DOCSLIB.ORG

Sentential Negation and Negative Concord

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sentential Negation and Negative Concord Sentential Negation and Negative Concord Published by LOT phone: +31.30.2536006 Trans 10 fax: +31.30.2536000 3512 JK Utrecht email: [email protected] The Netherlands http://wwwlot.let.uu.nl/ Cover illustration: Kasimir Malevitch: Black Square. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. ISBN 90-76864-68-3 NUR 632 Copyright © 2004 by Hedde Zeijlstra. All rights reserved. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Prof. Mr P.F. van der Heijden ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op woensdag 15 december 2004, te 10:00 uur door HEDZER HUGO ZEIJLSTRA geboren te Rotterdam Promotiecommissie: Promotores: Prof. Dr H.J. Bennis Prof. Dr J.A.G. Groenendijk Copromotor: Dr J.B. den Besten Leden: Dr L.C.J. Barbiers (Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam) Dr P.J.E. Dekker Prof. Dr A.C.J. Hulk Prof. Dr A. von Stechow (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen) Prof. Dr F.P. Weerman Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen Voor Petra Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................V 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1 1.1 FOUR ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NEGATION.......................................................1 1.1.1 The syntactic expression of sentential negation.....................................1 1.1.2 The interpretation of multiple negation .................................................3 1.1.3 True negative imperatives......................................................................4 1.1.4 Universal quantifier subjects preceding negation .................................5 1.1.5 Correspondences between these phenomena.........................................5 1.2 THE EMPIRICAL DOMAIN .................................................................................6 1.2.1 Diachronic variation..............................................................................7 1.2.2 Dialectal variation: the SAND project ..................................................7 1.2.3 Typological checking .............................................................................8 1.3 OUTLINE OF THE BOOK....................................................................................8 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS ...............................................................11 2.1 THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM .........................................................................11 2.1.1 A minimalist model of grammar ..........................................................11 2.1.2 Feature checking and functional projections ......................................14 2.1.3 Syntactic operations.............................................................................14 2.1.4 Multiple Spell-Out................................................................................18 2.2 TRUTH-CONDITIONAL SEMANTICS.................................................................21 2.2.1 The Principle of Compositionality.......................................................22 2.2.2 Lambda Calculus and Type-theory......................................................23 2.2.3 Quantifiers and variables ....................................................................25 2.2.4 Event semantics....................................................................................27 2.3 THE SYNTAX-SEMANTICS INTERFACE............................................................29 2.3.1 Scope ambiguities ................................................................................29 2.3.2 The level of interpretation....................................................................33 2.4 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................35 3 ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NEGATION.....................................................37 3.1 NEGATIVE CONTEXTS AND POLARITY ITEMS .................................................37 3.1.1 Negative elements ................................................................................38 3.1.2 Negative Polarity Items and their licensing conditions.......................40 3.1.3 Negative adjectives: Contradictory and Contrary Negation...............45 3.1.4 Concluding remarks.............................................................................47 3.2 SENTENTIAL NEGATION AND THE JESPERSEN CYCLE ....................................47 3.2.1 Sentential negation...............................................................................47 3.2.2 Ways of expressing sentential negation ...............................................51 3.2.3 The Jespersen Cycle.............................................................................52 ii SENTENTIAL NEGATION AND NEGATIVE CONCORD 3.3 THE INTERPRETATION OF MULTIPLE NEGATION.............................................57 3.3.1 Double Negation ..................................................................................58 3.3.2 Weakening Negation ............................................................................60 3.3.3 Negative Concord ................................................................................61 3.3.4 Emphatic Negation...............................................................................67 3.3.5 Concluding remarks.............................................................................73 3.4 NEGATIVE IMPERATIVES ...............................................................................75 3.5 NEGATION AND UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIERS.....................................................76 3.6 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................78 4 NEGATION IN DUTCH: A TYPOLOGICAL STUDY ................................81 4.1 NEGATION IN OLD DUTCH ............................................................................82 4.1.1 Negative markers in Old Dutch ...........................................................83 4.1.2 Negative Concord in Old Dutch ..........................................................85 4.1.3 Negative Imperatives in Old Dutch......................................................87 4.1.4 Concluding remarks.............................................................................87 4.2 NEGATION IN MIDDLE DUTCH ......................................................................88 4.2.1 Negative Markers in Middle Dutch......................................................88 4.2.2 Negative Concord in Middle Dutch .....................................................91 4.2.3 Negative Imperatives in Middle Dutch ................................................94 4.2.4 Universal subjects and negation in Middle Dutch...............................94 4.2.5 Concluding remarks.............................................................................95 4.3 NEGATION IN 16TH AND 17TH CENTURY DUTCH.............................................96 4.3.1 Negative markers in 16th and 17th century Dutch ................................96 4.3.2 Negative Concord in 16th and 17th century Dutch ...............................99 4.3.3 Negative Imperatives in 16th and 17th century Dutch ........................101 4.3.4 Universal subjects and negation in 16th and 17th century Dutch.......102 4.3.5 Concluding remarks...........................................................................103 4.4 NEGATION IN MODERN DUTCH...................................................................103 4.4.1 Negative Markers in Modern Dutch ..................................................104 4.4.2 Negative Concord in Modern Dutch..................................................108 4.4.3 Negative Imperatives in Modern Dutch.............................................116 4.4.4 Universal subjects and negation in Modern Dutch ...........................117 4.4.5 Concluding remarks...........................................................................118 4.5 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................119 5 TYPOLOGICAL CHECKING ......................................................................121 5.1 PHASE I LANGUAGES...................................................................................122 5.1.1 Slavic languages ................................................................................122 5.1.2 Greek, Romanian, Hungarian, Hebrew .............................................125 5.1.3 Italian, Spanish, Portuguese..............................................................129 5.1.4 Concluding remarks...........................................................................132 5.2 PHASE II LANGUAGES .................................................................................132 5.3 PHASE III LANGUAGES................................................................................135 5.4 PHASE IV LANGUAGES................................................................................137 5.5 PHASE V LANGUAGES .................................................................................138 Table of Contents iii 5.5.1 German, Swedish, Norwegian............................................................138 5.5.2 Quebecois, Bavarian, Yiddish............................................................141
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology
    UCLA UCLA Previously Published Works Title The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/05b2s4wg ISBN 978-3946234043 Author Schütze, Carson T Publication Date 2016-02-01 DOI 10.17169/langsci.b89.101 Data Availability The data associated with this publication are managed by: Language Science Press, Berlin Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language Classics in Linguistics 2 science press Classics in Linguistics Chief Editors: Martin Haspelmath, Stefan Müller In this series: 1. Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts on grammaticalization 2. Schütze, Carson T. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology 3. Bickerton, Derek. Roots of language ISSN: 2366-374X The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language science press Carson T. Schütze. 2019. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology (Classics in Linguistics 2). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/89 © 2019, Carson T. Schütze Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-946234-02-9 (Digital) 978-3-946234-03-6 (Hardcover) 978-3-946234-04-3 (Softcover) 978-1-523743-32-2
    [Show full text]
  • Veridicality and Utterance Meaning
    2011 Fifth IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing Veridicality and utterance understanding Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Christopher D. Manning and Christopher Potts Linguistics Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 {mcdm,manning,cgpotts}@stanford.edu Abstract—Natural language understanding depends heavily on making the requisite inferences. The inherent uncertainty of assessing veridicality – whether the speaker intends to convey that pragmatic inference suggests to us that veridicality judgments events mentioned are actual, non-actual, or uncertain. However, are not always categorical, and thus are better modeled as this property is little used in relation and event extraction systems, and the work that has been done has generally assumed distributions. We therefore treat veridicality as a distribution- that it can be captured by lexical semantic properties. Here, prediction task. We trained a maximum entropy classifier on we show that context and world knowledge play a significant our annotations to assign event veridicality distributions. Our role in shaping veridicality. We extend the FactBank corpus, features include not only lexical items like hedges, modals, which contains semantically driven veridicality annotations, with and negations, but also structural features and approximations pragmatically informed ones. Our annotations are more complex than the lexical assumption predicts but systematic enough to of world knowledge. The resulting model yields insights into be included in computational work on textual understanding. the complex pragmatic factors that shape readers’ veridicality They also indicate that veridicality judgments are not always judgments. categorical, and should therefore be modeled as distributions. We build a classifier to automatically assign event veridicality II. CORPUS ANNOTATION distributions based on our new annotations.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquaintance Inferences As Evidential Effects
    The acquaintance inference as an evidential effect Abstract. Predications containing a special restricted class of predicates, like English tasty, tend to trigger an inference when asserted, to the effect that the speaker has had a spe- cific kind of `direct contact' with the subject of predication. This `acquaintance inference' has typically been treated as a hard-coded default effect, derived from the nature of the predicate together with the commitments incurred by assertion. This paper reevaluates the nature of this inference by examining its behavior in `Standard' Tibetan, a language that grammatically encodes perceptual evidentiality. In Tibetan, the acquaintance inference trig- gers not as a default, but rather when, and only when, marked by a perceptual evidential. The acquaintance inference is thus a grammaticized evidential effect in Tibetan, and so it cannot be a default effect in general cross-linguistically. An account is provided of how the semantics of the predicate and the commitment to perceptual evidentiality derive the in- ference in Tibetan, and it is suggested that the inference ought to be seen as an evidential effect generally, even in evidential-less languages, which invoke evidential notions without grammaticizing them. 1 Introduction: the acquaintance inference A certain restricted class of predicates, like English tasty, exhibit a special sort of behavior when used in predicative assertions. In particular, they require as a robust default that the speaker of the assertion has had direct contact of a specific sort with the subject of predication, as in (1). (1) This food is tasty. ,! The speaker has tasted the food. ,! The speaker liked the food's taste.
    [Show full text]
  • Syntactic Changes in English Between the Seventeenth Century and The
    I Syntactic Changes in English between the Seventeenth Century and the Twentieth Century as Represented in Two Literary Works: William Shakespeare's Play The Merchant of Venice and George Bernard Shaw's Play Arms and the Man التغيرات النحوية في اللغة اﻹنجليزية بين القرن السابع عشر و القرن العشرين ممثلة في عملين أدبيين : مسرحية تاجر البندقيه لوليام شكسبيرو مسرحية الرجل والسﻻح لجورج برنارد شو By Eman Mahmud Ayesh El-Abweni Supervised by Prof. Zakaria Ahmad Abuhamdia A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master’s Degree in English Language and Literature Department of English Language and Literature Faculty of Arts and Sciences Middle East University January, 2018 II III IV Acknowledgments First and above all, the whole thanks and glory are for the Almighty Allah with His Mercy, who gave me the strength and fortitude to finish my thesis. I would like to express my trustworthy gratitude and appreciation for my supervisor Professor Zakaria Ahmad Abuhamdia for his unlimited guidance and supervision. I have been extremely proud to have a supervisor who appreciated my work and responded to my questions either face- to- face, via the phone calls or, SMS. Without his support my thesis, may not have been completed successfully. Also, I would like to thank the committee members for their comments and guidance. My deepest and great gratitude is due to my parents Mahmoud El-Abweni and Intisar El-Amayreh and my husband Amjad El-Amayreh who have supported and encouraged me to reach this stage. In addition, my appreciation is extended to my brothers Ayesh, Yousef and my sisters Saja and Noor for their support and care during this period, in addition to my beloved children Mohammad and Aded El-Rahman who have been a delight.
    [Show full text]
  • Compositional and Lexical Semantics • Compositional Semantics: The
    Compositional and lexical semantics Compositional semantics: the construction • of meaning (generally expressed as logic) based on syntax. This lecture: – Semantics with FS grammars Lexical semantics: the meaning of • individual words. This lecture: – lexical semantic relations and WordNet – one technique for word sense disambiguation 1 Simple compositional semantics in feature structures Semantics is built up along with syntax • Subcategorization `slot' filling instantiates • syntax Formally equivalent to logical • representations (below: predicate calculus with no quantifiers) Alternative FS encodings possible • 2 Objective: obtain the following semantics for they like fish: pron(x) (like v(x; y) fish n(y)) ^ ^ Feature structure encoding: 2 PRED and 3 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 2 PRED 3 7 6 pron 7 6 ARG1 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 ARG1 1 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 4 5 7 6 7 6 7 6 2 3 7 6 PRED and 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 2 3 7 7 6 6 PRED like v 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 ARG1 6 ARG1 1 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 ARG2 6 6 ARG2 2 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 4 5 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 2 3 7 7 6 6 PRED fish n 7 7 6 6 ARG2 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 ARG 2 7 7 7 6 6 6 1 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 4 5 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 4 5 7 6 7 4 5 3 Noun entry 2 3 2 CAT noun 3 6 HEAD 7 6 7 6 6 AGR 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 4 5 7 6 7 6 COMP 7 6 filled 7 6 7 fish 6 7 6 SPR filled 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 INDEX 1 7 6 2 3 7 6 7 6 SEM 7 6 6 PRED fish n 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 ARG 1 7 7 6 6 1 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 4 5 7 4 5 Corresponds to fish(x) where the INDEX • points to the characteristic variable of the noun (that is x).
    [Show full text]
  • Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 61
    Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 61 Editor Werner Winter Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change Edited by Marinel Gerritsen Dieter Stein Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York 1992 Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. © Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Internal and external factors in syntactic change / edited by Marinel Gerritsen, Dieter Stein. p. cm. — (Trends in linguistics. Studies and mono- graphs : 61) "A selection of papers that were presented at the work- shop ... held during the Ninth International Conference on Historical Linguistics at Rutgers in August 1989" — Introd. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-012747-4 (acid-free paper) : 1. Grammar, Comparative and general — Syntax — Congresses. 2. Linguistic change — Congresses. I. Gerrit- sen, Marinel. II. Stein, Dieter, 1946— . III. Series. P291.I44 1992 92-5409 415 —dc20 CIP Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging in Publication Data Internal and external factors in syntactic change / ed. by Marinel Gerritsen ; Dieter Stein. — Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1992 (Trends in linguistics : Studies and monographs ; 61) ISBN 3-11-012747-4 NE: Gerritsen, Marinel [Hrsg.]; Trends in linguistics / Studies and monographs © Copyright 1992 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-1000 Berlin 30 All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Anaphoric Reference to Propositions
    ANAPHORIC REFERENCE TO PROPOSITIONS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Todd Nathaniel Snider December 2017 c 2017 Todd Nathaniel Snider ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ANAPHORIC REFERENCE TO PROPOSITIONS Todd Nathaniel Snider, Ph.D. Cornell University 2017 Just as pronouns like she and he make anaphoric reference to individuals, English words like that and so can be used to refer anaphorically to a proposition introduced in a discourse: That’s true; She told me so. Much has been written about individual anaphora, but less attention has been paid to propositional anaphora. This dissertation is a com- prehensive examination of propositional anaphora, which I argue behaves like anaphora in other domains, is conditioned by semantic factors, and is not conditioned by purely syntactic factors nor by the at-issue status of a proposition. I begin by introducing the concepts of anaphora and propositions, and then I discuss the various words of English which can have this function: this, that, it, which, so, as, and the null complement anaphor. I then compare anaphora to propositions with anaphora in other domains, including individual, temporal, and modal anaphora. I show that the same features which are characteristic of these other domains are exhibited by proposi- tional anaphora as well. I then present data on a wide variety of syntactic constructions—including sub- clausal, monoclausal, multiclausal, and multisentential constructions—noting which li- cense anaphoric reference to propositions. On the basis of this expanded empirical do- main, I argue that anaphoric reference to a proposition is licensed not by any syntactic category or movement but rather by the operators which take propositions as arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • INTD0112 Introduction to Linguistics
    Announcements INTD0112 Midterm graded. Very good work overall. I wrote some comments, but should you have Introduction to questions, please do come to my office hours. Linguistics I’ll return HW4 by Monday at the very latest. HW5 is due today and will be returned to Lecture #21 you the Monday after Thanksgiving. Nov 18th, 2009 On Monday, I’ll let you know the order of presentations for the last week of classes. Language change continued Syntactic change: Word Order We have seen examples of three types of Word order in a language could change over language change so far: lexical, semantic, and time. For example, Old English (OE) had more morphological. variable word order than Modern English (ModE) does. Today, we discuss two other aspects of So, we do find SVO order in simple transitive change: syntactic change and phonological clauses: change. Hē geseah πone mann We also talk about historical linguistics, and He saw the man how to reconstruct dead languages. Syntactic change: Word Order Syntactic change: Word Order When the clause began with an element such as a (=“then”), the verb would follow that π When the object was a pronoun, the order in element, therefore preceding the subject: OE was typically SOV: πa sende sē cyning πone disc HēohinelQrde then sent the king the dish She him saved “Then the king sent the dish.” “She saved him.” 1 Syntactic change: Word Order Syntactic change: Word Order The same SOV word order also prevailed in As we noted earlier, case markings were lost embedded clauses, even when the object was during the Middle English (MidE) period, and, not a pronoun: as you should expect, SVO order became the πa hē πone cyning sōhte, hē bēotode unmarked word order in the language.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Negation in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective
    Chapter 1 Negation in a cross-linguistic perspective 0. Chapter summary This chapter introduces the empirical scope of our study on the expression and interpretation of negation in natural language. We start with some background notions on negation in logic and language, and continue with a discussion of more linguistic issues concerning negation at the syntax-semantics interface. We zoom in on cross- linguistic variation, both in a synchronic perspective (typology) and in a diachronic perspective (language change). Besides expressions of propositional negation, this book analyzes the form and interpretation of indefinites in the scope of negation. This raises the issue of negative polarity and its relation to negative concord. We present the main facts, criteria, and proposals developed in the literature on this topic. The chapter closes with an overview of the book. We use Optimality Theory to account for the syntax and semantics of negation in a cross-linguistic perspective. This theoretical framework is introduced in Chapter 2. 1 Negation in logic and language The main aim of this book is to provide an account of the patterns of negation we find in natural language. The expression and interpretation of negation in natural language has long fascinated philosophers, logicians, and linguists. Horn’s (1989) Natural history of negation opens with the following statement: “All human systems of communication contain a representation of negation. No animal communication system includes negative utterances, and consequently, none possesses a means for assigning truth value, for lying, for irony, or for coping with false or contradictory statements.” A bit further on the first page, Horn states: “Despite the simplicity of the one-place connective of propositional logic ( ¬p is true if and only if p is not true) and of the laws of inference in which it participate (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Like, Hedging and Mirativity. a Unified Account
    Like, hedging and mirativity. A unified account. Abstract (4) Never thought I would say this, but Lil’ Wayne, is like. smart. We draw a connection between ‘hedging’ (5) My friend I used to hang out with is like use of the discourse particle like in Amer- . rich now. ican English and its use as a mirative marker of surprise. We propose that both (6) Whoa! I like . totally won again! uses of like widen the size of a pragmati- cally restricted set – a pragmatic halo vs. a In (4), the speaker is signaling that they did not doxastic state. We thus derive hedging and expect to discover that Lil Wayne is smart; in (5) surprise effects in a unified way, outlining the speaker is surprised to learn that their former an underlying link between the semantics friend is now rich; and in (6) the speaker is sur- of like and the one of other mirative mark- prised by the fact that they won again. ers cross-linguistically. After presenting several diagnostics that point to a genuine empirical difference between these 1 Introduction uses, we argue that they do in fact share a core grammatical function: both trigger the expansion Mirative expressions, which mark surprising in- of a pragmatically restricted set: the pragmatic formation (DeLancey 1997), are often expressed halo of an expression for the hedging variant; and through linguistic markers that are also used to en- the doxastic state of the speaker for the mirative code other, seemingly unrelated meanings – e.g., use. We derive hedging and mirativity as effects evidential markers that mark lack of direct evi- of the particular type of object to which like ap- dence (Turkish: Slobin and Aksu 1982; Peterson plies.
    [Show full text]
  • TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR REVIEW I. Parts of Speech Traditional
    Traditional Grammar Review Page 1 of 15 TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR REVIEW I. Parts of Speech Traditional grammar recognizes eight parts of speech: Part of Definition Example Speech noun A noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. John bought the book. verb A verb is a word which expresses action or state of being. Ralph hit the ball hard. Janice is pretty. adjective An adjective describes or modifies a noun. The big, red barn burned down yesterday. adverb An adverb describes or modifies a verb, adjective, or He quickly left the another adverb. room. She fell down hard. pronoun A pronoun takes the place of a noun. She picked someone up today conjunction A conjunction connects words or groups of words. Bob and Jerry are going. Either Sam or I will win. preposition A preposition is a word that introduces a phrase showing a The dog with the relation between the noun or pronoun in the phrase and shaggy coat some other word in the sentence. He went past the gate. He gave the book to her. interjection An interjection is a word that expresses strong feeling. Wow! Gee! Whew! (and other four letter words.) Traditional Grammar Review Page 2 of 15 II. Phrases A phrase is a group of related words that does not contain a subject and a verb in combination. Generally, a phrase is used in the sentence as a single part of speech. In this section we will be concerned with prepositional phrases, gerund phrases, participial phrases, and infinitive phrases. Prepositional Phrases The preposition is a single (usually small) word or a cluster of words that show relationship between the object of the preposition and some other word in the sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com09/28/2021 06:09:44PM Via Free Access 142 Bağrıaçık
    Journal of Greek Linguistics 17 (2017) 141–189 brill.com/jgl Representing discourse in clausal syntax The ki particle in Pharasiot Greek Metin Bağrıaçık* Ghent University [email protected] Abstract In Pharasiot Greek, an Asia Minor Greek dialect, a certain particle copied from Turkish, ki, is employed in a number of seemingly unrelated constructions. Close scrutiny, however, reveals that in each of these constructions, ki is employed as a device geared to influencing the interlocutor’s epistemic vigilance. Based on the Cartographic Approach which defends the syntactization of the interpretive domains, I propose that this unique semantics of ki should be represented in the clause structure. Following recent work which advocates the existence of a pragmatic field—Speech Act Phrase (sap) in particular—above the cp-layer, where discourse and pragmatic roles are mapped onto syntax, I propose that ki is the overt exponent of sa0 and is further endowed with a [+sentience] feature indexing the speaker as the sentient mind. The apparent differences between various construction types which involve ki—hence, in which sap projects—then reduce to whether the [+sentience] feature on sa0 is checked by an internally or externally merging category in Spec, sap. * I would like to thank Jan Casalicchio, Guglielmo Cinque, Federica Cognola, Lieven Danckaert, Liliane Haegeman, Aslı Göksel, Mark Janse, Io Manolessou, Anna Roussou, Ioanna Sitari- dou, the members of gist—Generative Initiatives in SyntacticTheory—and two anonymous reviewers for their various comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper. My deep- est gratitude is to Andreas Konstantinidis, his family and to Konstantinos Kalaitzidis for their hospitality, and to my informants who helped with the data with greater enthusiasm than mine: Despoina K.†, Kathina P., Anastasia I., Eirini P., Evlambia Ch., Georgios S., Georgios K., Leftheris K., Maria S., Nikos T., Prodromos K., Sophia K.†, Theodorakis K., Miranda M., and Maria A.
    [Show full text]