Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns

Panagiotidis, Phoevos

doi:10.1075/la.46

Cited by 54 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The investigation started with pronominal categories as exponents of φ-features such as person, number, gender and case, but minimally representing person (Postal 1970;Lyons 1999). The φ-features (apart from gender) were analysed following Panagiotidis (2002Panagiotidis ( , 2003 as heading their own projections, and pronouns were argued to have a complex nominal structure parallel to that of nouns, allowing either for an empty or a lexical noun in their complement. I have argued, contra Panagiotidis, that clitics have a deficient structure, by which I meant that they do not have the complement NP (but they may have NumP).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Panagiotidis (2002Panagiotidis ( , 2003, 27 I assume that pronouns have a complete nominal structure, namely that they always have an NP complement to their D, and that the pronoun itself (or at least its person feature) is in D (i.e. it heads DP/PersonP).…”

Section: Clitics and Pronounsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This default person has also been referred to as non-person(Benveniste 1966;Panagiotidis 2002).35 An anonymous reviewer for PSiCL suggested that on minimalist assumptions the interpretable Person feature (in my analysis interpretable on the Person head) appears to be interpreted at the interfaces only when lexically filled, as in ci językoznawcy, where reference to 3rd person is enforced lexically through the feature [Person: 3]; however "when the Person head is not filled lexically, as in językoz-nawcy, since the noun in the NP complement of the Person head does not have a valued feature of person and no lexical element with a specified person feature is merged in Person, the feature Person seems to remain unvalued throughout the syntactic computation", and if so, it appears "not to be a well-motivated UG element under SMT, as it is neither required for PF-reasons nor for LF/CI-…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What the adnominal intensifier "sam" and Left Branch Extractions tell us about the structure of Polish nominal projections

Miechowicz-Mathiasen

2013

Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I reconsider the nature of sam (a Polish counterpart to Russian and Serbo-Croatian sam, German selbst, Italian solo, Danish selv), a lexical item generally assumed to be adjectival. First, I focus on its use as an adnominal intensifier and argue that in this function it should be considered pronominal. Since intensifying sam has a history of appearing in analyses propagating the DP Hypothesis, my proposal sheds some light on these issues and leads to bigger questions concerning the structure of Polish nominals, in particular whether they project DP or not. Answers to these questions constitute the second part of the paper, where I argue that D equals Person (hence DP/PersonP) and that it is universally present in Polish nominals. I draw on the evidence from Left Branch Extractions and adjunct extractions and show that, while such extractions are quite freely available in Polish, they are nevertheless blocked whenever in the presence of overt D/Person heads, just like in languages with articles, projecting DP. I further show that the difference between Polish and English with respect to adjectival LBE reduces to the employment of distinct case-checking strategies and agreement options.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clitics and Pronounsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What the adnominal intensifier "sam" and Left Branch Extractions tell us about the structure of Polish nominal projections

Miechowicz-Mathiasen

2013

Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The analysis of pronouns as intransitive determiners has numerous flaws (Panagiotidis 2002), of which I will mention two. First, consider we: in (6) it takes an NP complement that it presumably has selected.…”

Section: Pronouns As Ds Complemented By Null Nominalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

One, Empty Nouns, and θ-Assignment

Panagiotidis

2003

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standard analysis that the ''pronominal count noun'' one is an N′-or NP-level element is challenged and it is argued to be an N 0 . Moreover, the behavior of one is identified with that of a phonologically empty counterpart. The fact that these N heads lack descriptive content is shown to be the source of two of their distinctive properties: their inability to take arguments, which accounts for their superficially phrasal status, and their triggering of pronominal reference. The existence of a [pronominal] feature is argued against; instead, such noun heads' lack of descriptive content is claimed to be what LF interprets as ''pronominal.'' an anonymous reviewer for their comments, suggestions, help, and intuitions. All errors, omissions, and misconceptions remain mine.1 Kester's analysis faces two problems: if one is a functional head, it is an ''intransitive'' one; and unifying its behavior with that of e necessitates a more elaborate mechanism (see section 2 for details). I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for inquiring about the status of one as a functional item.

show abstract

“…The interaction of person with number and inclusiveness raises widely discussed problems (see Panagiotidis 2002 andCysouw 2002 for recent discussion). I believe the present understanding enables us to solve at least some of these (see Sigurðsson 2003bSigurðsson , 2004b, but I cannot pursue the issue here.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds

Sigurðsson

2004

LIVY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the very general question of how syntactic features of individual languages relate to the universal set of syntactic features. It is pointed out that Chomsky’s approach (2001a) to this fundamental issue is paradoxical. On one hand he argues that language is uniform in the relevant sense (L-uniformity), but, on the other hand, he also assumes that languages make different selections of features from a universal feature set (L-selection). The paper argues strongly that L-uniformity is the only conceivable possibility. However, if that is correct, a great deal of what languages have is common is ‘silence’, that is, categories that are present in Narrow Syntax but silent in PF. In other words, language has innate elements and structures irrespective of whether or how they are overtly expressed. It follows that language variation is to a substantial extent ‘silence variation’, that is, much of it boils down to languages being explicit vs. silent about different (syntactically active) categories. This claim is coined as the Silence Principle, saying that any meaningful feature of language may be silent.

show abstract

Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns

Cited by 54 publications

References 0 publications

What the adnominal intensifier "sam" and Left Branch Extractions tell us about the structure of Polish nominal projections

What the adnominal intensifier "sam" and Left Branch Extractions tell us about the structure of Polish nominal projections

One, Empty Nouns, and θ-Assignment

Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About