DOCSLIB.ORG

ENCYCLOPEDIA of HEBREW LANGUAGE and LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ENCYCLOPEDIA of HEBREW LANGUAGE and LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z General Editor Geoffrey Khan Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven E. Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora R. Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 Table of Contents Volume One Introduction ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Contributors ............................................................................................................ ix Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... xiii Articles A-F ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Two Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles G-O ........................................................................................................................ 1 Volume Three Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles P-Z ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Four Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Index ................................................................................................................................... 1 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 350 relative clause: biblical hebrew Ephratt, Michal. 1981. “Initial bkp in nouns after such as temporal, causal, and complement prepositions” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 45:40–55. clauses (3). Henkin, Roni. 1997. “Dissimilation of bkp in verbal clusters, a grammatical problem of the verb in spo- ken Hebrew” (in Hebrew). A present to Hadasa, (1) RC (clausal modifier of a nominal head): ָ ֽא ֹנ ִ ֙כי ְי ָ ֣הוה ֱא ֶֹ֔להיָך ֲא ֶ ֧שׁר ֵהוֹצ ִ ֛אתיָך ֵמ ֶ ֥אֶרץ ִמ ְצַ ֖ר ִים -ed. Yaakov Ben-Tulila, 199–209. Beer-Sheva: Ben ån< òúì YHWH ±Æß lòhÆúå< ±åš≥ Ær± ִמ ֵ ֣בּ ֥ית ֲﬠ ָבִ ֑ ֽדים .Gurion University Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2006. A gram- < < mar of biblical Hebrew. Roma: Pontifical Biblical hòßèμìúå mè-±ÆrÆß mißrayim mib-bèμ ≠≥∫å≈ìm Institute Press. ‘I am YHWH, your god, who brought you GKC = Kautzsch, Emil (ed.). 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew out from the land of Egypt, from the house grammar. Trans. by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: of slavery’ (Deut. 5.6) Clarendon. Morag, Shelomo. 1959. “Planned and unplanned (2) NP-internal PP (phrasal modifier of a nomi- ַוֵ֨יּ ֶלְך ִ֜אישׁ ִמ ֵ ֧בּית ֶ ֣ל ֶחם ְי ָ֗הוּדה ָל ֙גוּר :(development in Modern Hebrew”. Lingua nal head way-yèlÆú ±ìš mib-bèμ lÆ™Æm ִבּ ְשׂ ֵ ֣די ָ֔מוֹאב .263–8:247 Ravid Diskin, Dorit. 1995. Language change in child yëhù≈å< lå< g9 ùr bi-«≈è mò±å< ∫ ‘and a man from and adult Hebrew. New York: Oxford University Press. Bethlehem of Judah went to live in the ter- ——. 1998. “Acquisition of derived nominals in ritory of Moab’ (Ruth 1.1) Hebrew: Developmental and linguistic principles”. (3) Complement clause (clausal modifier of ַוּב ִמּ ְד ָבּ ֙ר ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ָר ִ֔א ָית ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ְנ ָשׂ ֲא ָ֙ך :(Journal of Child Language 25:229–266. verbal head ——. 2001. “Vowel reduction in Modern Hebrew: < < < u-∫am-mi≈bår ±≥šÆr rå±ìμå ±≥šÆr ְי ָ ֣הוה ֱא ֶֹ֔להיָך Traces of the past and current variation”. Folia Linguistica 35:371–397. në«å< ±≥úå< YHWH ±Æß lòhÆúå< ‘and in the wil- Rosén, Haiim B. 1977. Contemporary Hebrew. The derness where you saw that YHWH, your Hague: Mouton. god, carried you’ (Deut. 1.31) Shatil, Nimrod. 2003a. “On the meaning of some developments in spoken Hebrew’s morphology” (in Hebrew). Hebrew: A living language 3, ed. by We can formally define RCs by combining two Rina Ben-Shahar and Gidon Toury, 329–352. Tel- properties that are both syntactic and semantic Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. ——. 2003b. “Successions of consonants in the in nature: subordination and a pivot constituent binyanim qal and nif’al in spoken Hebrew” (in (de Vries 2002:14; 2005:127–128). As a subor- Hebrew). Haivrit Wea≤yoteha 2–3:291–310. dinate clause, RCs (like other phrasal or clausal Schwarzwald (Rodrigue), Ora. 1981a. Grammar and adjuncts, such as adjectives and adverbs) are reality in the Hebrew verb (in Hebrew). Ramat- Gan: Bar-Ilan University. grammatically dependent on the constituents ——. 1981b. “Grammaticality in Modern Hebrew”. they modify (the head). They may be syntacti- Middle East Studies 13:11–19. cally optional, even though their content may ——. 1984a. “Analogy and regularization in mor- be semantically necessary for the identification phophonemic changes: The case of the weak verbs in post-biblical and colloquial Modern Hebrew”. of the head within the discourse. Afroasiatic Linguistics 9:15–28. Concerning the pivot, notice a difference ——. 1984b. “Markedness relations in the pro- between relative and complement clauses in יהוה nunciation of the prefixed particles in Modern (1) and (3): in the RC in (1) the head NP Hebrew”. Afroasiatic Linguistics 9:73–86. Weinberg, Werner. 1966. “Spoken Israeli Hebrew: YHWH ‘YHWH’ plays two roles, one within Trends in the departures from classical phonol- the matrix clause (as the predicate nomina- ogy”. Journal of Semitic studies 11:40–68. tive) and one as the head of the appositive RC; in (3) the NP YHWH plays only one Nimrod Shatil < < në«å±≥úå ְנ ָשׂ ֲא ָ֙ך Zefat Academic College) role, as the subject of the verb) ‘carried you’ within the complement clause. Another way to characterize the pivot con- Relative Clause: Biblical Hebrew stituent is, as Downing notes, that “RCs have the form of clauses from which [a copy of the The ‘relative clause’ (RC) is the primary strat- antecedent] . has been deleted” (1978:379; egy for modifying a nominal constituent (i.e., also Andrews 2007:206). In other words, the the relative head) with a clause-level constitu- head plays a role within the RC because it has ent (1). The RC thus contrasts both with non- been extracted and promoted to the higher clause-level nominal modifiers, such as Noun clause. This process of ‘promotion’ is illustrated Phrase (NP)-internal prepositional phrases (PP) for Biblical Hebrew (henceforth, Hebrew) (2), and with clause-level modifiers of verbs, in (4): © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 relative clause: biblical hebrew 351 Relative Elements .2 ֶ֜אֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁ ַ ֣ר־תְּר ִתּי :Relativization with a gap (4) ÆrÆß ±≥šÆr-tartì ___ låh< Æm = [NP± ָל ֶ֗הם ±ÆrÆß [RC tartì ±ÆrÆß låh< Æm]] ‘A land that I The constituents that mark Hebrew RCs are explored ___ for them’ (Ezek. 20.6) variously referred to as ‘relative pronouns’, ‘relative adverbs’, or more generally, ‘relative In RCs that have a resumptive constituent, the particles’. Cross-linguistically, relative elements gap/trace/copy has been overwritten lexically fall into three basic categories: relative pro- with a coreferential item, such as the clitic pro- nouns, relative particles (sub-divided into com- noun on the accusative marker in (5): plementizer, marker, and affix), and resumptive pronouns (see de Vries 2002:62–63, 155–178). (5) Relativization with a resumptive element: Relative and resumptive pronouns, as their -hå-< ±år< Æß ±≥šÆr tår< ù ±òμåh< name implies, carry pronominal agreement fea ָה ָ֙אֶר ֙ץ ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ָתּ ֣רוּ ֹא ָ֔תהּ ‘The land that they explored it’ (Num. tures (person, gender, number, and/or case) 13.32) which in some way match the agreement fea- tures of the relativized noun in its roles within There is significant cross-linguistic diversity in the RC. Relative markers are similar in that RC features (see Downing 1978; Lehmann they show some pronominal characteristic(s), 1984; de Vries 2002; Andrews 2007). The e.g., agreement features; however, the agree- parameters which are relevant for Hebrew, ment features on relative markers do not reflect and are therefore discussed in the remainder the relative head’s syntactic role within the of this entry, are (1) the hierarchical status of RC but rather its role within the matrix clause the RC, namely whether it is embedded within (relative markers provide what is essentially the Determiner Phrase (= DP, i.e., Noun Phrase redundant information, which explains why with a determiner head) or whether it has the they are a very rare relative element type cross- status of a correlative); (2) the type of rela- linguistically). In contrast to pronouns and tive element; (3) the presence and position of markers, relative complementizers and affixes the relative head; and (4) the semantics of the do not carry agreement features. modification (restrictive or appositive). Hebrew uses both relative markers and com- plementizers, the latter being more common 1. The Hierarchical Status of by far. Based on historical-comparative recon- Relative Clauses struction and a few hints in the Hebrew Bible, it seems that Hebrew used to employ a relative RCs may be embedded or correlative. Hebrew marker which was homophonous with the so- restrictive RCs are embedded, and most are called near demonstratives (see Exod. 13.8; adjacent to the NP heads that they modify, as 15.3, 16; 2 Sam. 14.2; Isa. 25.9; 42.24; 43.21; in (6) (a few RCs are extraposed, that is, at a Pss. 9.16; 10.2; 17.9; 31.5; 32.8; 74.2; 78.54; distance from their head; see Holmstedt 2001; 104.8, 26; 132.12; 142.4;
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “The Relative Pronoun” As Has Been the Case in the Last Several Chapters
    CHAPTER 17 “Te Relatve Pronoun” As has been te case in te last several chaptrs, tis chaptr realy doesn’t confont te neophyt wit a lot of new grammatcal concepts; it builds on knowledge already mastred. Stl it’s going t take a litle patence, but we’l go slowly. Before we get t te relatve pronoun per se, we’re going t clean up a syntactcal point you’ve already been working wit, but may not have yet a firm conceptual understanding of. Let’s look at what we mean by a “clause”. THE CLAUSE You al remember te junior high school definiton of a sentnce: it’s a complet tought. And by tat we mean a tought which includes a noun, eiter expressed or implied, and a verb, eiter expressed or implied. Tat is, a complet tought must involve someting which is doing someting or which is being held up for descripton: “Te road is blocked”; “Te tee fel down”; and so on. Now, te human mind is a wonderfl ting. It reasons and perceives dozens of different kinds relatonships between events, tings, and ideas. It arranges events and facts logicaly and tmporaly, and in levels of priorit. Tat is t say, it takes two or more tings, tings which are separat ideas, separat visions, and weaves tem tgeter conceptualy and linguistcaly int what we “reasoning”. Te way tis reasoning is expressed in language is caled “syntax”, which litraly means “arranging tgeter”; puting tgeter events and tings and facts. For example, te two separat ideas or visions -- “te road is blocked” and “te tee fel down” -- might have a causal relatonship, which te mind instantly recognizes and expresses linguistcaly wit an appropriat conjuncton: “Te road is blocked because te tee fel down”.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Expectations in Chinese Relative Clause Comprehension
    StructuralExpectationsinChineseRelativeClause Comprehension ZhongChen,KyleGrove,andJohnHale CornellUniversity 1. Introduction Relative clauses (RC) are among the most well-studied constructions in the field of psycholinguis- tics. A wide variety of work explores a robust processing asymmetry such that subject relatives (SRs) are easier to process than object relatives (ORs). For example, English shows a subject advantage, as demonstrated by a number of studies involving different measures including: self-paced reading (King & Just, 1991), eye-tracking (Traxler, Morris & Seely, 2002), ERP (King & Kutas, 1995), fMRI (Just, Carpenter, Keller, Eddy & Thulborn, 1996); and PET (Stromswold, Caplan, Alpert & Rauch, 1996). A robust finding in the literature suggests that subject preference seems to be a universal processing phenomenon in RCs. Some pieces of evidence come from Dutch (Frazier, 1987), French (Frauenfelder, Segui & Mehler, 1980), German (Schriefers, Friederici & Kuhn,¨ 1995), Japanese (Miyamoto & Naka- mura, 2003) and Korean (Kwon, Polinsky & Kluender, 2006). In order to account for the universal processing pattern of RCs, several theories are proposed, such as: WORD ORDER (Bever, 1970; MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002), the ACCESSIBILITY HIER- ARCHY (Keenan & Comrie, 1977), EXPERIENCE/FREQUENCY-BASED ACCOUNTS (Mitchell, Cuetos, Corley & Brysbaert, 1995; Hale, 2001), STRUCTURE-BASED APPROACHES (O’Grady, 1997; Hawkins, 2004) and WORKING MEMORY (Gibson, 2000; Lewis & Vasishth, 2005). Chinese RCs are valuable in testing those theories and
    [Show full text]
  • Polancec, the Invariant Relativizer in Contemporary Non-Standard Croatian
    Jurica Polančec (University of Zagreb) The invariant relativizer in contemporary non-standard Croatian In this talk, we will present the invariant relativizer in contemporary Croatian with an empha- sis on non-standard language. We will briefly introduce the Croatian invariant relativizer and its four forms (što, šta, kaj, ča). These four relativizers originate in separate Croatian dialects (što and šta in Štokavian, kaj in Kajkavian, and ča in Čakavian). Regardless of the dialect, the forms are functionally equivalent and have the same source in their respective dialects (the nom/acc case of the what pronoun). In contemporary language, they differ in their sociolinguistic status: only što is standard; što, šta and kaj are used in everyday informal Croatian, which is close to the standard, but fea- tures some non-codified elements and is often influenced by dialects (Langston & Peti-Stantić 2014: 30, cf. van Marle 1997: 13–17). The form kaj is geographically confined to Northern Croatia including the capital Zagreb. We will discuss in some detail the rise of the form kaj from the dialectal status. We will also show that the form što, when used in the standard, is typical of more formal and elaborate registers, in particular the language of literature. As for the other registers of standard Croatian, such as journalistic or scientific, the invariant relativizer often figures as a mere substitute for the relative pronoun (Kordić 1995: 164). Cases in which the invariant rela- tivizer is at the same time a feature of everyday informal language as well as of the rather for- mal written registers of standard language are quite unusual.
    [Show full text]
  • BORE ASPECTS OP MODERN GREEK SYLTAX by Athanaaios Kakouriotis a Thesis Submitted Fox 1 the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Of
    BORE ASPECTS OP MODERN GREEK SYLTAX by Athanaaios Kakouriotis A thesis submitted fox1 the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies University of London 1979 ProQuest Number: 10731354 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10731354 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 II Abstract The present thesis aims to describe some aspects of Mod Greek syntax.It contains an introduction and five chapters. The introduction states the purpose for writing this thesis and points out the fact that it is a data-oriented rather, chan a theory-^oriented work. Chapter one deals with the word order in Mod Greek. The main conclusion drawn from this chapter is that, given the re­ latively rich system of inflexions of Mod Greek,there is a freedom of word order in this language;an attempt is made to account for this phenomenon in terms of the thematic structure. of the sentence and PSP theory. The second chapter examines the clitics;special attention is paid to clitic objects and some problems concerning their syntactic relations .to the rest of the sentence are pointed out;the chapter ends with the tentative suggestion that cli­ tics might be taken care of by the morphologichi component of the grammar• Chapter three deals with complementation;this a vast area of study and-for this reason the analysis is confined to 'oti1, 'na* and'pu' complement clauses; Object Raising, Verb Raising and Extraposition are also discussed in this chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • On Restrictions on the Use of Non-Restrictive Infinitival Relative Clauses in English
    On restrictions on the use of non-restrictive infinitival relative clauses in English Takanobu%Akiyama% Nihon%University% [email protected]% This paper deals with non-restrictive infinitival relative clauses (NIRCs) in English (e.g. An independent review, to be funded by the health authority, has been commissioned). The purpose of this paper is twofold: (i) to give an accurate description of the semantic properties of the NIRC on the basis of the British National Corpus, and (ii) to elucidate restrictions on the use of this construction. My corpus-based approach will clarify four types of shades of meaning expressed by this construction are equal to those expressed by IS TO construction (i.e. plan, necessity or appropriateness, future in the past, and possibility). I will stress that NIRCs are used only when they have one notional category (i.e. notional subject/object), which is highly likely to be a notional subject of the infinitive, and denote one of the shades of meaning rather than causality. Keywords: non-restrictive clauses, infinitival relative clauses, meaning of to-infinitives, the British National Corpus 1. Introduction This paper deals with the non-restrictive infinitival relative clause (henceforth, NIRC) in English (e.g. An independent review, to be funded by Ealing council and Selected Papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 2013 edited by Lauren Gawne and Jill Vaughan! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Selected papers from the 44th ALS conference – 2013 AKIYAMA Ealing health authority, has been commissioned. (BNC: A96 443))1. The discussion of NIRCs has been neglected by linguists, although there have been many publications on restrictive infinitival relative clauses (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Relativization in Qiang∗
    LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS 9.4:735-768, 2008 2008-0-009-004-000247-1 Relativization in Qiang∗ Chenglong Huang Chinese Academy of Social Sciences In this paper, we review the strategies of relativization and discuss the different types of relative clauses and morpho-syntactic properties of relative clauses in eight varieties of Qiang. The Qiang language shows six types of relativization in terms of whether there is a head noun or not, and the relative positions of the head noun and relative clause. Double-headed relative clauses are unusual cross-linguistically. Head-internal relative clauses are modified by a demonstrative-(numeral)-classifier/ (in)definite-classifier, which helps readers to identify head-internal relative clause structures as NPs. In Qiang, different nominalizers, the genitive marker, and the definite marking or indefinite marking are used as clues in identifying the clause as relative; the choice of nominalizers or the genitive marker depends on the semantic role of the head in the relative clause. In some varieties of Qiang there are also some relative clauses that are not marked by nominalizers but are marked by person with aspect marking. Similar to English and Mandarin Chinese, almost all NPs, like actor, undergoer, experiencer, destination, instrument, source, location, time, etc., may be relativized on, therefore, there is no restricted neutralization (S/A pivot or S/P pivot) in nominalized relative clauses, while there is restricted neutralization in non- nominalized relative clauses (finite relative clauses), i.e. S/A is the same marking. Key words: Sino-Tibetan, relative clauses, typology 1. Introduction There are 306,072 Qiang people in the Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture of Sichuan (四川阿壩藏族羌族自治州), China (2000 census).
    [Show full text]
  • 'Undergoer Voice in Borneo: Penan, Punan, Kenyah and Kayan
    Undergoer Voice in Borneo Penan, Punan, Kenyah and Kayan languages Antonia SORIENTE University of Naples “L’Orientale” Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology-Jakarta This paper describes the morphosyntactic characteristics of a few languages in Borneo, which belong to the North Borneo phylum. It is a typological sketch of how these languages express undergoer voice. It is based on data from Penan Benalui, Punan Tubu’, Punan Malinau in East Kalimantan Province, and from two Kenyah languages as well as secondary source data from Kayanic languages in East Kalimantan and in Sawarak (Malaysia). Another aim of this paper is to explore how the morphosyntactic features of North Borneo languages might shed light on the linguistic subgrouping of Borneo’s heterogeneous hunter-gatherer groups, broadly referred to as ‘Penan’ in Sarawak and ‘Punan’ in Kalimantan. 1. The North Borneo languages The island of Borneo is home to a great variety of languages and language groups. One of the main groups is the North Borneo phylum that is part of a still larger Greater North Borneo (GNB) subgroup (Blust 2010) that includes all languages of Borneo except the Barito languages of southeast Kalimantan (and Malagasy) (see Table 1). According to Blust (2010), this subgroup includes, in addition to Bornean languages, various languages outside Borneo, namely, Malayo-Chamic, Moken, Rejang, and Sundanese. The languages of this study belong to different subgroups within the North Borneo phylum. They include the North Sarawakan subgroup with (1) languages that are spoken by hunter-gatherers (Penan Benalui (a Western Penan dialect), Punan Tubu’, and Punan Malinau), and (2) languages that are spoken by agriculturalists, that is Òma Lóngh and Lebu’ Kulit Kenyah (belonging respectively to the Upper Pujungan and Wahau Kenyah subgroups in Ethnologue 2009) as well as the Kayan languages Uma’ Pu (Baram Kayan), Busang, Hwang Tring and Long Gleaat (Kayan Bahau).
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of English Relative Clause
    Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 17(1), 79-93. The Application of Corpora in Teaching Grammar: The Case of English Relative Clause Rahman Sahragard, Ali Kushki and Ehsan Ansaripour* Shiraz University Sahragard, R., Kushki, A. & Ansaripour, E. (2013). The Application of Corpora in Teaching Grammar: The Case of English Relative Clause. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 79-93. The study was conducted to see if the provision of implementing corpora on English relative clauses would prove useful for Iranian EFL learners or not. Two writing classes were held for the participants of intermediate level. A record of 15 writing samples produced by each participant was kept in the form of a portfolio. Participants’ portfolios in both the experimental and the control groups were analyzed to spot patterned errors. Having diagnosed the errors, both groups were instructed on the use of English relative clauses. The participants in the experimental group were instructed using the corpora as printed materials. The control group, however, were instructed using explicit definition, discussion and exemplification. Then, both group participants’ portfolios were returned and they were asked to self correct their misapplied relative clauses. Interestingly, both groups had improved significantly. Two Chi-square tests on the use of that and which were run before and after classroom procedures on both groups. The first one suggested similar performance for the two groups but the second one favored the experimental group. The study suggests that applying corpora is an effective way to make students aware of their errors which ultimately leads them to self correction.
    [Show full text]
  • BCGL13, 16-18.12.2020 1 the Syntax of Complementizers
    BCGL13, 16-18.12.2020 The syntax of complementizers: a revised version Anna Roussou University of Patras ([email protected]) BCGL 13, The syntax and semantics of clausal complementation 16-18.12.2020 [joint work with Rita Manzini] 1. Setting the scene A clarification: why ‘a revised version’ Roussou (1994), The syntax of complementisers – the investigation of three basic constructions: (a) factive complements and extraction, Greek oti vs factive pu – a definite C (b) that-complements and subject extraction, an agreeing null C (c) na-complements in Greek and the subject dependency (control vs obviation) • Assumptions back then: -- that is an expletive element (Lasnik & Saito 1984, Law 1991) – complementizers in general are expletives -- But in some cases, as in factives, they may bear features for familiarity (Hegarty 1992) or definiteness, or license a definite operator (Melvold 1991) [that-factives are weak islands, pu- factives are strong islands] Some questions a) What is a complement clause? b) What is a complementizer? c) What is the role of the complementizer? d) How is complementation achieved if there is no complementizer? Some potential answers to the questions above a) complement clauses are nominal (the traditional grammarian view): mainly objects, but also subjects; it is a complement or a relative (?) b) not so clear: the lexical item that introduces a clause or the syntactic head C (Bresnan 1972) – in the latter reading, C can be realized by a variety of elements including conjunctions (that, oti, pu, che, etc.), prepositions
    [Show full text]
  • Licensing Animacy in Relative Clause Comprehension
    Structuring Expectation: Licensing Animacy in Relative Clause Comprehension Matthew W. Wagers and Emily Pendleton 1. Introduction* 1.1. Animacy and the predictive encoding of relative clauses Broadly speaking, subject relative clauses are easier to understand than object relative clauses (Wanner & Maratsos, 1978, Ford, 1983, Holmes & O'Regan, 1981, among many others). This can be demonstrated by a variety of methods that measure the speed and accuracy with which sentences containing relative clauses are processed. As an example, compare (1a), which contains a subject relative clause (SRC), to (1b), which contains an object relative clause (ORC). (1) a. Subject relative clause, The lobbyist [ that ___ quoted the journalist on the radio ] lost her job. b. Object relative clause The lobbyist [ that the journalist quoted ___ on the radio ] lost her job. The SRC advantage is very robust cross-linguistically. Even in cases where non-subject relatives may ultimately be easier to process, the 'fingerprints' of a subject advantage can be detected (Clemens et al., 2015, Borja, Chung & Wagers, 2015). However, the SRC advantage can be neutralized under a variety of conditions. For example, if the subject of an ORC is a quantified expression or a pronoun, then the asymmetry is substantially reduced (Gordon, Hendrick & Johnson, 2001, 2004). Another way to neutralize the SRC advantage is to change the animacy of the relativized argument (Mak, Vonk & Schriefers, 2002, Traxler, Morris & Seely, 2005, Gennari & MacDonald, 2008, among others). (2) illustrates a contrast that should be less severe than (1), because the relativized argument in (2), 'report', is inanimate. (2) a. Subject relative clause, inanimate filler The report [ that ___ quoted the journalist in the introduction ] was not well-known.
    [Show full text]
  • Preposition Stranding Vs. Pied-Piping—The Role of Cognitive Complexity in Grammatical Variation
    languages Article Preposition Stranding vs. Pied-Piping—The Role of Cognitive Complexity in Grammatical Variation Christine Günther Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Universität Siegen, 57076 Siegen, Germany; [email protected] Abstract: Grammatical variation has often been said to be determined by cognitive complexity. Whenever they have the choice between two variants, speakers will use that form that is associated with less processing effort on the hearer’s side. The majority of studies putting forth this or similar analyses of grammatical variation are based on corpus data. Analyzing preposition stranding vs. pied-piping in English, this paper sets out to put the processing-based hypotheses to the test. It focuses on discontinuous prepositional phrases as opposed to their continuous counterparts in an online and an offline experiment. While pied-piping, the variant with a continuous PP, facilitates reading at the wh-element in restrictive relative clauses, a stranded preposition facilitates reading at the right boundary of the relative clause. Stranding is the preferred option in the same contexts. The heterogenous results underline the need for research on grammatical variation from various perspectives. Keywords: grammatical variation; complexity; preposition stranding; discontinuous constituents Citation: Günther, Christine. 2021. Preposition Stranding vs. Pied- 1. Introduction Piping—The Role of Cognitive Grammatical variation refers to phenomena where speakers have the choice between Complexity in Grammatical Variation. two (or more) semantically equivalent structural options. Even in English, a language with Languages 6: 89. https://doi.org/ rather rigid word order, some constructions allow for variation, such as the position of a 10.3390/languages6020089 particle, the ordering of post-verbal constituents or the position of a preposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Instruct Practice Prepare
    Grammar ® Lexia Lessons PARTS OF SPEECH Pronouns 2 PREPARE CONCEPT Words are categorized as pronouns pronoun can act as the subject of a sentence. The if they take the place of a noun (a person, place, ability to think and talk about pronouns helps thing, or idea) in a sentence. Possessive pronouns students understand and explain texts accurately show ownership. Relative pronouns that, which, and write effectively. who, whom, and whose begin a relative clause. VOCABULARY absolute possessive pronoun, Relative clauses act as adjectival clauses and indefinite pronoun, possessive pronoun, relative answer the question which one. Indefinite clause, relative pronoun pronouns include all, anything, anyone, someone, everyone, many, several, and some. An indefinite MATERIALS Lesson reproducibles, index cards INSTRUCT Tell students they will be learning about other pronouns that replace nouns in a sentence. Provide an overview of the types of pronouns listed on the Anchor Chart, clarifying and discussing previously learned concepts as needed. Instruct students that pronouns can act as the subject or as adjectives in a sentence and answer the question which one. Display the sentence Somebody can drive my car that I just repaired. Underline the pronoun somebody and state that somebody is an indefinite pronoun because it does not refer to a specific person or thing. It acts as the subject of the sentence. Underline my and state that it shows ownership of the car. Finally, underline that and state that it begins a new clause. State the information: All pronouns, including indefinite, possessive, and relative pronouns, replace a noun. A possessive pronoun acts as an adjective and answers which one or whose.
    [Show full text]