Reflexives in Upriver Halkomelem

Wiltschko, Martina

doi:10.1086/424552

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The middle -@m suffix makes the sentence grammatical in (35b). Crucially, according to [69], this construction is derivative of an external possession construction in which the notional possessor is the object of the clause (see also [86]). When the possessor is distinct from the agent, it is realized as the syntactic object as illustrated in ( 36):…”

Section: Type B Syncretism (Antipassive + Type a Syncretism) [-D]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17 We take it that the presence of a dedicated reflexive morpheme in Halkomelem, -T@t, which productively forms reflexives [85] (cf. [86]) is the reason why plain reflexives cannot be formed with the -@m marker. However, as a reviewer notices in order to spell-out an account for this gap would require a formal analysis of these constructions which goes beyond the scope of the current paper.…”

Section: Voice Syncretism Within a Phasal Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Voice Syncretism Crosslinguistically: The View from Minimalism

Oikonomou

Αλεξιαδου

2022

Philosophies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Voice syncretism is widely attested crosslinguistically. In this paper, we discuss three different types of Voice syncretism, under which the same morpheme participates in different configurations. We provide an approach under which the same Voice head can convey different interpretations depending on the environment it appears in, thus building on the notion of allosemy. We show that, in all cases under investigation, allosemy is closely associated with the existence of idiosyncratic patterns. By contrast, we notice that allosemy and idiosyncrasy are not present in analytic passive and causative constructions across different languages. We argue that the distinguishing feature between the two types of constructions is whether the passive and the causative interpretation comes from the Voice head, thus forming a single domain with the vP or whether passive and causative semantics are realized by distinct heads above the Voice layer, thus forming two distinct domains.

show abstract

Section: Type B Syncretism (Antipassive + Type a Syncretism) [-D]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Voice Syncretism Within a Phasal Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%