Finiteness and the relation between Agreement and Nominative Case

Aygen, Gülşat

doi:10.1075/la.92.06ayg

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Note that the presence of nominative Case marking on the subjunctive subject in the absence of a T node is not problematic if we assume that the true source of nominative Case is the +Fin head, in the spirit of Bianchi (2001) and Aygen (2006), among others.…”

Section: mentioning

confidence: 98%

Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish

Iverson

Kempchinsky

Rothman

2008

EUROSLA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much recent research in SLA is guided by the hypothesis of L2 interface vulnerability (see Sorace 2005). This study contributes to this general project by examining the acquisition of two classes of subjunctive complement clauses in L2 Spanish: subjunctive complements of volitional predicates (purely syntactic) and subjunctive vs. indicative complements with negated epistemic matrix predicates, where the mood distinction is discourse dependent (thus involving the syntax-discourse interface). We provide an analysis of the volitional subjunctive in English and Spanish, suggesting that English learners of L2 Spanish need to access the functional projection Mood P and an uninterpretable modal feature on the Force head available to them from their formal English register grammar, and simultaneously must unacquire the structure of English for-to clauses. For negated epistemic predicates, our analysis maintains that they need to revalue the modal feature on the Force head from uninterpretable to interpretable, within the L2 grammar. With others (e.g. Borgonovo & Prévost 2003;Borgonovo, Bruhn de Garavito & Prévost 2005) and in line with Sorace's (2000Sorace's ( , 2003Sorace's ( , 2005 notion of interface vulnerability, we maintain that the latter case is more difficult for L2 learners, which is borne out in the data we present. However, the data also show that the indicative/subjunctive distinction with negated epistemics can be acquired by advanced stages of acquisition, questioning the notion of obligatory residual optionality for all properties which require the integration of syntactic and discourse information.

show abstract

Section: mentioning

confidence: 98%

Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish

Iverson

Kempchinsky

Rothman

2008

EUROSLA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(32) From a cross-linguistic perspective, the idea that a dependent clause is embedded within a nominal phrase headed by a silent element is not novel. On the one hand, there are multiple approaches that postulate the presence of a DP layer on top of the embedded CP in the subject/object position, (33a); see Roussou 1991, Farudi 2007, Hartman 2012, Kastner 2015, and Knyazev 2016 On the other hand, more complex analyses whereby the clause is embedded within a DP with a silent lexical N head, (33b), have been proposed by Lees (1965), Aygen (2002), and Maki and Uchibori (2008), to name a few. It has also been argued that at least some clauses embedded in NPs are modifiers and not complements, (33c); see Stowell 1981 I provide additional support for the analysis in (32) in §4.…”

Section: Infinitival Clause: a Matrix Argument Or An Embedded Modifiermentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Syntax of the Russian Control Verbs Pomoč ' 'Help' and Pomešat' 'Hinder'

Burukina

2022

jsl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines sentences with the verbs pomoč' 'help' and pomešat' 'hinder' in Russian and demonstrates that, although they are usually listed among object control predicates, these verbs appear in a wide range of constructions that cannot be accounted for by a straightforward control analysis. To explain the distribution of pomoč' and pomešat' , I argue that they are, in essence, ditransitive, similarly to 'give' or 'send': they require a Goal (a person or a situation that will be helped/hindered) and a Theme headed by a silent noun HETP/HINDRANCE. A dative DP, either [+sentient] or eventive, a subjunctive čtoby -clause, or a non-finite clause with an overt subject, when present, should be analyzed as a Goal. A controlled infinitival clause is merged as a modifier within the Theme NP. The approach is extended to control collocations such as 'give a chance'. It further offers an opportunity to develop a uniform structural representation for various verbs of object control that will reduce the differences between them to particular properties of the Theme.

show abstract

“…It is well known that both tense and agreement features can occur on complementizers which are located under finiteness (Rizzi 1997); for example, tensed complementizers under finiteness are found in Irish (McCloskey 1996 ;Adger 2007), and complementizers are marked with agreement in West Flemish (Haegemann 1992). Using evidence from agreement paradigms in Turkish and related languages, Aygen (2006) suggests that epistemic modality too is located in the finiteness head. The characterization of finiteness suggested by Bianchi (2003) makes it possible to see why these things occur -they are all aspects of the speech event.…”

Section: Finiteness Phrase and The Finiteness Headmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction of modality and negation in Finnish

Thomas

2012

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Finnish, negation is expressed via an auxiliary, and no other verb may occur above this auxiliary in the structure. This gives rise to a problem with respect to the modals of obligation and necessity, which take scope over negation yet appear below it. It is tempting to account for this in terms of LF-movement, but evidence suggests that there are in fact two modal phrases in Finnish, one above negation and the other below it, the higher of which encodes necessity/obligation. Evidence for the higher phrase comes from the negative imperative. Although the PF part of a verb in a negative sentence cannot move to the head of this higher phrase, the head itself is in the right position to take scope over negation. Thus, rather than attributing the scope properties of the modals to LF-movement, it will instead be argued that the LF-interpretable part of a head is merged precisely where it takes scope, and that the relation between the LF- and PF-interpretable parts of the modal is one ofchecking at a distance. Head-movement will be regarded solely as a PF phenomenon. It will be seen that the scope relations of the modals and the imperative mood can be accounted for under this hypothesis. Thus, Finnish provides evidence for a view of syntax which identifies syntactic structure largely with the LF-interpretable part of a sentence, and sees head movement as fundamentally a PF phenomenon. There are two morphological moods in Finnish, which seem to provide counter-examples to this hypothesis, which will be left as a problem for future research.

show abstract

Finiteness and the relation between Agreement and Nominative Case

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish

Interface vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2 Spanish

On the Syntax of the Russian Control Verbs Pomoč ' 'Help' and Pomešat' 'Hinder'

The interaction of modality and negation in Finnish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About