581005408 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LIVY 6 Pb 15 9789027254764 BC 01 LIVY 02 1568-1483 Linguistic Variation Yearbook 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2006</TitleText> 01 livy.6 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/livy.6 1 B01 Pierre Pica Pica, Pierre Pierre Pica CNRS, Paris 2 B19 Jeroen van Craenenbroeck van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen Jeroen van Craenenbroeck Catholic University Brussels 3 B19 Johan Rooryck Rooryck, Johan Johan Rooryck Leiden University 01 eng 280 iv 274 LAN009000 v.2006 CFK 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.GENER Generative linguistics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.TYP Typology 06 01 The <i>Linguistic Variation Yearbook</i> is exclusively devoted to the study of the nature and scope of linguistic variation from the point of view of the minimalist program. In this perspective, the yearbook aims at going beyond the traditional tension between explanatory and descriptive adequacy. It seeks in particular to investigate to what extent the study of linguistic variation can shed light on the broader issue of language particular vs. language universal properties and design. The <i>Linguistic Variation Yearbook</i> publishes annually a collection of (invited) articles on a theme that is current in and important to the research on linguistic variation within the generative framework. The focus is on comparative studies, such as research on typology and dialect variation. 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/livy.6.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027254764.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027254764.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/livy.6.pb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/livy.6.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/livy.6.pb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/livy.6.pb.png 10 01 JB code livy.6.01pic v vi 2 Article 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Introduction</TitleText> 1 A01 Pierre Pica Pica, Pierre Pierre Pica 2 A01 Johan Rooryck Rooryck, Johan Johan Rooryck 3 A01 Jeroen van Craenenbroeck van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen Jeroen van Craenenbroeck 10 01 JB code livy.6.02art Section header 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Articles</TitleText> 10 01 JB code livy.6.03jen 1 24 24 Article 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Explanation in Biolinguistics</TitleText> 1 A01 Lyle Jenkins Jenkins, Lyle Lyle Jenkins 20 Biolinguistics 20 Development 20 Evolution 20 FOXP2 gene 20 Galilean style 20 Language genetics 20 Minimalist program 20 Unification 01 For the last half-century, biolinguistics, the study of the biology of language, has focused on the classical “what” and “how” questions in biology: (1) What is knowledge of language?, (2) How does language develop in the child? and (3) How does language evolve in the species? <br /> The answers to questions (1)–(3) have in turn stimulated investigation into the deeper “why” question; viz., why are the principles of language what they are? (the basis for the “minimalist” program). The answers to all of these questions will provide insight into the “unification problem;” viz., how the study of language can be integrated with the rest of the natural sciences. We review some recent investigations into these questions. 10 01 JB code livy.6.04ste 25 71 47 Article 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">‘Single Cycle’ Languages</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Implications for Cyclicity, Recursion and Acquisition</Subtitle> 1 A01 Arthur Stepanov Stepanov, Arthur Arthur Stepanov 20 long-distance dependency 20 Merge 20 recursion 20 Russian 20 Tree Adjoining Grammar 01 Russian and Polish consistently lack standard ‘long-distance’, or cross-clausal, syntactic movement dependencies in both A- and A′- domains: movement is restricted to a finite tensed clause. I refer to languages that display this radical version of locality as ‘single cycle’ languages. Given that long-distance dependencies are necessarily formed over a structure built in a recursive manner (e.g. with iterated CP or TP node), the existence of ‘single cycle’ languages highlights the need to separate the property of recursion from the ability of basic assembly, in structure building. With such separation, it becomes possible to account for ‘single cycle’ languages by hypothesizing that the device responsible for recursion is inoperative in these languages. The current minimalist conception of Merge, in contrast, inherently combines recursion with other ‘assembling’ properties. I argue, therefore, for a method of structure building that goes back to LSLT and is currently implemented in Tree Adjoining Grammars in which (clausal) recursion is relegated to a separate operation called Adjoining. ‘Single cycle’ languages thus provide direct evidence that something like Adjoining is independently needed in the grammar. 10 01 JB code livy.6.05cit 73 96 24 Article 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Determiner Sharing from a Crosslinguistic Perspective</TitleText> 1 A01 Barbara Citko Citko, Barbara Barbara Citko University of Washington 20 determiner sharing 20 gapping 20 large conjuncts 20 multi-dominance 20 small conjuncts 01 This paper examines determiner sharing from a crosslinguistic perspective. After reviewing the restrictions on English determiner sharing, it prevents new data, coming mostly from Polish, showing that these restrictions are not universal. The properties of Polish determiner sharing are further shown to be problematic for the currently most popular analysis of this construction, the so-called small conjunct analysis of Johnson (2000) and Lin (2000). The alternative suggested in the paper, based on Citko’s (2005) multi-dominance analysis of ATB wh-movement, derives the properties of determiner sharing from a structure in which the determiner is literally shared between the two conjuncts. 10 01 JB code livy.6.06rez 97 138 42 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Escaping the Person Case Constraint</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Reference-set computation in the φ-system</Subtitle> 1 A01 Milan Rezac Rezac, Milan Milan Rezac Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes 20 Basque 20 Finnish 20 French 20 Georgian 20 Person Case Constraint 20 reference set computation 01 The Person Case Constraint (PCC) blocks a 1st/2nd person DP from Agree and Case assignment if it is separated from a probe by an intervener. I examine four separate strategies that circumvent the PCC: through giving the blocked DP case and agreement that would not otherwise be possible (<i>absolutive displacement</i> Basque; <i>Jahnsson’s Rule</i> in Finnish), by realizing the intervener elsewhere (<i>3 to 5 Demotion</i> in French), or by realizing the DP’s person features differently (<i>Object Camouflage</i> in Georgian). The striking feature these strategies share is that they are restricted to PCC contexts and not freely available. This makes it impossible to view them as paraphrase. Stating the conditions on their distribution requires reference to the failed PCC derivation, that is trans-derivational comparison. I extend the reference set computation of Fox (1995, 2000) and Reinhart (1995, 1999) to account for these strategies as the addition of a φ-probe, and suggest an extension to dependent Case. 10 01 JB code livy.6.07ric 139 159 21 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Object Shift, Phases, and Transitive Expletive Constructions in Germanic*</TitleText> 1 A01 Marc Richards Richards, Marc Marc Richards University of Cambridge 20 Bures’s Generalization 20 expletives 20 Germanic 20 multiple specifiers 20 Object Shift 20 phase 20 Transitive Expletive Construction (TEC) 01 This paper reconsiders the analysis of Transitive Expletive Constructions (TECs) across Germanic in light of recent developments in the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995 et seq.). I argue that prevailing views of expletives as merged directly into the Spec-TP position are untenable under the Probe-Goal Agree system of <i>Minimalist Inquiries</i>, and propose that T is anomalous amongst the core functional categories (C, T, <i>v</i>) in <i>lacking</i> the Merge-Expl property. This anomaly, I propose, is reducible to another anomaly setting T apart from C and <i>v</i>, namely T’s status as a nonphase head. It follows from the resolution of a basic indeterminacy in the composition of phases that Expl must merge in Spec-<i>v</i>P, the Object Shift position. This, in turn, throws new light on the patterns of complementary distribution that characterize the interaction between Expl, external arguments, and raised internal arguments exhibited by TECs. A strong form of Bures’s Generalization emerges — TECs are directly tied to the availability of full-DP Object Shift in a manner that is arguably both empirically and conceptually superior to existing analyses. Universal, interface-imposed, phase-based constraints on Object Shift and Merge-Expl are thus sufficient to account for the observed patterns of crosslinguistic variation in TEC distribution. 10 01 JB code livy.6.08but 161 201 41 Article 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The Structure of Temporality and Modality</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">Structure of Temporality and Modality</TitleWithoutPrefix> <Subtitle textformat="02">(or, Towards deriving something like a Cinque Hierarchy)</Subtitle> 1 A01 Jonny Butler Butler, Jonny Jonny Butler University of Stuttgart 20 ambiguity 20 modality 20 syntax–sematics interface 20 tense 01 This paper offers a view of clause structure based on semantic interpretability, focusing on the structure and interpretation of temporal (tense, aspect) and modal elements. It proposes that modality has a unitary lexical semantics along the lines of Krater (1977 <i>et seq</i>), with different interpretations of modals deriving from the interaction of that semantics with the interpretation of the temporal elements in the structural context the modals are found. Different positions for modal interpretation are proposed, corresponding the the edges of phases (Chomsky 2001). Evidence for this view is put forward from various languages. The clause structure so derived is akin to the universal clausal hierarchy proposed by Cinque (1999), lending support to the notion that something like this hierarchy does indeed hold in natural language, though the justification for it is very different. 10 01 JB code livy.6.09bra 203 268 66 Article 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Bare Infinitives in Alemannic and the Categorial Status of Infinitival Complements</TitleText> 1 A01 Ellen Brandner Brandner, Ellen Ellen Brandner University of Konstanz 20 bare infinitive 20 diachronic development 20 extraposition 20 infinitival marker 20 restructuring 20 surface variation 01 This article deals mainly with the distribution and function of the infinitival marker in Standard German and in Alemannic, a dialect spoken in Southern Germany.* At first sight both form and distribution differ in these two variants to a great extent. The most important difference is that Alemannic generally lacks the infinitival marker <i>zu</i> (<i>to</i> in English, <i>te</i> in Dutch) in the environments where it occurs in SG. Instead, bare infinitives are used to a much greater extent than in SG. <br /> A detailed comparison shows how these Alemannic data can shed some new light on SG infinitival constructions — which are notoriously hard to analyze, especially the use of <i>zu</i>. It will turn out that <i>zu</i> plays hardly any syntactic role in restructuring contexts and is thus best accounted for in the word formation component rather than in the syntax. Another important issue to be discussed is extraposition. As will be shown below, extraposition is a much more widely used option in Alemannic than in SG — nevertheless, the Alemannic constructions show mono-clausal, i.e. coherent properties. I will argue that extraposition should not be taken as an indication for a bi-clausal structure — as it is done traditionally — but rather that the preferred intraposed order in SG should be analyzed in terms of a PF “flip-operation”. The attested variation between SG and Alemannic will thus turn out to be merely variation on the surface. But there are constructions where both variants differ more profoundly, namely in the context of propositional verbs. These differences will be traced back to the existence of a second kind of <i>zu</i> — existing only in SG — that can indeed license a full CP. 10 01 JB code livy.6.10lan 269 1 Miscellaneous 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Language index</TitleText> 10 01 JB code livy.6.11sub 271 273 3 Miscellaneous 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Subject index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20070501 2006 John Benjamins 02 WORLD 01 240 mm 02 160 mm 08 510 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 10 21 01 02 JB 1 00 100.00 EUR R 02 02 JB 1 00 106.00 EUR R 01 JB 10 bebc +44 1202 712 934 +44 1202 712 913 sales@bebc.co.uk 03 GB 21 21 02 02 JB 1 00 84.00 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 21 01 gen 02 JB 1 00 150.00 USD