DOCSLIB.ORG

Predicate-Internal Subjects, Auxiliaries, Nonfinite Clauses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Predicate-Internal Subjects, Auxiliaries, Nonfinite Clauses Some mid-term policy decisions CAS LX 522 and clarifications Syntax I • Proper names in English as DPs with Ø D. • Full clauses are CPs • Predicate-internal subjects, auxiliaries, nonfinite clauses. Week 8. Control and PRO • EPP holds in nonfinite clauses • Expletives don’t get θ-roles. • ECM, embedded TPs. Proper names Matrix clauses are CPs… • Henceforth, we will consider • We will also consider all matrix proper names in English to be DP clauses to be full CPs. CP DPs with a Ø D head, in order to D′ C′ capture the crosslinguistically • In questions, we need a CP headed common form of proper names D NP C TP Ø by a [+Q] morpheme in C. [–Q] the Bill, as well as to allow for N′ DP T′ the Bill I know, etc. Bill N • In declaratives, we will assume T … Bill that we have a CP headed by a should (null) [–Q] morpheme. Internal subjects … Predicate-internal subjects and auxiliaries DS T′ … • Note that this means that the subject • VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis DS The subject of a verb originates in ′ has to be in the specifier of the main T VP T verb in cases where there are [past] the specifier of VP at DS. V′ T VP auxiliaries. Not in the specifier of the auxiliary verb—it’s the main verb ′ θ V VP • This goes for other subjects of DP V which assigns the -roles. have other predicates, e.g., small clauses V′ DP ′ V … V like I find Bill intolerable. • Also note: This has nothing to do with Bill V AP whether the clause is finite or not—this V DP find eaten has to do with VP (or AP, etc.), not θ DP A′ • All -roles are assigned within the with TP. The subject is always in the lunch predicate’s own XP. Bill A specifier of the predicate. intolerable 1 EPP: Clarification Expletives and θ-roles • The EPP is a constraint on TP, it says that • Let me reiterate, the reason we have expletives at θ SpecTP must be filled. all is because we have a conflict between the - criterion and the EPP. – The EPP requires something in SpecTP. – The θ-criterion says we can only have as many • It is not a property of finite T alone, it is a arguments as there are θ-roles. property of T in general. In particular, the • In it rains, it is not present at DS—it cannot be, SpecTP position of a nonfinite clause must be because it cannot get a θ-role (since there is none filled as well. This will be relevant later today. around for it to get), but is inserted between DS and SS in order to satisfy the EPP. Government Government The radius of The radius of • These three environments government • A Case-assigning head X can government – Sister assign Case to a DP which is – Specifier any of these positions. – Specifier of sister XP XP • …are together sometimes • Case-assignment can only called the positions which DP X′ take place between a Case- DP X′ are governed by the head X. assigner and a DP within the X YP radius of government. X YP DP Y′ DP Y′ Y … Y … … * TP Government Case ′ SS DPi T • Take this to be The Truth. The radius of Bill government • This is how I drew the tj VP tree last time (and in t ′ • Bill wants me to leave. fact how it is drawn in i V the book). V +T CP j ′ • Here the verb want assigns an XP wants C θ Experiencer -role and a Proposition ′ θ DP X • But can this be right? C TP -role, the proposition assigned to [–Q] the embedded clause. T′ X YP DPk 1sg Y′ T VP • Me is getting Case from want, DP • Can want provide to V′ Case for me? t apparently, since it is accusative. Y … k V leave 2 … TP * … Case ′ SS Case SS DPi T Bill TP tj VP • Answer: No. • Instead, it must look ′ DPi T like this, where there is Bill ti V′ no CP containing the tj VP V +T CP embedded clause, just a j ′ • Want wants C bare TP. ti V′ and me are too far apart. C TP Vj+T TP [–Q] • Now, everything is wants T′ T′ DPk fine. DPk • Me is not in the 1sg 1sg T VP T VP government radius of to to want. V′ V′ tk V tk V leave leave CP ECM … SS TP • So when do we have CP and when don’t we? • This configuration, where ′ DPi T • Finite clauses always have a CP (this includes a Case-assigning predicate Bill matrix clauses now too.). provides Case to the tj VP specifier of its sister, is • Nonfinite clauses generally don’t have a CP sometimes called ti V′ unless you can see it (unless there is a Exceptional Case Marking Vj+T TP complementizer or some other evidence of CP). (ECM). wants • The idea was that it’s an T′ – I want for Bill to leave. (CP) DPk unusual configuration for 1sg – I want Bill to leave. (TP) T VP Case (not complement or to – I don’t know what to buy. (CP) specifier of the assigner). V′ tk V leave CP Back to C′ ECM C TP … SS business… [–Q] DS • Note! The textbook TP T′ provides an altogether ′ • Mary is likely to leave. different analysis of how DPi T T VP me gets Case in this Bill • Mary starts in SpecVP, [pres] V′ sentence, under the name tj VP gets a θ-role from leave. V AdjP “object raising”. be Adj′ ti V′ • Problem is, doing it the θ Adj TP way the textbook does Vj+T TP wants likely right now breaks X-bar T′ T′ theory and we don’t want DPk 1sg to do that. So, for now, T T VP VP this is the official way to to to V′ V′ analyze these sentences. t DPi k V Mary V leave θ leave 3 CP CP C′ C′ C TP C TP Recall… [–Q] Recall… [–Q] SS ′ ′ T DPi T Mary • Mary is likely to leave. • Mary is likely to leave. (Note how we Vj+T VP Vj+T VP write multiple ′ ′ • Mary starts in SpecVP, be+[pres] V • Mary starts in SpecVP, be+[pres] V traces) gets a θ-role from leave. gets a θ-role from leave. tj AdjP tj AdjP • Mary moves up to the Adj′ • Mary moves up to the Adj′ embedded SpecTP to θ embedded SpecTP to θ satisfy the EPP. Adj TP satisfy the EPP. Adj TP likely likely • Mary still doesn’t have Case. T′ • Mary still doesn’t have Case. ′ T′ DPi ti Mary • Mary moves up to main T VP T VP to clause SpecTP, satisfying the to ′ EPP and getting Case. ′ ti V ti V V V θ leave θ leave CP C′ C TP Recall… [–Q] SS Reluctance to leave ′ DPi T Mary • This happens because • Now, consider: θ Vj+T VP likely assigns only one - be+[pres] V′ – Mary is reluctant to leave. role, an internal θ-role. tj AdjP Adj′ • This looks very similar to Mary is likely to leave. • Likely does not assign θ Case, and so Mary must Adj TP • Can we draw the same kind of tree for it? likely keep moving, both to ′ T′ ti satisfy the EPP and to get • How many θ-roles does reluctant assign? Case. T VP to ′ ti V V θ leave Reluctance to leave Reluctance to leave • Reluctant has two θ-roles to assign. • In Mary is reluctant to leave, – One to the one feeling the reluctance (Experiencer) – Mary is doing the leaving, gets Agent – One to the proposition about which the reluctance holds from leave. (Proposition) – Mary is showing the reluctance, gets Experiencer from reluctant. • Leave has one θ-role to assign. – To the one doing the leaving (Agent). • And we have a problem: • In Mary is reluctant to leave, what θ-role does Mary get? – Mary appears to be getting two θ- roles, in violation of the θ-criterion. 4 TP TP ′ ′ Reluctance… DPi T SS Reluctance… DPi T SS Mary Mary Vj+T VP Vj+T VP is V′ is V′ • Mary is reluctant to leave. • Mary is reluctant to leave. t t • Reluctant assigns its θ- j AdjP • There must be something j AdjP θ roles within AdjP as ti Adj′ there, getting the -role ti Adj′ required, Mary moves up and satisfying the EPP. θ θ θ θ to SpecTP in the main Adj TP Adj TP clause by SS. reluctant reluctant ′ • But we can’t see it. ′ ? T ? T • But what gets the θ-role T VP • It’s a phonologically T VP from leave, and what to to ′ empty (Ø) DP. We will ′ satisfies the EPP for the ? V call it PRO. ? V θ V θ V embedded clause? leave leave TP TP ′ ′ Reluctance… DPi T SS Reluctance… DPi T SS Mary Mary Vj+T VP • Mary is reluctant Vj+T VP is V′ [PRO to leave]. is V′ • Mary is reluctant to leave. tj AdjP tj AdjP • There must be something • PRO does not get Case. θ there, getting the -role ti Adj′ – *Mary is reluctant Bill to leave. ti Adj′ and satisfying the EPP. θ θ θ θ Adj TP Adj TP reluctant • In fact, PRO cannot get Case. reluctant • But we can’t see it. ′ ′ DPk T – *Mary is reluctant for to leave DPk T PRO – Mary is reluctant for Bill to leave PRO T VP T VP • It’s a phonologically to to empty (Ø) DP.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Root Modality and Thematic Relations in Tagalog and English*
    Proceedings of SALT 26: 775–794, 2016 On root modality and thematic relations in Tagalog and English* Maayan Abenina-Adar Nikos Angelopoulos UCLA UCLA Abstract The literature on modality discusses how context and grammar interact to produce different flavors of necessity primarily in connection with functional modals e.g., English auxiliaries. In contrast, the grammatical properties of lexical modals (i.e., thematic verbs) are less understood. In this paper, we use the Tagalog necessity modal kailangan and English need as a case study in the syntax-semantics of lexical modals. Kailangan and need enter two structures, which we call ‘thematic’ and ‘impersonal’. We show that when they establish a thematic dependency with a subject, they express necessity in light of this subject’s priorities, and in the absence of an overt thematic subject, they express necessity in light of priorities endorsed by the speaker. To account for this, we propose a single lexical entry for kailangan / need that uniformly selects for a ‘needer’ argument. In thematic constructions, the needer is the overt subject, and in impersonal constructions, it is an implicit speaker-bound pronoun. Keywords: modality, thematic relations, Tagalog, syntax-semantics interface 1 Introduction In this paper, we observe that English need and its Tagalog counterpart, kailangan, express two different types of necessity depending on the syntactic structure they enter. We show that thematic constructions like (1) express necessities in light of priorities of the thematic subject, i.e., John, whereas impersonal constructions like (2) express necessities in light of priorities of the speaker. (1) John needs there to be food left over.
    [Show full text]
  • Classifiers: a Typology of Noun Categorization Edward J
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR Modern & Classical Languages Humanities 3-2002 Review of: Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Edward J. Vajda Western Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/mcl_facpubs Part of the Modern Languages Commons Recommended Citation Vajda, Edward J., "Review of: Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization" (2002). Modern & Classical Languages. 35. https://cedar.wwu.edu/mcl_facpubs/35 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Humanities at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Modern & Classical Languages by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. J. Linguistics38 (2002), I37-172. ? 2002 CambridgeUniversity Press Printedin the United Kingdom REVIEWS J. Linguistics 38 (2002). DOI: Io.IOI7/So022226702211378 ? 2002 Cambridge University Press Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Classifiers: a typology of noun categorization devices.Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2000. Pp. xxvi+ 535. Reviewedby EDWARDJ. VAJDA,Western Washington University This book offers a multifaceted,cross-linguistic survey of all types of grammaticaldevices used to categorizenouns. It representsan ambitious expansion beyond earlier studies dealing with individual aspects of this phenomenon, notably Corbett's (I99I) landmark monograph on noun classes(genders), Dixon's importantessay (I982) distinguishingnoun classes fromclassifiers, and Greenberg's(I972) seminalpaper on numeralclassifiers. Aikhenvald'sClassifiers exceeds them all in the number of languages it examines and in its breadth of typological inquiry. The full gamut of morphologicalpatterns used to classify nouns (or, more accurately,the referentsof nouns)is consideredholistically, with an eye towardcategorizing the categorizationdevices themselvesin terms of a comprehensiveframe- work.
    [Show full text]
  • The Term Declension, the Three Basic Qualities of Latin Nouns, That
    Chapter 2: First Declension Chapter 2 covers the following: the term declension, the three basic qualities of Latin nouns, that is, case, number and gender, basic sentence structure, subject, verb, direct object and so on, the six cases of Latin nouns and the uses of those cases, the formation of the different cases in Latin, and the way adjectives agree with nouns. At the end of this lesson we’ll review the vocabulary you should memorize in this chapter. Declension. As with conjugation, the term declension has two meanings in Latin. It means, first, the process of joining a case ending onto a noun base. Second, it is a term used to refer to one of the five categories of nouns distinguished by the sound ending the noun base: /a/, /ŏ/ or /ŭ/, a consonant or /ĭ/, /ū/, /ē/. First, let’s look at the three basic characteristics of every Latin noun: case, number and gender. All Latin nouns and adjectives have these three grammatical qualities. First, case: how the noun functions in a sentence, that is, is it the subject, the direct object, the object of a preposition or any of many other uses? Second, number: singular or plural. And third, gender: masculine, feminine or neuter. Every noun in Latin will have one case, one number and one gender, and only one of each of these qualities. In other words, a noun in a sentence cannot be both singular and plural, or masculine and feminine. Whenever asked ─ and I will ask ─ you should be able to give the correct answer for all three qualities.
    [Show full text]
  • 30. Tense Aspect Mood 615
    30. Tense Aspect Mood 615 Richards, Ivor Armstrong 1936 The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rockwell, Patricia 2007 Vocal features of conversational sarcasm: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psycho- linguistic Research 36: 361−369. Rosenblum, Doron 5. March 2004 Smart he is not. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/smart-he-is-not- 1.115908. Searle, John 1979 Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seddiq, Mirriam N. A. Why I don’t want to talk to you. http://notguiltynoway.com/2004/09/why-i-dont-want- to-talk-to-you.html. Singh, Onkar 17. December 2002 Parliament attack convicts fight in court. http://www.rediff.com/news/ 2002/dec/17parl2.htm [Accessed 24 July 2013]. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Voegele, Jason N. A. http://www.jvoegele.com/literarysf/cyberpunk.html Voyer, Daniel and Cheryl Techentin 2010 Subjective acoustic features of sarcasm: Lower, slower, and more. Metaphor and Symbol 25: 1−16. Ward, Gregory 1983 A pragmatic analysis of epitomization. Papers in Linguistics 17: 145−161. Ward, Gregory and Betty J. Birner 2006 Information structure. In: B. Aarts and A. McMahon (eds.), Handbook of English Lin- guistics, 291−317. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Rachel Giora, Tel Aviv, (Israel) 30. Tense Aspect Mood 1. Introduction 2. Metaphor: EVENTS ARE (PHYSICAL) OBJECTS 3. Polysemy, construal, profiling, and coercion 4. Interactions of tense, aspect, and mood 5. Conclusion 6. References 1. Introduction In the framework of cognitive linguistics we approach the grammatical categories of tense, aspect, and mood from the perspective of general cognitive strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Corpus Study of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Diglossic Speech in Cairene Arabic
    CORPUS STUDY OF TENSE, ASPECT, AND MODALITY IN DIGLOSSIC SPEECH IN CAIRENE ARABIC BY OLA AHMED MOSHREF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2012 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Elabbas Benmamoun, Chair Professor Eyamba Bokamba Professor Rakesh M. Bhatt Assistant Professor Marina Terkourafi ABSTRACT Morpho-syntactic features of Modern Standard Arabic mix intricately with those of Egyptian Colloquial Arabic in ordinary speech. I study the lexical, phonological and syntactic features of verb phrase morphemes and constituents in different tenses, aspects, moods. A corpus of over 3000 phrases was collected from religious, political/economic and sports interviews on four Egyptian satellite TV channels. The computational analysis of the data shows that systematic and content morphemes from both varieties of Arabic combine in principled ways. Syntactic considerations play a critical role with regard to the frequency and direction of code-switching between the negative marker, subject, or complement on one hand and the verb on the other. Morph-syntactic constraints regulate different types of discourse but more formal topics may exhibit more mixing between Colloquial aspect or future markers and Standard verbs. ii To the One Arab Dream that will come true inshaa’ Allah! عربية أنا.. أميت دمها خري الدماء.. كما يقول أيب الشاعر العراقي: بدر شاكر السياب Arab I am.. My nation’s blood is the finest.. As my father says Iraqi Poet: Badr Shaker Elsayyab iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I’m sincerely thankful to my advisor Prof. Elabbas Benmamoun, who during the six years of my study at UIUC was always kind, caring and supportive on the personal and academic levels.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Noun Classes and Classifiers, Semantics of Alexandra Y
    1 Noun classes and classifiers, semantics of Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University, Melbourne Abstract Almost all languages have some grammatical means for the linguistic categorization of noun referents. Noun categorization devices range from the lexical numeral classifiers of South-East Asia to the highly grammaticalized noun classes and genders in African and Indo-European languages. Further noun categorization devices include noun classifiers, classifiers in possessive constructions, verbal classifiers, and two rare types: locative and deictic classifiers. Classifiers and noun classes provide a unique insight into how the world is categorized through language in terms of universal semantic parameters involving humanness, animacy, sex, shape, form, consistency, orientation in space, and the functional properties of referents. ABBREVIATIONS: ABS - absolutive; CL - classifier; ERG - ergative; FEM - feminine; LOC – locative; MASC - masculine; SG – singular 2 KEY WORDS: noun classes, genders, classifiers, possessive constructions, shape, form, function, social status, metaphorical extension 3 Almost all languages have some grammatical means for the linguistic categorization of nouns and nominals. The continuum of noun categorization devices covers a range of devices from the lexical numeral classifiers of South-East Asia to the highly grammaticalized gender agreement classes of Indo-European languages. They have a similar semantic basis, and one can develop from the other. They provide a unique insight into how people categorize the world through their language in terms of universal semantic parameters involving humanness, animacy, sex, shape, form, consistency, and functional properties. Noun categorization devices are morphemes which occur in surface structures under specifiable conditions, and denote some salient perceived or imputed characteristics of the entity to which an associated noun refers (Allan 1977: 285).
    [Show full text]
  • Higher-Order Grammatical Features in Multilingual BERT Isabel Papadimitriou Ethan A
    Deep Subjecthood: Higher-Order Grammatical Features in Multilingual BERT Isabel Papadimitriou Ethan A. Chi Stanford University Stanford University [email protected] [email protected] Richard Futrell Kyle Mahowald University of California, Irvine University of California, Santa Barbara [email protected] [email protected] Abstract We investigate how Multilingual BERT (mBERT) encodes grammar by examining how the high-order grammatical feature of morphosyntactic alignment (how different languages define what counts as a “subject”) is manifested across the embedding spaces of different languages. To understand if and how morphosyntactic alignment affects contextual embedding spaces, we train classifiers to recover the subjecthood of mBERT embeddings in transitive sentences (which do not contain overt information about morphosyntactic alignment) and then evaluate Figure 1: Top: Illustration of the difference between them zero-shot on intransitive sentences alignment systems. A (for agent) is notation used for (where subjecthood classification depends on the transitive subject, and O for the transitive ob- alignment), within and across languages. We ject:“The lawyer chased the dog.” S denotes the find that the resulting classifier distributions intransitive subject: “The lawyer laughed.” The blue reflect the morphosyntactic alignment of their circle indicates which roles are marked as “subject” in training languages. Our results demonstrate each system. that mBERT representations are influenced by Bottom: Illustration of the training and test process. high-level grammatical features that are not We train a classifier to distinguish A from O arguments manifested in any one input sentence, and that using the BERT contextual embeddings, and test the this is robust across languages. Further ex- classifier’s behavior on intransitive subjects (S).
    [Show full text]
  • Declension of Nouns
    DECLENSION OF NOUNS In English, the relationship between words in a sentence depends primarily on word order. The difference between the god desires the girl and the girl desires the god is immediately apparent to us. Latin does not depend on word order for basic meaning, but on inflections (changes in the endings of words) to indicate the function of words within a sentence. Thus the god desires the girl can be expressed in Latin deus puellam desiderat, puellam deus desiderat, or desiderat puellam deus without any change in basic meaning. The accusative ending of puellam shows that the girl is being acted upon (i.e., is the object of the verb) and is not the actor (i.e., the subject of the verb). Similarly, the nominative form of deus shows that the god is the actor (agent) in the sentence, not the object of the verb. The inflection of nouns is called declension. The individual declensions are called cases, and together they form the case system. Nouns, pronouns, adjectives and participles are declined in six Cases: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, and vocative and two Numbers (singular and plural). (The locative, an archaic case, existed in the classical period only for a few words). Nominative Indicates the subject of a sentence. (The boy loves the book). Genitive Indicates possession. (The boy loves the girl’s book). Dative Indicates indirect object. (The boy gave the book to the girl). Accusative Indicates direct object. (The boy loves the book). Ablative Answers the questions from where? by what means? how? from what cause? in what manner? when? or where? The ablative is used to show separation (from), instrumentality or means (by, with), accompaniment (with), or locality (at).
    [Show full text]
  • The Position of Subjects*
    Lingua 85 (1991) 21 l-258. North-Holland 211 The position of subjects* Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Department of Linguistics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA Grammatical theories all use in one form or another the concept of canonical position of a phrase. If this notion is used in the syntax, when comparing the two sentences: (la) John will see Bill. (1 b) Bill John will see. we say that Bill occupies its canonical position in (la) but not in (lb). Adopting the terminology of the Extended Standard Theory, we can think of the canonical position of a phrase as its D-structure position. Since the concept of canonical position is available, it becomes legitimate to ask of each syntactic unit in a given sentence what its canonical position is, relative to the other units of the sentence. The central question we address in this article is: what is the canonical position of subjects1 Starting with English, we propose that the structure of an English clause is as in (2): * The first section of this article has circulated as part of Koopman and Sportiche (1988) and is a written version of talks given in various places. It was given in March 1985 at the GLOW conference in Brussels as Koopman and Sportiche (1985), at the June 1985 CLA meeting in Montreal, at MIT and Umass Amherst in the winter of 1986, and presented at UCLA and USC since. The input of these audiences is gratefully acknowledged. The second section is almost completely new. 1 For related ideas on what we call the canonical postion of subjects, see Contreras (1987), Kitagawa (1986) Kuroda (1988), Speas (1986) Zagona (1982).
    [Show full text]
  • The Grammatical Category of Modality∗
    The grammatical category of modality∗ Valentine Hacquard University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, United States [email protected] Abstract In many languages, the same words are used to express epistemic and root modality. These modals further tend to interact with tense and aspect in systematic ways, based on their interpretation. Is this pattern accidental, or a consequence of grammar or mean- ing? I address this question by: (i) comparing `grammatical' modals to verbs/adjectives that share meanings with modals, but not the same scope constraints; (ii) examining pat- terns of grammaticalization from `lexical' to `grammatical' modality; (iii) comparing scope interactions in languages where modals are 'polysemous' and in those where they are not. 1 Introduction In many languages, the same modal words are used to express a variety of `root' and `epistemic' meanings. English may, for instance, can express deontic or epistemic possibility. About half of the 200+ languages in [vdAA05] have a single form that is used to express both kinds of modality. Yet, in many other languages, modal markers are unambiguously determined for meaning. In the Kratzerian tradition ([Kra81, Kra91, Kra12]), modals are lexically specified only for force (as existential or universal quantifiers over worlds), and the various meanings a `polysemous'1 modal expresses arise from the modal combining with various modal bases and ordering sources. This account, based on the case of polysemous languages, easily extends to non-polysemous ones: a modal can further lexically specify the kind of modal base and ordering source it allows, restricting its meaning to a single epistemic or root meaning. An alternative account based on non-polysemous cases would provide separate lexical entries for the various modals, and extend to polysemous cases by postulating ambiguity.
    [Show full text]
  • UNCORRECTED PROOFS © JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY 1St Proofs 224 Michael Cysouw
    Chapter 7 A typology of honorific uses of clusivity Michael Cysouw Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology In many languages, pronouns are used with special meanings in honorific contexts. The most widespread phenomenon cross-linguistically is the usage of a plural pronoun instead of a singular to mark respect. In this chapter, I will investigate the possibility of using clusivity in honorific contexts. This is a rare phenomenon, but a thorough investigation has resulted in a reasonably diverse set of examples, taken from languages all over the world. It turns out that there are many different honorific contexts in which an inclusive or exclusive pronoun can be used. The most commonly attested variant is the usage of an inclusive pronoun with a po- lite connotation, indicating social distance. Keywords: politeness, respect, syncretism, clusivity 1. Introduction In his study of the cross-linguistic variation of honorific reference, Head (1978: 178) claims that inclusive reference, when used honorifically, indicates less social dis- tance. However, he claims this on the basis of only two cases. In this chapter, a sur- vey will be presented of a large set of languages, in which an inclusive or exclusive marker is used in an honorific sense. It turns out that Head’s claim is not accurate. In contrast, it appears that inclusive marking is in many cases a sign of greater so- cial distance, although the variability of the possible honorific usages is larger than might have been expected. There are also cases in which an inclusive is used in an impolite fashion or cases in which an exclusive is used in a polite fashion.
    [Show full text]
  • Facet Analysis Using Grammar
    Rick Szostak. 2017. Facet Analysis Using Grammar. NASKO, Vol. 6. pp. 248-256. Rick Szostak, University of Alberta Facet Analysis using Grammar Abstract: Basic grammar can achieve most/all of the goals of facet analysis without requiring the use of facet indicators. Facet analysis is thus rendered far simpler for classificationist, classifier, and user. We compare facet analysis and grammar, and show how various facets can be represented grammatically. We then address potential challenges in employing grammar as subject classification. A detailed review of basic grammar supports the hypothesis that it is feasible to usefully employ grammatical construction in subject classification. A manageable – and programmable – set of adjustments is required as classifiers move fairly directly from sentences in a document (or object or idea) description to formulating a subject classification. The user likewise can move fairly quickly from a query to the identification of relevant works. A review of theories in linguistics indicates that a grammatical approach should reduce ambiguity while encouraging ease of use. This paper applies the recommended approach to a small sample of recently published books. It finds that the approach is feasible and results in a more precise subject description than the subject headings assigned at present. It then explores PRECIS, an indexing system developed in the 1970s. Though our approach differs from PRECIS in many important ways, the experience of PRECIS supports our conclusions regarding both feasibility and precision. Facet analysis is widely advocated in the Knowledge Organization literature but proves challenging to apply in practice. This paper suggests a novel approach to facet analysis which relies on basic grammar to structure subject classifications.
    [Show full text]