The semantics and syntax of complementation markers as an areal phenomenon in the Balkans, with special attention to Albanian

Joseph, Brian D.; Boye, Kasper; Kehayov, Petar

doi:10.1515/9783110416619-010

Cited by 26 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[15, 38:04–38:07]. Lone other-language complementizers may be borrowed ( Matras, 2009 : 287; Joseph, 2016 : 196) or on a “continuum from borrowing to CS” ( Treffers-Daller, 2005 : 500), an instance of “leaks” ( Bentahila and Davies, 1998 : 42) or of “congruent lexicalization” ( Muysken, 2015 : 244–247). Socially, such items may be ethnic identity markers ( Pfaff, 1979 : 314, referencing Gumperz and Hernández-Chávez, 1975 : 156–157 on interjections and connectors).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Code-Switching Strategies: Prosody and Syntax

Cacoullos

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contentious question of bilingual processing cost may be recast as a fresh question of code-switching (CS) strategies-quantitative preferences and structural adjustments for switching at particular junctures of two languages. CS strategies are established by considering prosodic and syntactic variables, capitalizing here on bidirectional multiword CS, spontaneously produced by members of a bilingual community in northern New Mexico who regularly use both languages (Torres Cacoullos and Travis, 2018). CS strategies become apparent by extending the equivalence constraint, which states that bilinguals avoid CS at points of word placement conflict (Poplack, 1980), to examine points of inconsistent equivalence between the languages, where syntactic difficulty could arise. Such sites of variable equivalence are junctures where the word strings of the two languages are equivalent only sometimes due to language-internal variable structures. A case in point for the English-Spanish language pair is the boundary between main and complement clauses, where a conjunction occurs always in Spanish but variably in English. The prosodic distancing strategy is to separate the juncture of the two languages. Here the complement clause appears in a different prosodic unit from the main clause-disproportionately as compared both with monolingual benchmarks and with bilinguals' own unilingual English and Spanish. Prosodic distancing serves to mitigate variable equivalence. The syntactic selection strategy is to opt for the variant that is more quantitatively available and more discourse neutral. Here the preference is for the Spanish complementizer que-regardless of main or complement clause language. This is the more frequent option in bilinguals' combined experience in both their languages, whereas the English complementizer that is subject to a number of conditioning factors. Syntactic selection serves to restore equivalence. Discovery of community CS strategies may spur reconsideration of processing cost as a matter of relative difficulty, which will depend on bilinguals' prosodic and syntactic choices at particular CS sites.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Code-Switching Strategies: Prosody and Syntax

Cacoullos

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An approach to complementizers as a gradient concept harmonizes with the distinction between canonical complementizers (i.e. core members of the category) and complementation markers (Joseph 2016;Kehayov and Boye 2016b). Complementation markers can be defined as "all means (including in principle word order and intonation) of identifying [clausal] complements"; then canonical complementizers "serve to identify balanced (in the sense of Stassen 1985) complements" (Kehayov and Boye 2016b: 810).…”

Section: Complementizersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cf Topolińska (2003;2008a;2008b). Laskova (2009: 169), Lindstedt (2010),Gegovski (2014: 104),Joseph (2016), among many others.23 For instance, by), Mirić (2018 with respect to South Slavic and, for other languages, byNarrog (2005Narrog ( , 2009,Cornillie and Pietrandrea (2012), Rentzsch (2015). Compare alsoDiewald (1999), who uses Germ.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clausal complementation in South Slavic

Nikolić

2022

Canadian Slavonic Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This volume presents a collection of articles that share a focus on South Slavic languages and clausal complementation. They offer insights on this topic from various perspectives, taking up issues relevant not only for specialists of (South) Slavic languages, but also for the broader linguistic community interested in clause combining, areal linguistics, language contact, diachronic syntax and/or corpus linguistics. In their entirety, the studies assembled here cover the entire linguistic geography of South Slavic, including exclave varieties in Italy as well as contact with non-Slavic languages such as Albanian and Hungarian.The volume arose from the workshop "Variation in space and time: clausal complementation in South Slavic," which was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and organized by the editors on March 17-19, 2016, at the University of Zurich. Most of the contributors to this volume were also participants in that workshop. We thank every author for their continued motivation to contribute to this joint endeavor, which, as we hope, will help establish directions for the study of clause combining, in particular of clausal complementation, in Slavic languages in a modern framework. We are also obliged to an anonymous reviewer who provided thoroughgoing and valuable comments on every article and to Giulia Morra for her assistance in creating the index. Moreover, we thank the publishing house De Gruyter and, in particular, the editors in charge of the TiLSM series for taking our volume on board.

show abstract

“…The assumption that factivity is introduced by a complementizer can be motivated by the fact that some languages have morphologically distinct factive and non-factive complementizers. For example, Greek has a designated factive complementizer pu and a designated non-factive one oti (Roussou 1994;Joseph 2016). Designated factive complementizers are also found in dialects of Basque (Artiagoitia & Elordieta 2016): ena in Western Basque, bait in Lapurdian-Navarrese and Zuberoan dialects.…”

Section: Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Composing CPs: Evidence from disjunction and conjunction

Bassi

Bondarenko

2021

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we compare CP disjunction to TP disjunction and CP conjunction to TP conjunction, and conclude that CPs and TPs do not have identical meanings (cf. similar observations reported in Szabolcsi 1997, 2016; Bjorkman 2013). We argue that this result is incompatible with the view that the CP layer of embedded clauses is semantically vacuous. We propose that the differences between CPs and TPs can be explained under a particular implementation of Kratzer's approach to the semantics of clausal embedding (Kratzer 2006, 2016; Bogal-Allbritten 2016, 2017; Moulton 2009, 2015; Elliott 2017), according to which CPs denote predicates of events whose content equals the embedded proposition.

show abstract

The semantics and syntax of complementation markers as an areal phenomenon in the Balkans, with special attention to Albanian

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Code-Switching Strategies: Prosody and Syntax

Code-Switching Strategies: Prosody and Syntax

Clausal complementation in South Slavic

Composing CPs: Evidence from disjunction and conjunction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About