Zwicky on heads

Hudson, Richard

doi:10.1017/s0022226700011051

Cited by 125 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This view, however, has been refuted by Huang (1988) and . Furthermore, Dai (1992) extends to the V-DE construction five of the criteria proposed by Zwicky (1985) (see also Hudson 1987) for identifying morphological head, and argues that the V is the head of the whole construction. j In this regard, consider the fact that the result predicate in English resultatives cannot be simply negated with not, as shown in i.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the V-DE Construction in Mandarin Chinese

2015

lingua. sin.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper proposes a novel classification and analysis of the V-DE construction in Mandarin Chinese. On this proposal, the V-DE construction is divided into two types, predicative and non-predicative. The predicative type can be further divided into entity-predicative V-DE constructions and eventuality-predicative V-DE constructions. With respect to the analysis of the V-DE construction, the paper identifies four different structures. It points out that the de-part (i.e. the part after and marked by 得 -de) in most V-DE constructions is a clause with or without an overt subject. Moreover, with respect to the cases where the de-part has an overt NP that can be interpreted as the Patient argument of the verb before -de and at the same time is semantically compatible with the VP or AP in the de-part, the paper proposes that the overt NP in such cases is syntactically the subject of the de-clause and syntactically is not the direct object of V-DE or the verb before -de. Finally, when the de-part of an entity-predicative V-DE construction has an overt NP between -de and the predicate of the de-clause, the AP or VP of the de-part generally needs to be predicated of the overt NP in the de-part. This constraint, however, can be occasionally relaxed to allow for a pragmatically-inducted interpretation when both of the following conditions are met: (i) the de-part is a well-formed clause in both form and meaning and (ii) the pragmatically-induced interpretation is pragmatically plausible.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the V-DE Construction in Mandarin Chinese

2015

lingua. sin.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Publication of this list in Zwicky (1985) sparked some debate about the correctness of some of these criteria and the possibility of adding further criteria (see in particular Hudson, 1987). The consensus view that developed is summarized in Bauer (1990), who also points out that " .…”

Section: Headedness Criteria In the Previous Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Headedness in Arabic Compounds within the Synthetic Genitive Construction

Altakhaineh

2016

SAGE Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to pinpoint the position of head in Arabic compounds within the Synthetic Genitive Construction (SGC). It also examines the headedness of these compounds morphologically, syntactically, and semantically. The analysis confirms that compounding in Arabic is predominantly left-headed. The semantic, syntactic, and morphological heads always coincide in Arabic compounds within the SGC. With regard to Adj + N compounds in Arabic, I argue that a silent noun is responsible for determining the syntactic category of the whole construct, resulting in a noun rather than an adjective. The study concludes with recommendations for further research.

show abstract

“…The first pertains to the exact nature of heads in morphology. An extensive literature on the subject indicates that identification of heads in morphology is not straightforward (Williams 1981;Selkirk 1982;Zwicky 1985;Hudson 1987;Scalise 1988;Bauer 1990;Corbett et al 1993, and others). In early discussions of heads in syntax, the Noun was identified as the head of the Noun Phrase, and the Verb as the head of the Verb Phrase.…”

Section: ø ä ò ù ×ø àùò ö ¼¸¾¼¼¿ û ý ôö ü ×mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why prefixes?

Mithun¹

2003

Acta Linguistica Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A variety of explanations have been offered for the observed cross-linguistic preponderance of suffixes over prefixes. Many are couched in terms of synchronic advantages, such as the cognitive simplicity of cross-category harmony between syntax and morphology, and preferences for processing the lexical meaning in stems before the grammatical material in affixes. But hypotheses about functional advantages cannot constitute explanations in themselves without accounts of the mechanisms by which the advantages are translated into grammatical structure. Here it is shown that the numerous exceptions to such hypotheses can be explained when the individual histories of the affixes are considered, including both their sources and the steps by which they develop.It has long been recognized that suffixes outnumber prefixes cross-linguistically. As early as 1921 Edward Sapir remarked, "Of the three types of affixing-the use of prefixes, suffixes, and infixes-suffixing is much the commonest. Indeed, it is a fair guess that suffixes do more of the formative work of language than all other methods combined." (1921, 67) Several kinds of explanations have been offered for the suffixing preference. Some have focused on cross-category harmony, proposing that speakers prefer consistent ordering of heads and dependents across syntax and morphology. Since more languages show head-final syntactic structure (OV), it is natural that they should also show head-final morphological structure (Stem-suffix). Other explanations have focused on processing, proposing that hearers prefer to process stems before affixes, since they contain richer information. Still other explanations have focused on production, proposing that since speakers tend to elide the ends of words, morphemes occurring later in words are more likely to erode into affixes than those occurring earlier.But these proposals, even in combination, do not account fully for the morpheme orders we find. There are numerous examples of prefixes in languages with robust, head-final (OV) syntactic order. The identification of speaker preferences is a reasonable first step toward possible explanation, but we cannot claim to explain particular structures if we have not identified the actual mechanisms by which such preferences might shape grammar. As noted by Greenberg (1957), mechanisms might be identified in two areas: (i) origin, that is, circumstances that could lead to the development of certain structures, and (ii) survival, that is, circumstances that could contribute to their stability.Here we shall examine some situations in which explanations based on cross-category harmony, processing, and production fail to account for morphological structure. These involve prefixes in languages with clear, headfinal (OV) syntactic structure. It will be shown that a key to explaining such structures lies first in distinguishing the kinds of affixes involved and then uncovering the different paths by which they develop. ½º ÓÖÖ Ð Ø ÓÒ× Ò ÜÔÐ Ò Ø ÓÒ×In ground-breaking typological work, Greenbe...

show abstract

Zwicky on heads

Cited by 125 publications

References 4 publications

On the V-DE Construction in Mandarin Chinese

On the V-DE Construction in Mandarin Chinese

Headedness in Arabic Compounds within the Synthetic Genitive Construction

Why prefixes?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About