles? In adverbial
phrases, thesituationresembleswhatwesawinthediscussionofthegraphematic
word: the internal structure of sequences such as am besten, im allgemeinenlim

Allgemeinen is not very important for the whole sentence.
5. Morphological and syntactic principles: Why do they have a different

appearance?
For both phenomena discussed, I assumed a morphological and a syntactic

principle which interact in tandem. But the principles are not even the same for
the graphematic noun and for the graphematic word. The principles are not the
same because they have to support different decisions. For the graphematic
noun, the question every writer has to decide is: Is the specific unit a noun or
not? For the graphematic word, the writer has to decide whether a sequence of
elements is one graphematic word or not. So the principles are formulated quite
differently. That is not because the principles are by nature totally different, but
rather because of the specific demands. For the graphematic word, the decision
is more complex: For the morphological principle, it must be decided whether
something is a compound or the result of a process of affixation which is pro-
ductive and regular. For the syntactic principle, it must be decided whether
there is any syntactic relation which fits: subject, object, predicate, attribute.
adverbial or a grammatical relation like a nucleus or head relation (for example
a relation between an article and a noun). The decisions are quite complex, so
the principles are formulated in an abstract fashion.
Especially for the discussion of syntactic relations, we investigate whether
the noun behaves like an independent noun in the sentence or not. And there-
fore we need the same criteria that we need for determining whether something
is a noun.
Morphological criteria for nouns:
- t h e element in question has a gender

- i t inflects for number and case
Syntactic criteria for nouns:
- the element in question forms the head of a noun phrase

- it has a syntactic function expected of a noun in that context
The syntactic principle also includes the information that a noun can both have
attributes and a determiner.
286 NannaFuhrhop
The morphological principle for graphematic words impacts on the decision

whether something should be treated as a single word or as more than one word.
This leads to a principle which describes complex words morphologically.
Especially for cases like Radfahren, the criteria are quite similar, because the
unit in discussion is lexically a noun and the question is whether it also behaves
like a noun morphologically and syntactically.
In addition, this principle contains a lot of information. The first part of the
word should not be inflected and it should also not be inflected in this context.
So inflection is implicit for this principle.
The principle for the graphematic word must be open for many word classes.
The syntactic principle contains mobility (movement); if the units are syn-
tactically independent, they can take different positions, including the position
before the finite verb (the German Vorfeld).
6. Summary
As we have seen for both phenomena, two principles can be formulated: In

both cases, not only a morphological principle but also a syntactic principle
have been formulated. Although the principles seem to be very different, they
have a comparable content. They appear different because of the concrete deci-
sions a writer has to make.
For the question of the entire book, we can show concretely how morphol-
ogy and syntax interact. The levels can be separated, so it clearly makes sense
to differentiate the levels. But after this differentiation, the next question is
how they interact. This paper shows how the writing system of contemporary
German exhibits this interaction.
References
Bredel, Ursula
2010 Die satzmterne Groflschreibung - System und Erwerb. In Schriftsystem
und Schrifterwerb: Linguistisch didaktisch empirisch. Ursula Bredel.
Astnd Miller, and Gabnele Hmney (eds.), 217-234. Berlin: de Gruyter'
Eisenberg, Peter
2006 GrundrissderdeutschenGrammatik Vol. 1. 3rd. ed. Stuttgart: Metzler
Fuhrhop,Nanna
2007 Zwischen Wort und Syntagma: Zur grammatischen Fundierung der
Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung Tubingen: Niemeyer
Fuhrhop.Naima, and Oliver Teuber

2000 Das Partmp 1 als adjektivischer Infimtiv In Angemessene Strukturen:
Systemorganisation in Phonologie, Morphologie und Syntax, Andreas
Burner, Dagmar Burner, and Klaus-Mchael Kopcke (eds.), 173-190.
Ftildesheun: Olms.
Fuhrhop,Nanna,andPetraVogel
2010 Analytisches und Synthetisches im deutschen Superlativ In Kodier-
ungstechniken im Wandel: Das Zusammenspiel von Analytik und Syn-
these im Gegenwartsdeutschen, Dagmar Bittaer and Livio Gaeta (eds.).
83-97. Berlin: deGruyter.
Gunther,Hartmut
2007 Der Vistembor brehlte dem Luhr Knotten Wie sich die Fahigkeit zur
satzmternen Groflschreibung entwickelt. Zeitschrift fur Sprachwissen-
schaft 26 (Jubilaumsheft): 155-179.
Jacobs, Joachmr
2005 Spatter,: Zum System der Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung im heuti-
genDeutsch. Berlin: deGruyter.
Ludehng,Anke
2001 OnParticleVerbsandSimilarConstructionsinGerman.Stanford:CSU.
Neeleman, M a u d Fred Weennan
1993 The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resul-
tatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 433-475.
Rober-SiekmeyerChnsta
1999 Em anderer Weg zur Grofi- und Kleinschreibung Leipzig/Stuttgart/
Dusseldorf:Klett.
Wahng
2002 Universalworterbuch Rechtschreibung Munchen: dtv.
Wellmann, Hans, Nikolaus Remdl, and Annemane Fahrmaier
1974 Zur morphologischen Regelung der Substantivkomposition im heutigen
Deutsch. Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie 93: 358-378.
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich
2000 Was ist em Wort? In Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis, Rolf
Trneroff, Matthias Tamrat, Nanna Fuhrhop, and Oliver Teuber (eds.).
29-42. Tubingen: Niemeyer
Subject index
accentuation 20,45,47,49-51,53. 129-135, 139, 146f, 165-169, 171f.

55-71, 79f, 83, 86, 88, 91, 132. 174, 180
139, 145, 147-149, 172f, 190, 199. dative 39, 64, 101, 105f, 109, 112.
259 114-116, 118f, 121, 124
adjunct see modifier genitive 102, 105f, 109-124.
adposition 129-181,222,225,261,267,284
postposition 220,227,229-234 instrumental 105f, 112, 114, 118-121
preposition 38, 109, 119, 129, 225. locative 105f, 111-121, 124
250-252, 261f,265f,268f, 272,' nominative 101-103, 105f, 108-111.
274,279f,284 117, 119, 121f, 129-136, 140f, 165.
affixation 24f, 37, 55, 77, 83, 85-93. 172-174, 178
98f,102f,lll,123,218,227f,239. oblique 112,114-116,118,121,123
246-256, 273f, 281, 283, 285 ' vocative 103-106,111,115,117,119.
agreement 35, 37, 55, 77-98, 104, 109. 121f, 124
176-180 Catalan 221,224
anaphora 33, 35f, 39, 50 category mixing 217-235
ammacy 32,108-110,114-117,121. chtic 78,82-89,94-96,252
132 comparative 24,265,269,276
anti-causative 244,246,250-253,255 competence 40
application condition 114-116, 140f, complement 4 , 2 4 , 3 3 , 3 9 , 8 7 , 9 4 , 9 7 .
144, 157, 160, 163-165, 168-170. 130, 132, 140-143, 158, 162f,
175-177,198-200,202,204,210' 165-180, 206, 218f, 225-228, 230.
argument structure 5,14,39,64,174, 251, 254, 267, 277, 283f
239f, 246, 251, 254-256 compounding 87,89,259,271-275.
aspect 153, 157, 172, 189f, 193-196. 277-279,281,283,285
198,210 conceptual structure 9,17,29-35.
assertion 135, 151, 173, 194f 38-41,240
a-structure, e e argument structure conditional clause 187,190,193-198.
Autolexical Syntax 21 204-209
constituent structure 1-5, 10-12, 141f.
back-formation 280, 283 200,203
bare noun phrase 49f, 60-63, 143, 147. constructional idiom 25f
223 Construction Grammar 5,21,25,27.
binding 25, 33, 36, 39, 250f, 253, 255 138
blocking 14,79,91,115,147,152,168. conversion 39, 87, 264, 268f
220,253-255 c-stmcture5f,21,226
Czech 114,131f
case
ablative 102f, 119, 129 defimteness33,35,108f,112,129.
accusative 60, 64, 103, 105f. 134f, 142-144, 147-149, 167, 173.
108-111, 114f, 117, 120f, 124. 201, 221, 227f, 245, 254
290 Subject index
debris 32, 161, 163, 165, 170-172, 177f grammaticahzation 109, 265f
derivation 222-228,233-235,246,249. Greek, Ancient 130
252,254-256,261,264,268-271,'
273,276f,280f,283 head 4-8, 10, 12, 26, 52, 56, 97, 142.
diathesis 136, 174, 241, 252f 144,152,168,170,202,206, '
differential object markmg 107-109 218-222, 227, 229, 231, 233f, 264.
discontinuous constituent 2, 4f, 7-9, 11 266,285
dislocation 68f Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar
Distributed Morphology 86 6-9, 24f, 27, 39, 86, 89-98, 255
d-stmcture2,4f
ellipsis 36, 38, 54, 67, 178f, 261, 264f. idiolect system 141f, 144, 160-165.
268 169-171, 177f, 198-201, 203, 207.
English 3 - 7 , 9 , 1 8 , 2 3 - 2 6 , 3 0 - 3 3 . 209f
36-40,71,143,146,171,174. idiom 24-27, 37
178f, 222, 225, 229, 261, 265' immediate dominance schema 7
event 18, 29f, 32, 34, 145f, 172, 174. impersonal construction 110,178-180
188-195,198,205,209-212 inanimate nominal 108-110,114-116.
evolution of language 28f, 31, 41 121,132
explanatory adequacy 19,27f incorporation 64,87,281,283
exponence 87-89,98,252 mdefimteness 5ee defimteness
extension 130, 145f, 149-160, 163f, 174 infinitive 220-226, 232-234, 266f
inflection 25,77-98, 101-124, 164,261.
focus see information structure 264,268f,274,286
Fox 92 information structure 18, 20f, 35, 39.
French 91,130,187-212,239,241-256 45-47, 53f,58f, 62-64, 67-71, 136.
f-structure5f,21,39,226 145,240,248
Integration^ Linguistics 5,10-12,139.
gapping 38, 67f 141-181, 187, 197-212
gender 78,82,101,108-111,114. intension 145f, 153, 156, 158, 160, 163.
119-123,142,176,261,285' 169, 171f, 174, 180
femmme 105-107, HOf, 118-124. interface 10,18,20-23,27,35
201,272,274 conceptual-intentional interface 17.
masculine 103-111,114-119. 28
121-123,261 syntax-semantics interface 35-40.
neuter 103-105,108,110-112. 137
114-119, 122f,176f morphology-syntax interface 91f, 98
genencity 140, 143, 148-151, 173 intonation 11,18,20,25,39,45-50,52.
German 8, 10-12, 91f, 139, 143, 148. 54,57,59,66,70f,79-82,88f,94,'
171,191,259-286 98, 130, 142, 148, 187, 200, 202f,'
Gikuyu 218-220,228 210,212
government 104, 132, 170f, 177-179 intonation structure 10-12,141,200.
Govemment-and-Bmdmg Theory 3-5. 203
36,39,231 Italian 14,91,130,218,220-227.
grammatical function see syntactic 232-235, 239, 246-248, 250f
function Item-and-Process approach 9
Subject index 291
Latin 102f, 105, 107-111, 117, 119. morpheme 23-25, 89, 102, 108, 124.
124 197,239
lexical category 4,222 morphophonologicalrule, e e
Lexrcal-Functional Grammar 5f, 21, 25. phonological rule
39,217-226,230-232,2341, movement 2,19,31,331,39,51-57.
240-245,248,2501,254-256 1031,254,286
lexical integrity 25,86,92 multidimensional framework 11, 5-12.
lexical interpretation 10-12,1411,144. 35,210,226,239,245
199-203,208 multistratal framework 21
lexical rule 9,255
lexicon 22-28,37-40,71,79,86,116. negation 130-136, 139-141, 147-152.
217,239,256,263 1551,165-172,171,176,179,246
linear order see word order neutralization 1921
linear precedence rule 7,91,87,94-96 nommahzation 218-220,222-229.
linking element 272-275 231-234,2491
logical form 17,39 nominal use 2631,266,268
noun
marking structure 101,1411,144,162. count noun 115,140,1551
200,203 mass noun 114,145,149,155,278
meaning nucleus see head
lexical 6,12,28,301,133,143,145. number
149, 1521, 155, 157-159, 161, 163. plural 241,80,101-124,132,140.
1651,169-172,1741,177,179,200. 144, 146, 1551, 1631, 166, 169,'
207 1761,187,192,200,243,261,270.
syntactic 29,35,39,62,133-135. 278,282
137, 1401, 143-145, 147-152, ' singular 6,78,80,82,87,101-124.
154-175,177-179,198,200,210. 132, 140, 164, 166, 1691, 1761, 192.
241 201,243,278,282
metrical structure 20
Minimalist Program 4 , 1 7 , 2 1 , 2 4 , 2 7 . ontology 2,311
361,39,41 Optimahty Theory 92,138
mixed category 218-222,226-228,232. orthography ^ w r i t i n g system
2341
modality 291, 35, 55, 80, 97, 188, 190. paradigm 78, 82, 87, 98, 1041, 1071.
193-195, 198 117,121,124,207,2801
modifier 4,26,33,361,39,56,60,97. Parallel Architecture 91, 17-41
141,143,178-180,2171,223,2271. participle 77-83,871,94,97,206,270.
2301,233,241,2451,250-253 273-279,283
monodimensional framework 1-5 partitivity 34,69,110,1141,1301,1341.
monostratal framework 2,46 147-151, 1651, 168
mood perlectivity 130, 153, 155, 157, 172.
conditional 77, 82-90, 93-97, 190. 1881,193,197-199,209 '
194,196,2051,208 performance 21,401
indicative 1871,201,204,2081 phonetic form 17,57,64
optative 208 phonological rule 79,88,91,98
292 Subject index
phonological structure 9,18,20,23. specificity **defimteness

40 speech act 191,209
Polish 77-98, 101-124, 131f spelling reform 260,262-266,269-271.
politeness 191,209 277,278,280,283
Portuguese 91f s-structure 2f, 5
possessive construction 55,132,221. stem 9, 81, 89-93, 97, 102, 104-106.
227,229,233 113,115-119,121-123,271 '
postposition **adposition stem alternation 105,113,123
pragmatics 31,41, 57, 191, 193, 196f. Stratificational Grammar 21
209,252 stress see accentuation
preposition s e e adposition subcategonzation 23,217
presupposition 135, 173f superlative 265,269
Prmciples-and-Parameters Theory see syncretism 101, 103f, 108, 112, 115.
Goverment-and-Bmdmg Theory 117,119,121-124,261
pronoun 33, 50, 55, 78, 84f, 87, 89, 91. syntactic category 1, 4, 6f, 10, 18, 25.
94f,102,109f,118f,132,143,221. 32,48,58,71,137,142,144,157.
227,262,279,282 162,187,196-200,202-204,207:
proper name 129,132,201 209f,217
proposition see meaning, syntactic syntactic function 4, 6-9, 12f, 39f, 60.
prosody see accentuation; intonation 64, 103, 109, 137, 142-144, 152,'
157,162f,165,170f,178,202, '
quantifier 48f, 64-66, 131 217-220,224-227,230,232-235.
242, 255, 260f, 271, 281, 283-285
realization^ morphology 89f, 94, 97 syntactic structure 4, 7, 9f,17f,20f, 24.
reciprocity 242f, 246-248, 251-253. 26, 37-41, 141, 162, 199f, 203, '
255 217,200,227,240
r e f e r e n t i a l ^ * * meaning, syntactic
reflexivity 239-256 tense 55, 138, 155, 157, 173, 179, 187.
Relational Grammar 39 191, 193, 195-198, 208f
Role and Reference Grammar 21 future 30, 47f, 59, 64, 81, 89, 176.
Russian 107, HOf, 114, 117-119. 190f,193,195,204f,275
129-181 imparfait 14, 187-212
past 77-98,230,263
semantic structure 9 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 3 , 3 6 , 4 0 . pluperfect 189f, 196, 206, 210
240,250 present 87, 89, 176, 188, 190-193.
sentence 195,200
declarative 36, 47f, 59, 134f, 143 preterite 155, 157, 172, 176
existential 134f, 168, 176 theme-rheme structure see information
habitual 188 structure
interrogative 36,48,55,58,208 tier 9, 20, 35, 39, 40, 218f
thetic 135 topic-comment articulation see
Slovak 114 information structure
Slovenian 131 Tree-Adjoining Grammar 21f
Spanish 109,221,224,248,250 Turkish 45-71, 102, 106-108, 124.
spatial structure 29-31, 34f 130
Subject index 293
Udi 89, 91f, 98 Wan 218,220,226-234

Ukrainian 114 word
underspecification 112, 193 graphematic260f,265f, 268-270.
unification 27, 88, 90 273,278-280,284-286
umverbation281,283f lexical 11,159,176,178,201.
utterance 28, 41, 143, 149f, 152, 154. 210
155, 158, 160f, 163, 172, 188, 194. phonological 11, 141f, 199f.
195, 197 202f
Word-and-Paradigm approach 12.
valency 94, 97, 143, 159, 161, 178-181. 103f
240,255 word order If, 4-7, lOf, 35-38, 41.
verb 45-71,77-98,228
copula verb 59,83,87,89,97,176. word order domain 8f, 77, 89-98
227 writing system 259-286
intransitive 200,224,242,246
transitive 25, 132, 200f, 201, 225. yer vocalization 79-81,86,91,96.
228,244,251,282 98

Syntax and Morphology Multidimensional - Nolda &amp; Teuber - Mouton de Gruyter

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Syntax and Morphology Multidimensional - Nolda &amp; Teuber - Mouton de Gruyter

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Syntax and morphology multidimensional / edited by Andreas Nolda,

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin/Boston

Introduction: Multiple dimensions in syntax and morphology 1

The Parallel Architecture and its place in cognitive science 17

A phono-syntactic template for Turkish: Base-generating free word

A coanalysis approach to Polish past tense agreement 77

Optimal specifications: On case marking in Polish 101

Case competition in Russian: Genitive vs. accusative and nominative.

How can the polysemy of syntactic categories be conciliated with

On lexical and syntactic licensing of category mixing 217

AUTO- and INTER- versus (?) SE: Remarks on interaction and

The interaction between morphology and syntax exhibited by the

Subject index 289

1. Multidimensionality vs. monodimensionality

Morphosyntactic objects such as syntactic phrases or morphological words are

1. Note that constituent structures, dependency structures, and feature structures

however, all of those properties are represented by a constituent structure only.

nature of their morphosyntactic constructs there arises no need for assuming

A well-known monodimensional, and multistratal, framework is the Govern-

(1) {that) this problem, I can solve

(2) is a monodimensional syntactic construct, representing at the same time

2. In the Minimalist Program of current Generative Grammar, syntactic structures do

topicalized for mformation-structural reasons. In order to represent the comple-

We shall now characterize selected multidimensional frameworks - those

3.1. Lexical-Functional Grammar

Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) in the original version of Kaplan and

(3) I saw the girl.

3.2. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar

(5) Kim walks.

(6) PHON (Kim, walks)

introduces a separate component for representing word-order - so-called order

(8) (dass) der Mann versucht hat, das Buck zu lesen

According to Reape (1996: 217-218), the unordered hierarchical structure of

versucht das Buch zu lesen

Amore formal representation is given in (10):'

TPHON (versucht, das,Buch,zu,lesen)

PHON (der, Mann)

3.3. The Parallel Architecture

In the Parallel Architecture (PA) framework (Jackendoff 1997,2002; Culicover

(11) Pat gave Dan a book

(12) a. Pat2 gave, Dan, a book,

(12a) gives the phonological structure of (11) in orthographic terms, neglecting

primitives of the syntactic combinatorial component, which constrains syn-

3.4. Integrations! Linguistics

(13) Ichhabenur franzosischen Rotwein.

8. In addition to GPSG-style LP rules, Cuticover and Jackendoff (2005) make use

In the classical IL conception structured morphological objects were

4. The papers in this volume

It has become fashionable recently to speak of linguistic inquiry as brolmgws-

1. Parallel architectures, broadly conceived

* This chapter was published previously in The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic

However, theoretical developments as early as the 1970s showed that pho-

1. "Syntactic" is sometimes used to mean 'combinatorial in any sense', including

(4) Phonological Syntactic Semantic

structure and syntactic structure in order to influence phonology - i.e. through

(5) What formal operations are employed in building linguistic structure?

The mainstream architecture - along with Tree-Adjoining Grammar (TAG.

(6) Derivation-based generation:

3. An advocate of Minimalism might respond that this issue is one of performance or

they undergo a sequence of distortions (movements and deletions) to de-

In parallel architectures, the interface relation between different compo-

Syntax and Morphology Multidimensional - Nolda & Teuber - Mouton de Gruyter

Syntax and Morphology Multidimensional - Nolda & Teuber - Mouton de Gruyter