219-7677 10 7500817 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 201608250403 ONIX title feed eng 01 EUR
159007558 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LA 141 Eb 15 9789027289575 06 10.1075/la.141 13 2009003712 DG 002 02 01 LA 02 0166-0829 Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 141 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax</TitleText> 01 la.141 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/la.141 1 B01 Artemis Alexiadou Alexiadou, Artemis Artemis Alexiadou University of Stuttgart 2 B01 Jorge Hankamer Hankamer, Jorge Jorge Hankamer UCSC 3 B01 Thomas McFadden McFadden, Thomas Thomas McFadden University of Stuttgart 4 B01 Justin Nuger Nuger, Justin Justin Nuger UCSC 5 B01 Florian Schäfer Schäfer, Florian Florian Schäfer University of Stuttgart 01 eng 416 xv 395 LAN009000 v.2006 CF 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.GENER Generative linguistics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.GERM Germanic linguistics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 06 01 The present volume contains a selection of papers presented at the 21st and 22nd Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop held at the University of California, Santa Cruz and the University of Stuttgart. The contributions provide insightful discussions of several topics of current interest for syntactic theory on the basis of comparative data from a wide range of contemporary and historical Germanic languages. The theoretical issues explored include: the left periphery, with a number of contributions touching on the pros and contras of cartographic accounts; different aspects of word order and how it arises from movement and clause structure; the interplay of thematic relations and case theory with the realization of DPs; and the treatment of finiteness and modal structures. This book is of interest to syntacticians working in a comparative perspective and to advanced undergraduates. 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/la.141.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027255242.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027255242.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/la.141.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/la.141.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/la.141.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/la.141.hb.png 10 01 JB code la.141.01adv vii xvi 10 Article 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax</TitleText> 1 A01 Artemis Alexiadou Alexiadou, Artemis Artemis Alexiadou 2 A01 Jorge Hankamer Hankamer, Jorge Jorge Hankamer 3 A01 Thomas McFadden McFadden, Thomas Thomas McFadden 4 A01 Justin Nuger Nuger, Justin Justin Nuger 5 A01 Florian Schäfer Schäfer, Florian Florian Schäfer 10 01 JB code la.141.p1 Section header 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part I. Cartography and the left periphery</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.141.02ona 3 40 38 Article 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">On a (<i>wh</i>-)moved Topic in Italian, compared to Germanic</TitleText> 1 A01 Anna Cardinaletti Cardinaletti, Anna Anna Cardinaletti Università Ca’Foscari di Venezia 01 In this paper, I compare Romance and Germanic left periphery. I show that Italian Resumptive Preposing (RP) differs from both Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) and Focalization and shares many properties with fronting phenomena in English (Topicalization, Locative Inversion, Comparative Inversion). RP constituents are (<i>wh</i>-)moved to a high Topic position only available in root contexts and can co-occur with either preverbal pronominal subjects or post-verbal heavy subjects (while CLLD can target a Topic position lower than Focus &#8211; Rizzi 1997, Frascarelli and Hinterh&#246;lzl 2007 &#8211; and does not display any restriction on the subject). The analysis is based on Rizzi and Shlonsky&#8217;s (2006) account of English Locative Inversion and will lead us to the discussion of the interaction of Fin and Subj, i.e., the heads which lie at the interface of the I and C layers, and the comprehension of the different restrictions on the occurrence of preverbal subjects in Italian and English/German left-peripheral constructions, ultimately explaining the generalizations arrived at in Cardinaletti (2007). 10 01 JB code la.141.03cag 41 58 18 Article 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">C-agreement or something close to it</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Some thoughts on the &#8216;alls-construction&#8217;</Subtitle> 1 A01 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam Carson-Newman College 2 A01 Marjo van Koppen Koppen, Marjo van Marjo van Koppen University of Utrecht 01 In this paper we sketch out an account for an until now undiscussed phenomenon in generative syntax, namely the so-called &#8220;alls-construction&#8221; in Midwestern American English. In this construction, an s-ending is added to <i>all</i> under certain circumstances. We compare and contrast this construction with complementizer agreement in West Germanic. The alls-construction is similar to complementizer agreement in that the s-ending on <i>all</i>, just like the inflection on the complementizer in West Germanic, is sensitive to the agreement features on the embedded subject. Contrasted with complementizer agreement, however, the alls-construction does not allow inflectional morphology to appear on any other constituent than <i>all</i>. Furthermore, inflection on <i>all</i> is only possible when <i>all</i> is introducing an <i>all</i>-pseudo-cleft. We will mainly focus on the construction internal restrictions of the inflection on <i>all</i>. Based on Van Craenenbroeck &amp; Van Koppen (2002), we assert that the alls-construction in Midwestern American English is in structure quite similar to complementizer agreement in West Germanic. We come back to the external restriction on the alls-construction in the final section, where we briefly discuss some issues concerning the pseudo-cleft status of the alls-construction. 10 01 JB code la.141.04unc 59 84 26 Article 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Uncharted territory?</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Towards a non-cartographic account of Germanic syntax</Subtitle> 1 A01 C. Jan-Wouter Zwart Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter C. Jan-Wouter Zwart University of Groningen 01 This article discusses the consequences of a strictly derivational approach&#8212;where syntactic relations are construed dynamically as the derivation proceeds&#8212;to the analysis of key areas of Germanic syntax. It discusses the nature of syntactic positions from a non-cartographic point of view. Evidence supporting a non-cartographic approach is found in word order transitivity failures in various domains (the left periphery, the order of adverbs, the adjective-noun construction). The implications of a non-cartographic approach are discussed in four key areas of Germanic syntax (the fine structure of the left periphery, topicalization/focalization, subject placement and object placement). 10 01 JB code la.141.05boo 85 118 34 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Bootstrapping verb movement and the clausal architecture of German (and other languages)</TitleText> 1 A01 Gisbert Fanselow Fanselow, Gisbert Gisbert Fanselow University of Potsdam 01 In the mainstream analysis of verb second clauses, the finite verb moves to Comp or one of the various heads present in the cartographic approach to CP. We show that such analyses are not satisfactory empirically, and cannot even be formulated within minimalist syntax. Verb movement &#8211; and head movement in general &#8211; should rather be analysed in terms of a &#8216;bootstrapping&#8217; movement, in which the displaced head reprojects in its landing site. 10 01 JB code la.141.06aco 119 148 30 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">A conjunction conspiracy at the West Germanic left periphery</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>A </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">conjunction conspiracy at the West Germanic left periphery</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 John R. te Velde Velde, John R. te John R. te Velde Oklahoma State University 01 In this analysis I consider one rather common coordinate construction and two less common ones from West Germanic that have two distinguishing properties in common: (i) all consist of conjoined verb-second (V2) clauses, and (ii) there is an ellipse at the left edge of the second conjunct. I propose that the conjunction c-commands the ellipse and that it is recovered in the semantic component through matching with a semantically parallel antecedent in a parallel syntactic position. This analysis utilizes Phase Theory to provide a derivational framework: each V2 clause must, as a phase, complete derivation before the next one is assembled. In this approach the Coordinate Structure Constraint is understood purely as a description of the semantic parallelisms required, and across-the-board movement is unnecessary; it is in fact incompatible with a phase-based approach. Finally, this approach requires three V2 positions in the functional domain of West Germanic; thus, the V2 phenomenon results from feature-checking requirements only (not positions available). Furthermore, it conspires with phase-based conjunction to create a position licensable for &#8220;deletion&#8221; (non-phonetic realization), thereby economizing the spoken form. 10 01 JB code la.141.p2 Section header 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part II. Word order and movement</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.141.07rec 151 170 20 Article 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Reconsidering odd coordination in German</TitleText> 1 A01 Hironobu Kasai Kasai, Hironobu Hironobu Kasai University of Kitakyushu 01 This paper investigates why the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) is violable in odd coordination in German. Schwartz&#8217;s (1998) analysis successfully handles nominal odd coordination but some cases of verbal odd coordination are problematic for his analysis. This paper offers an alternative analysis of verbal odd coordination, under which the CSC is subject to the Principle of Minimal Compliance, proposed by Richards (1998) on independent grounds. Verbal odd coordination involves V-to-C movement in an ATB-way, which allows the computational system to ignore a violation of the CSC. This paper has two theoretical implications. One is that head movement takes place in the narrow syntax. The other one is that the CSC is defended as a syntactic constraint on overt movement. 10 01 JB code la.141.08the 171 196 26 Article 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The syntax and semantics of the temporal anaphor &#8220;then&#8221; in Old and Middle English</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">syntax and semantics of the temporal anaphor &#8220;then&#8221; in Old and Middle English</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 Carola Trips Trips, Carola Carola Trips Universities of Mannheim and Frankfurt 2 A01 Eric Fuß Fuß, Eric Eric Fuß Universities of Mannheim and Frankfurt 01 The fact that <i>&#254;a/&#254;onne</i> &#8216;then&#8217; trigger V2 in OE is commonly accounted for by assuming that these adverbs are operators that trigger V-to-C movement. This paper presents an alternative analysis based on the observation that <i>&#254;a/&#254;onne</i> and pronouns are in complementary distribution in preverbal position. We identify this position as SpecTP, arguing that OE was a discourseconfigurational language where SpecTP was linked to the discourse anchoring of anaphoric/deictic expressions, including pronouns and temporal anaphora such as <i>&#254;a/&#254;onne</i>. Under these assumptions, V2 with these temporal adverbs results from a spec-head relationship in TP. The loss of V2 in the ME period is then attributed to the independent development of a (subject-oriented) EPP-feature in TP and the overall loss of discourse-configurationality. 10 01 JB code la.141.09jes 197 218 22 Article 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Jespersen&#8217;s Cycle and the issue of prosodic &#8216;weakness&#8217;</TitleText> 1 A01 Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna Noel Aziz Hanna, Patrizia Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München 01 Jespersen&#8217;s Cycle (1917), according to which a negation particle is weakened and therefore later strengthened through an additional element, is a generally accepted explanation in language change. The German data, however, reveals that the weakening of the negation particle preceded the initiation of Jespersen&#8217;s Cycle by centuries. The further weakening caused the ineffi cacy of the old negation particle and thus initiated Jespersen&#8217;s Cycle. The reduction is demonstrated to result from segmental, prosodic, and syntactic factors. The progressive weakening of the negation particle (PIE *<i>ne</i> > OHG <i>ni</i> > MHG <i>ne</i> > NHG &#216;) is due to the fact that its chances of attracting rhythmic stress became increasingly rare. 10 01 JB code la.141.10hol 219 246 28 Article 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Holmberg&#8217;s Generalization</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Blocking and push up</Subtitle> 1 A01 Hans Broekhuis Broekhuis, Hans Hans Broekhuis Leiden University Center for Linguistics 01 Holmberg&#8217;s (1999) formulation of Holmberg&#8217;s Generalization states that Scandinavian object shift cannot cross any phonologically realized VP-internal material. This correctly predicts that object shift may not apply in, e.g., embedded clauses in Danish: since in these languages V-to-I applies in main clauses only, the main verb occupies a VP-internal position in embedded clauses, and object shift would therefore violate HG. Generally, this is considered the end of the story, but it is not as HG can in principle be satisfied in two ways: either the verb blocks object shift, or object shift pushes the verb up into the I-position. A full explanation therefore requires an answer to the question of why the latter option is not chosen in Danish. 10 01 JB code la.141.p3 Section header 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part III. Thematic relations and NP realization</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.141.11the 249 280 32 Article 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The No Case Generalization</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">No Case Generalization</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Sigur∂sson, Halldór Ármann Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Lund University 01 This paper argues that syntax has no case features, case instead being an interpretative feature or features operative in the PF morphology of individual languages, where it overtly distinguishes between arguments (or NPs). The paper also argues that the non-syntactic nature of case is to be expected, given Non-Isomorphism, that is, the fundamental non-isomorphic nature of the derivation. Nonetheless, the different PF case-marking strategies in different languages operate on the basis of common syntactic matching relations, including matching of Voice and marked <i>v (v*, v**)</i>. The dependency of structural accusative upon structural nominative (the Sibling Correlation/Burzio&#8217;s Generalization) is accounted for in terms of double versus single Voice matching. 10 01 JB code la.141.12the 281 306 26 Article 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The new impersonal as a true passive</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">new impersonal as a true passive</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson University of Iceland 01 This paper discusses a new impersonal construction in Icelandic. This construction has passive morphology but differs from canonical passives of transitive verbs in that the DP complement of the passive participle stays in situ and displays object properties. Contra Maling &amp; Sigurj&#243;nsd&#243;ttir (2002), I argue that this is a true passive, not an active construction with a thematic null subject. As illustrated in the paper, there are some clear similarities between canonical passives and new impersonals that support a passive analysis of the latter construction but no clear differences to justify an active analysis. 10 01 JB code la.141.13ana 307 324 18 Article 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Anaphoric distribution in the prepositional phrase</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Similarities between Norwegian and English</Subtitle> 1 A01 Jenny Lederer Lederer, Jenny Jenny Lederer 01 The distribution of anaphoric pronouns in prepositional phrases has garnered much attention in the literature on antecedent binding since, contrary to fundamental binding principles, this syntactic environment appears to allow either reflexive or coreferential nonreflexive pronouns (c.f. Safir 2004; Reinhart &amp; Reuland 1993; Pollard and Sag 1992). This paper takes a closer look at two prepositional phrase contexts in English and Norwegian, which seem to allow the reflexive pronoun when the PP superficially denotes directionality. With careful examination of the semantics of these constructions, it is shown that a vague notion of directionality evoked in the formal syntax notion of the functional projection PATH is insuffi cient to capture the data&#8217;s distribution pattern. The grammar must make reference to more detailed spatial configurations in order to model the real-world examples. 10 01 JB code la.141.p4 Section header 17 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part IV. Finiteness and modality</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.141.14exp 327 356 30 Article 18 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Experiencers with (un)willingness</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A raising analysis of German &#8216;Wollen&#8217;</Subtitle> 1 A01 Remus Gergel Gergel, Remus Remus Gergel 2 A01 Jutta M. Hartmann Hartmann, Jutta M. Jutta M. Hartmann 01 The paper contributes to the raising vs. control debate with respect to modals through (A) novel data; (B) the investigation of a domain in which it has proven particularly problematic: volitional modality. We analyze oblique arguments of experiencer verbs embedded under German <i>wollen</i> &#8216;want&#8217; and propose that they support both generalized raising and the abandonment of the classical version of the Theta Criterion. Byproducts of the analysis include a syntactic account involved in a class of datives in the language together with the initial characterization of a related modal in German which is expressed through the same item as volition and which we term weak. 10 01 JB code la.141.15fin 357 390 34 Article 19 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Finiteness</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">The <i>haves</i> and the <i>have-nots</i></Subtitle> 1 A01 Kristin Melum Eide Eide, Kristin Melum Kristin Melum Eide 01 The lack of overt inflectional markings encoding finiteness is a crucial difference between Present Day English (PDE) and modern Mainland Scandinavian languages (MSc). In contrast to previous analyses, our approach considers finiteness a primitive distinction explicitly expressed in verbal forms and, crucially, cutting across tense, mood, and agreement markings. Middle English (ME), like MSc, encoded finiteness. MSc languages have retained the encoding of the finiteness distinction in spite of the loss of mood and agreement markings, but PDE main verbs have lost this distinction (although they have tense and agreement markings). This loss leads to a range of syntactic differences between MSc and PDE, such as <i>do</i>-support, different auxiliary-main verb splits, and the lack of V2 in PDE. 10 01 JB code la.141.20ind 391 395 5 Miscellaneous 20 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Index of subjects &#38; languages</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20090514 2009 John Benjamins 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027255242 01 JB 3 John Benjamins e-Platform 03 jbe-platform.com 09 WORLD 21 01 00 105.00 EUR R 01 00 88.00 GBP Z 01 gen 00 158.00 USD S 123007557 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LA 141 Hb 15 9789027255242 13 2009003712 BB 01 LA 02 0166-0829 Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 141 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax</TitleText> 01 la.141 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/la.141 1 B01 Artemis Alexiadou Alexiadou, Artemis Artemis Alexiadou University of Stuttgart 2 B01 Jorge Hankamer Hankamer, Jorge Jorge Hankamer UCSC 3 B01 Thomas McFadden McFadden, Thomas Thomas McFadden University of Stuttgart 4 B01 Justin Nuger Nuger, Justin Justin Nuger UCSC 5 B01 Florian Schäfer Schäfer, Florian Florian Schäfer University of Stuttgart 01 eng 416 xv 395 LAN009000 v.2006 CF 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.GENER Generative linguistics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.GERM Germanic linguistics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 06 01 The present volume contains a selection of papers presented at the 21st and 22nd Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop held at the University of California, Santa Cruz and the University of Stuttgart. The contributions provide insightful discussions of several topics of current interest for syntactic theory on the basis of comparative data from a wide range of contemporary and historical Germanic languages. The theoretical issues explored include: the left periphery, with a number of contributions touching on the pros and contras of cartographic accounts; different aspects of word order and how it arises from movement and clause structure; the interplay of thematic relations and case theory with the realization of DPs; and the treatment of finiteness and modal structures. This book is of interest to syntacticians working in a comparative perspective and to advanced undergraduates. 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/la.141.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027255242.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027255242.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/la.141.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/la.141.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/la.141.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/la.141.hb.png 10 01 JB code la.141.01adv vii xvi 10 Article 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax</TitleText> 1 A01 Artemis Alexiadou Alexiadou, Artemis Artemis Alexiadou 2 A01 Jorge Hankamer Hankamer, Jorge Jorge Hankamer 3 A01 Thomas McFadden McFadden, Thomas Thomas McFadden 4 A01 Justin Nuger Nuger, Justin Justin Nuger 5 A01 Florian Schäfer Schäfer, Florian Florian Schäfer 10 01 JB code la.141.p1 Section header 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part I. Cartography and the left periphery</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.141.02ona 3 40 38 Article 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">On a (<i>wh</i>-)moved Topic in Italian, compared to Germanic</TitleText> 1 A01 Anna Cardinaletti Cardinaletti, Anna Anna Cardinaletti Università Ca’Foscari di Venezia 01 In this paper, I compare Romance and Germanic left periphery. I show that Italian Resumptive Preposing (RP) differs from both Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) and Focalization and shares many properties with fronting phenomena in English (Topicalization, Locative Inversion, Comparative Inversion). RP constituents are (<i>wh</i>-)moved to a high Topic position only available in root contexts and can co-occur with either preverbal pronominal subjects or post-verbal heavy subjects (while CLLD can target a Topic position lower than Focus &#8211; Rizzi 1997, Frascarelli and Hinterh&#246;lzl 2007 &#8211; and does not display any restriction on the subject). The analysis is based on Rizzi and Shlonsky&#8217;s (2006) account of English Locative Inversion and will lead us to the discussion of the interaction of Fin and Subj, i.e., the heads which lie at the interface of the I and C layers, and the comprehension of the different restrictions on the occurrence of preverbal subjects in Italian and English/German left-peripheral constructions, ultimately explaining the generalizations arrived at in Cardinaletti (2007). 10 01 JB code la.141.03cag 41 58 18 Article 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">C-agreement or something close to it</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Some thoughts on the &#8216;alls-construction&#8217;</Subtitle> 1 A01 Michael T. Putnam Putnam, Michael T. Michael T. Putnam Carson-Newman College 2 A01 Marjo van Koppen Koppen, Marjo van Marjo van Koppen University of Utrecht 01 In this paper we sketch out an account for an until now undiscussed phenomenon in generative syntax, namely the so-called &#8220;alls-construction&#8221; in Midwestern American English. In this construction, an s-ending is added to <i>all</i> under certain circumstances. We compare and contrast this construction with complementizer agreement in West Germanic. The alls-construction is similar to complementizer agreement in that the s-ending on <i>all</i>, just like the inflection on the complementizer in West Germanic, is sensitive to the agreement features on the embedded subject. Contrasted with complementizer agreement, however, the alls-construction does not allow inflectional morphology to appear on any other constituent than <i>all</i>. Furthermore, inflection on <i>all</i> is only possible when <i>all</i> is introducing an <i>all</i>-pseudo-cleft. We will mainly focus on the construction internal restrictions of the inflection on <i>all</i>. Based on Van Craenenbroeck &amp; Van Koppen (2002), we assert that the alls-construction in Midwestern American English is in structure quite similar to complementizer agreement in West Germanic. We come back to the external restriction on the alls-construction in the final section, where we briefly discuss some issues concerning the pseudo-cleft status of the alls-construction. 10 01 JB code la.141.04unc 59 84 26 Article 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Uncharted territory?</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Towards a non-cartographic account of Germanic syntax</Subtitle> 1 A01 C. Jan-Wouter Zwart Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter C. Jan-Wouter Zwart University of Groningen 01 This article discusses the consequences of a strictly derivational approach&#8212;where syntactic relations are construed dynamically as the derivation proceeds&#8212;to the analysis of key areas of Germanic syntax. It discusses the nature of syntactic positions from a non-cartographic point of view. Evidence supporting a non-cartographic approach is found in word order transitivity failures in various domains (the left periphery, the order of adverbs, the adjective-noun construction). The implications of a non-cartographic approach are discussed in four key areas of Germanic syntax (the fine structure of the left periphery, topicalization/focalization, subject placement and object placement). 10 01 JB code la.141.05boo 85 118 34 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Bootstrapping verb movement and the clausal architecture of German (and other languages)</TitleText> 1 A01 Gisbert Fanselow Fanselow, Gisbert Gisbert Fanselow University of Potsdam 01 In the mainstream analysis of verb second clauses, the finite verb moves to Comp or one of the various heads present in the cartographic approach to CP. We show that such analyses are not satisfactory empirically, and cannot even be formulated within minimalist syntax. Verb movement &#8211; and head movement in general &#8211; should rather be analysed in terms of a &#8216;bootstrapping&#8217; movement, in which the displaced head reprojects in its landing site. 10 01 JB code la.141.06aco 119 148 30 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">A conjunction conspiracy at the West Germanic left periphery</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>A </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">conjunction conspiracy at the West Germanic left periphery</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 John R. te Velde Velde, John R. te John R. te Velde Oklahoma State University 01 In this analysis I consider one rather common coordinate construction and two less common ones from West Germanic that have two distinguishing properties in common: (i) all consist of conjoined verb-second (V2) clauses, and (ii) there is an ellipse at the left edge of the second conjunct. I propose that the conjunction c-commands the ellipse and that it is recovered in the semantic component through matching with a semantically parallel antecedent in a parallel syntactic position. This analysis utilizes Phase Theory to provide a derivational framework: each V2 clause must, as a phase, complete derivation before the next one is assembled. In this approach the Coordinate Structure Constraint is understood purely as a description of the semantic parallelisms required, and across-the-board movement is unnecessary; it is in fact incompatible with a phase-based approach. Finally, this approach requires three V2 positions in the functional domain of West Germanic; thus, the V2 phenomenon results from feature-checking requirements only (not positions available). Furthermore, it conspires with phase-based conjunction to create a position licensable for &#8220;deletion&#8221; (non-phonetic realization), thereby economizing the spoken form. 10 01 JB code la.141.p2 Section header 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part II. Word order and movement</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.141.07rec 151 170 20 Article 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Reconsidering odd coordination in German</TitleText> 1 A01 Hironobu Kasai Kasai, Hironobu Hironobu Kasai University of Kitakyushu 01 This paper investigates why the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) is violable in odd coordination in German. Schwartz&#8217;s (1998) analysis successfully handles nominal odd coordination but some cases of verbal odd coordination are problematic for his analysis. This paper offers an alternative analysis of verbal odd coordination, under which the CSC is subject to the Principle of Minimal Compliance, proposed by Richards (1998) on independent grounds. Verbal odd coordination involves V-to-C movement in an ATB-way, which allows the computational system to ignore a violation of the CSC. This paper has two theoretical implications. One is that head movement takes place in the narrow syntax. The other one is that the CSC is defended as a syntactic constraint on overt movement. 10 01 JB code la.141.08the 171 196 26 Article 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The syntax and semantics of the temporal anaphor &#8220;then&#8221; in Old and Middle English</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">syntax and semantics of the temporal anaphor &#8220;then&#8221; in Old and Middle English</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 Carola Trips Trips, Carola Carola Trips Universities of Mannheim and Frankfurt 2 A01 Eric Fuß Fuß, Eric Eric Fuß Universities of Mannheim and Frankfurt 01 The fact that <i>&#254;a/&#254;onne</i> &#8216;then&#8217; trigger V2 in OE is commonly accounted for by assuming that these adverbs are operators that trigger V-to-C movement. This paper presents an alternative analysis based on the observation that <i>&#254;a/&#254;onne</i> and pronouns are in complementary distribution in preverbal position. We identify this position as SpecTP, arguing that OE was a discourseconfigurational language where SpecTP was linked to the discourse anchoring of anaphoric/deictic expressions, including pronouns and temporal anaphora such as <i>&#254;a/&#254;onne</i>. Under these assumptions, V2 with these temporal adverbs results from a spec-head relationship in TP. The loss of V2 in the ME period is then attributed to the independent development of a (subject-oriented) EPP-feature in TP and the overall loss of discourse-configurationality. 10 01 JB code la.141.09jes 197 218 22 Article 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Jespersen&#8217;s Cycle and the issue of prosodic &#8216;weakness&#8217;</TitleText> 1 A01 Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna Noel Aziz Hanna, Patrizia Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München 01 Jespersen&#8217;s Cycle (1917), according to which a negation particle is weakened and therefore later strengthened through an additional element, is a generally accepted explanation in language change. The German data, however, reveals that the weakening of the negation particle preceded the initiation of Jespersen&#8217;s Cycle by centuries. The further weakening caused the ineffi cacy of the old negation particle and thus initiated Jespersen&#8217;s Cycle. The reduction is demonstrated to result from segmental, prosodic, and syntactic factors. The progressive weakening of the negation particle (PIE *<i>ne</i> > OHG <i>ni</i> > MHG <i>ne</i> > NHG &#216;) is due to the fact that its chances of attracting rhythmic stress became increasingly rare. 10 01 JB code la.141.10hol 219 246 28 Article 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Holmberg&#8217;s Generalization</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Blocking and push up</Subtitle> 1 A01 Hans Broekhuis Broekhuis, Hans Hans Broekhuis Leiden University Center for Linguistics 01 Holmberg&#8217;s (1999) formulation of Holmberg&#8217;s Generalization states that Scandinavian object shift cannot cross any phonologically realized VP-internal material. This correctly predicts that object shift may not apply in, e.g., embedded clauses in Danish: since in these languages V-to-I applies in main clauses only, the main verb occupies a VP-internal position in embedded clauses, and object shift would therefore violate HG. Generally, this is considered the end of the story, but it is not as HG can in principle be satisfied in two ways: either the verb blocks object shift, or object shift pushes the verb up into the I-position. A full explanation therefore requires an answer to the question of why the latter option is not chosen in Danish. 10 01 JB code la.141.p3 Section header 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part III. Thematic relations and NP realization</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.141.11the 249 280 32 Article 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The No Case Generalization</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">No Case Generalization</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Sigur∂sson, Halldór Ármann Halldór Ármann Sigur∂sson Lund University 01 This paper argues that syntax has no case features, case instead being an interpretative feature or features operative in the PF morphology of individual languages, where it overtly distinguishes between arguments (or NPs). The paper also argues that the non-syntactic nature of case is to be expected, given Non-Isomorphism, that is, the fundamental non-isomorphic nature of the derivation. Nonetheless, the different PF case-marking strategies in different languages operate on the basis of common syntactic matching relations, including matching of Voice and marked <i>v (v*, v**)</i>. The dependency of structural accusative upon structural nominative (the Sibling Correlation/Burzio&#8217;s Generalization) is accounted for in terms of double versus single Voice matching. 10 01 JB code la.141.12the 281 306 26 Article 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The new impersonal as a true passive</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">new impersonal as a true passive</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson University of Iceland 01 This paper discusses a new impersonal construction in Icelandic. This construction has passive morphology but differs from canonical passives of transitive verbs in that the DP complement of the passive participle stays in situ and displays object properties. Contra Maling &amp; Sigurj&#243;nsd&#243;ttir (2002), I argue that this is a true passive, not an active construction with a thematic null subject. As illustrated in the paper, there are some clear similarities between canonical passives and new impersonals that support a passive analysis of the latter construction but no clear differences to justify an active analysis. 10 01 JB code la.141.13ana 307 324 18 Article 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Anaphoric distribution in the prepositional phrase</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Similarities between Norwegian and English</Subtitle> 1 A01 Jenny Lederer Lederer, Jenny Jenny Lederer 01 The distribution of anaphoric pronouns in prepositional phrases has garnered much attention in the literature on antecedent binding since, contrary to fundamental binding principles, this syntactic environment appears to allow either reflexive or coreferential nonreflexive pronouns (c.f. Safir 2004; Reinhart &amp; Reuland 1993; Pollard and Sag 1992). This paper takes a closer look at two prepositional phrase contexts in English and Norwegian, which seem to allow the reflexive pronoun when the PP superficially denotes directionality. With careful examination of the semantics of these constructions, it is shown that a vague notion of directionality evoked in the formal syntax notion of the functional projection PATH is insuffi cient to capture the data&#8217;s distribution pattern. The grammar must make reference to more detailed spatial configurations in order to model the real-world examples. 10 01 JB code la.141.p4 Section header 17 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part IV. Finiteness and modality</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.141.14exp 327 356 30 Article 18 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Experiencers with (un)willingness</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A raising analysis of German &#8216;Wollen&#8217;</Subtitle> 1 A01 Remus Gergel Gergel, Remus Remus Gergel 2 A01 Jutta M. Hartmann Hartmann, Jutta M. Jutta M. Hartmann 01 The paper contributes to the raising vs. control debate with respect to modals through (A) novel data; (B) the investigation of a domain in which it has proven particularly problematic: volitional modality. We analyze oblique arguments of experiencer verbs embedded under German <i>wollen</i> &#8216;want&#8217; and propose that they support both generalized raising and the abandonment of the classical version of the Theta Criterion. Byproducts of the analysis include a syntactic account involved in a class of datives in the language together with the initial characterization of a related modal in German which is expressed through the same item as volition and which we term weak. 10 01 JB code la.141.15fin 357 390 34 Article 19 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Finiteness</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">The <i>haves</i> and the <i>have-nots</i></Subtitle> 1 A01 Kristin Melum Eide Eide, Kristin Melum Kristin Melum Eide 01 The lack of overt inflectional markings encoding finiteness is a crucial difference between Present Day English (PDE) and modern Mainland Scandinavian languages (MSc). In contrast to previous analyses, our approach considers finiteness a primitive distinction explicitly expressed in verbal forms and, crucially, cutting across tense, mood, and agreement markings. Middle English (ME), like MSc, encoded finiteness. MSc languages have retained the encoding of the finiteness distinction in spite of the loss of mood and agreement markings, but PDE main verbs have lost this distinction (although they have tense and agreement markings). This loss leads to a range of syntactic differences between MSc and PDE, such as <i>do</i>-support, different auxiliary-main verb splits, and the lack of V2 in PDE. 10 01 JB code la.141.20ind 391 395 5 Miscellaneous 20 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Index of subjects &#38; languages</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20090514 2009 John Benjamins 02 WORLD 01 245 mm 02 164 mm 08 900 gr 01 JB 1 John Benjamins Publishing Company +31 20 6304747 +31 20 6739773 bookorder@benjamins.nl 01 https://benjamins.com 01 WORLD US CA MX 21 15 16 01 02 JB 1 00 105.00 EUR R 02 02 JB 1 00 111.30 EUR R 01 JB 10 bebc +44 1202 712 934 +44 1202 712 913 sales@bebc.co.uk 03 GB 21 16 02 02 JB 1 00 88.00 GBP Z 01 JB 2 John Benjamins North America +1 800 562-5666 +1 703 661-1501 benjamins@presswarehouse.com 01 https://benjamins.com 01 US CA MX 21 16 01 gen 02 JB 1 00 158.00 USD