The focus marker in Kîîtharaka: Syntax and semantics

Abels, Klaus; Muriungi, Peter Kinyua

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.003

Cited by 47 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…), which is based on phrasal spell out. However, this is by no means necessary; one can also adopt sequential spanning (Williams 2003;Abels & Muriungi 2008;Taraldsen 2010) or various other conceivable approaches. As long as one keeps the logic of over-specification depicted in (24), the results follow, as will become clear as we proceed.…”

Section: Deriving the *Abamentioning

confidence: 99%

How (not) to derive a *ABA: The case of Blansitt’s generalisation

Caha

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I provide an account for the so-called Blansitt’s generalisation (Blansitt 1988). The generalisation says that in the linear sequence DATIVE—ALLATIVE—LOCATIVE, only adjacent functions may be marked the same. In previous work (Bobaljik 2012; Starke 2009; Caha 2009), analogous *ABA patterns have been encoded by the so-called feature cumulation. Feature cumulation means that the amount of features characteristic for individual categories monotonically grows in the order given in any such sequence. However, Blansitt observes that in the case of datives, allatives and locatives, the allative (which is in the middle) tends to be composed of the dative and the locative, so the account based on cumulation does not work. The present paper thus argues for a different representation of the underlying categories, namely as containing (abstractly) the features A, AB and B respectively (following in part Bobaljik & Sauerland 2017). I refer to this as the “overlapping” decomposition. When such a decomposition is combined with the Superset Principle (Starke 2009), it yields both the *ABA restriction and the observed syncretism and containment patterns. I further argue that this is a non-trivial result, since traditional underspecification approaches face significant challenges in deriving the *ABA pattern on the basis of the overlapping decomposition. This article is part of the Special Collection: *ABA

show abstract

Section: Deriving the *Abamentioning

confidence: 99%

How (not) to derive a *ABA: The case of Blansitt’s generalisation

Caha

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…P Q R S I will further assume, as do Abels and Muriungi (2008), that in each lexical entry, the feature which is lowest in the base-generated functional sequence must be spelled out. I label this the Anchor Condition, since the lowest feature acts as a sort of an anchor of the lexical entry to a particular point in syntax.…”

Section: (48)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The German locative-directional alternation

Caha

2010

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I investigate the locative-directional alternation in German, expressed by the change of case on the complement of a preposition, and its consequences for the theory of case in general. I argue that oblique cases and structural cases are assigned in a uniform manner, but they are distinct in the amount of functional structure: oblique case contains structural case. Following Starke (2005), I claim that oblique cases can be promoted to structural cases by stranding layers of oblique case.

show abstract

“…Empirical research made within frameworks where lexical items are allowed to correspond to phrases has shown that the situations in which lexical items are allowed to shrink crucially imply always the lowest projections. This is known as the Anchor Condition (Abels & Muriungi 2008, Caha 2009), which specifies that the lowest feature in a lexical entry must always be matched with the syntactic structure. In the case of vun discussed before, notice that our procedure must allow the accusative marker to shrink and express only the nominative layer; however, allowing it to shrink to express only the accusative layer in any case would predict that a word such as anthropos could get the form *anthrop-o-os in the accusative, against the empirical facts.…”

Section: The Rules Of the Game: How To Perform Lexical Insertion Withmentioning

confidence: 99%

An argument for phrasal spell-out: Indefinites and interrogatives in Spanish

Fábregas

2009

NLY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we will provide evidence in favour of Phrasal Spell Out (PSO), a procedure of lexical insertion where non-terminal nodes in a tree configuration can be targeted by spell-out. We will propose that the formal differences between two Spanish indefinite pronouns, alguien and alguno, can be captured if the morpheme -ien is analyzed as a lexical item which corresponds to a syntactic phrase; this phrase, crucially, is broken in the presence of a plural number projection. Independent properties of the internal syntactic structure of the interrogative make the lexical item -ien compatible with plural in that configuration.

show abstract

The focus marker in Kîîtharaka: Syntax and semantics

Cited by 47 publications

References 16 publications

How (not) to derive a *ABA: The case of Blansitt’s generalisation

How (not) to derive a *ABA: The case of Blansitt’s generalisation

The German locative-directional alternation

An argument for phrasal spell-out: Indefinites and interrogatives in Spanish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About