The Syntax of Monsters

Shklovsky, Kirill; Sudo, Yuichi

doi:10.1162/ling_a_00160

Cited by 32 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This tie-up between finiteness and the presence of FIN speaker and FIN addressee coordinates is also strengthened by the cross-linguistically overwhelming preference of indexicals to shift in finite environments. Deal (2016) draws the following generalization in light of the literature on indexical shift, most directly from the work of Sudo (2012) and Shklovsky & Sudo (2014):…”

Section: Finiteness and Indexical Shiftmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidentials are syntax-sensitive: The view from Bangla

Bhadra

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper studies an evidential in Bangla which changes its evidential flavor based on its syntactic position. Forging novel connections with the literature on finiteness, indexical shift, and complementizer agreement, this paper demonstrates how evidentials can be sensitive to the presence of syntactic heads that represent the point-of-view of an utterance. Three main claims are made: (i) evidentials always take finite clauses which are perspective-sensitive, (ii) this perspective-sensitivity is syntactic, i.e. it is the result of control by speech-act heads, (iii) coindexation or contraindexation among these perspectival heads can have very important effects on word order in evidential constructions. This paper thus offers a comprehensive syntactic profile of evidential particles, which have generally been investigated with regard to their semantic-pragmatic contribution, arguing that the structural configurations these elements appear in have undeniably crucial effects on the interpretative component.

show abstract

Section: Finiteness and Indexical Shiftmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidentials are syntax-sensitive: The view from Bangla

Bhadra

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Schlenker's (2003) influential proposal, this means that, contra Kaplan, sentences that involve 'attitude operators' such as reported speech constructions can introduce a local logical operator that 'fixes', for example, the person value as first person in (16). Kaplan (1989) calls such operators, which he claims not to exist, 'monsters', a label Schlenker (2003) and subsequent literature adopts to describe indexical effects in R (Deal 2017;LaTerza et al 2015;Shklovsky & Sudo 2014). 11 While pragmatic factors in the speech situation may influence the behaviour of certain pronouns (Evans 2013; Maier 2017) 12 extra-grammatical factors do not determine the realisation of pronouns in R. The literature on monsters demonstrates both the diversity of referential patterns in R and the consistency of these patterns in individual languages under a formal semantic approach.…”

Section: Fundamental M-r Asymmetry: M Indexicality Is Pragmatic R 'Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain

Spronck

2019

Linguistic Typology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many languages, expressions of the type ‘x said: “p”’, ‘x said that p’ or ‘allegedly, p’ share properties with common syntactic types such as constructions with subordination, paratactic constructions, and constructions with sentence-level adverbs. On closer examination, however, they often turn out to be atypical members of these syntactic classes. In this paper we argue that a more coherent picture emerges if we analyse these expressions as a dedicated syntactic domain in itself, which we refer to as ‘reported speech’. Based on typological observations we argue for the idiosyncrasy of reported speech as a syntactic class. The article concludes with a proposal for a cross-linguistic characterisation that aims at capturing this broadly conceived domain of reported speech with a single semantic definition.

show abstract

“…Nara who(-acc) ch come-pst comp say.pst-neg A final argument is provided by the interpretation of nonreferential DPs. Shklovsky & Sudo (2014) observe that, in Uyghur, the subject of an embedded finite clause can be a nonreferential DP that is interpreted under the scope of the matrix verb. This holds regardless of whether the subject bears nominative or accusative case.…”

Section: (19)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Proper movement through Spec-CP: An argument from hyperraising in Mongolian

Fong

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The subject of an embedded finite clause in Mongolian can be marked with accusative case, alternating with canonical nominative case. Following previous proposals, I analyze this option as the consequence of the presence of φ-features in the complementizer of the embedded clause, which trigger the movement of the lower subject to Spec-CP. From that position, the embedded subject is accessible to the matrix v, which assigns case to it without violating the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC). A prediction that falls out from this analysis is that the accusative subject in Mongolian can move into the matrix clause, also without violating this locality condition. This type of construction is called hyperraising and is indeed found in the language. Hyperraising in Mongolian displays some of the signature properties of A-movement, including the absence of weak crossover effects and of reconstruction for Condition C. A comparison with covert Wh-movement in Mongolian will show that this type of movement does induce a WCO violation and reconstructs for Condition C. If the proposal that hyperraising in Mongolian involves a stopover position at Spec-CP is on the right track, this position would have to be an A-position. If correct, this paper contributes to the view that syntactic positions should not be considered as being intrinsically A or Ā: Spec-CP, which is usually taken to be an Ā-position, could potentially be an A-position too, at least in hyperraising in Mongolian.

show abstract

The Syntax of Monsters

Cited by 32 publications

References 12 publications

Evidentials are syntax-sensitive: The view from Bangla

Evidentials are syntax-sensitive: The view from Bangla

Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain

Proper movement through Spec-CP: An argument from hyperraising in Mongolian

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About