Chinese clefts mainly involve two patterns, the shi…de pattern and the bare shi pattern, and the shi…de pattern can be further categorized into the V–O–de pattern and the V–O–de pattern, which are distinguished according to the relative order of the object and de. Compared to clefts in other languages, Chinese clefts are particularly special in two aspects. First, in the surface order, the cleft focus stays together with the cleft presupposition between shi and de, instead of moving to a higher position as in languages like English. Second, Chinese shi…de clefts have a heavy preference for past-tense interpretations and the V–de–O pattern cannot host tense, aspect and modal elements in its presupposition.
In the existing literature, some analyses take shi to be the central element of focus-marking, which partitions cleft sentences into the cleft focus and the cleft presupposition; while other analyses relate shi in clefts with shi in idenitificational/specificational sentences and pin down shi as a copula verb. For de, a group of studies treat it to be an optional element that serves a secondary function such as mood-marking or tense-marking; while other analyses, taking the shi…de pattern to be prototypical clefts that encode contrastiveness or exhaustivity, tend to assign de the function of focus partition and treat shi as a semantically vacuous copula verb. The TAM restriction is then explained by assigning de the syntactic position of a tense/aspect head or by ascribing such restrictions to PF-level linearization constraints and the implied default temporal interpretation of the cleft construction.
Semantically, just like English it-clefts, the existence/absence of the exhaustive effect in Chinese clefts is a much-debated issue that has generated competing views. Some studies distinguish between emphatic and exhaustive meanings, and treat exhaustivity as the defining criterion for cleft sentences in Chinese, while others hold that Chinese clefts only encode contrastiveness and do not mark exhaustivity at the level of assertion.
Article
Chinese Cleft Sentences
Yuli Feng
Article
Intervention Effects in Mandarin Chinese
Haoze Li
Intervention effects (IEs) refer to the phenomenon where an interrogative wh-expression cannot follow a quantifier or a focus expression. IEs are commonly found in wh-in-situ languages because it is more likely for in-situ wh-expressions to follow quantifiers or focus expressions. Since wh-in-situ in Mandarin Chinese (Mandarin, for short) has been subject to extensive research, it has played an important role in providing the empirical foundation for the research on IEs, based on which different approaches have been pursued. These approaches debate whether the nature of IEs is syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic. They also shed light on related linguistic issues, such as locality conditions, interactions of focus and wh-expressions, and information structure. The present article surveys the empirical and theoretical landscape of IEs in Mandarin, with the goals of providing references and directions for future research.
Article
The Semantics and Syntax of the Nominal Construction in Chinese Xiang
Man Lu, Yi Zhen, Ma Yu, and Li Shihui
In classifier languages, a classifier is often used with a numeral; for instance, to count numbers of items. However, there are also cases in which a classifier is used without a numeral, such as [CLF+N]. The interpretation of a [CLF+N] construction varies. Generally, it is interpreted as definite in subject position, and indefinite in object position. This observation has widely been reported in many dialects spoken in southern China, like Yue and Wu.
The definite reading created in [CLF+N] constructions is derived from movement of the noun to Clo, where an iota operator is inserted, and where it is proposed that the nominal phrase in Chinese has a [ClP[NP]] structure. The definite reading of the [CLF+N] construction noun movement happens in Cantonese Yue, while in Mandarin Chinese this is not possible, since the movement of the noun to the head is blocked for reasons that are not clear.
Another approach to deal with the case is to propose a [DP[ClP[NP]]] structure, in which there is a DP projection with a null D, and the classifier is a quasi-definite article with the meaning of “identifiability” or “familiarity.” The definite reading is related to information structure and to context-dependency. This observation is also made in Lianjiang, where a [CLF+N] construction can be interpreted as definite in object position of a control verb or, when it functions as a defective or beneficial theme, the definiteness in such constructions is affected by both syntax and context.
The [CLF+N] construction is also observed in Xiang. However, the interpretation and distribution of such constructions is different from those observed in Yue and Wu. Specifically, in Xiang, the [CLF+N] construction can: (a) appear in subject and object position, (b) follow a pronoun/proper name [pronoun/proper name+[CLF+N]], (c) precede a proper noun [CLF+proper noun], and (d) appear in a topic position. In subject position, it can be interpreted as either definite or generic; in object position, it can be interpreted as definite and nonspecific. In a topic position, it can be interpreted as either definite or generic. When it follows a pronoun or proper name, the interpretation is ambiguous between a definite reading and a nonspecific reading. Factors like syntactic position, verb properties, aspect, and telicity all affect the interpretation of the [CLF+N] construction.
The data in Xiang can be accounted for with the structure [DP[ClP[N]]] proposed in the literature. That is, there is a null D in the nominal structure in Xiang. In the process of derivation, the classifier moves up to the null D to check the definite feature in D. The noun moves to the head classifier position after the classifier has moved up; otherwise, it stays in situ if a numeral blocks the movement.
Article
Unspecified Human Subjects in the Romance Languages
Pekka Posio
The term unspecified human subjects refers to syntactic constructions profiling a human subject participant whose identity is either not specified at all or is left underspecified, for instance by limiting the scope of potential referents either by choice of verb (e.g., They have raised taxes again) or by a locative expression (e.g., In Spain they eat late). Such constructions include human impersonal pronouns grammaticalized from nouns meaning ‘man’ or ‘person’ (e.g., French on, Portuguese a pessoa) or based on the numeral ‘one’ (e.g., Spanish uno), as well as impersonal (i.e., unspecified, generic, or arbitrary, depending on the theoretical framework) uses of personal pronouns and verb forms, in particular the second-person singular and the third-person plural. Unspecified human subjects present functional overlap with other human impersonal constructions such as the periphrastic passive and reflexive-based passives and impersonals (i.e., Romance se/si constructions), however differing from them in that the unspecified human argument is not the syntactic subject in these latter constructions. While it has been argued that man-impersonal constructions are either restricted or more frequent in languages with obligatory subject expression (e.g., French) and pronoun-based human impersonals are more frequent in so-called null subject languages (e.g., Italian, Spanish), some Romance languages and language varieties display both types, thus providing interesting data for the study of variation.
Article
Alignment and Word Order in the Romance Languages
Francesco Rovai
The term “alignment” refers to the formal realization of the argument structure of the clause, that is, the ways in which the core arguments of the predicate are encoded by means of three main morphosyntactic devices: nominal case marking (morphological case, adpositions), verb marking systems (verbal agreement, pronominal affixes, auxiliaries, voice distinctions, etc.), and word order. The relative importance of these mechanisms of argument coding may considerably vary from language to language. In the Romance family, a major role is played by finite verb agreement and, to a lesser extent, auxiliary selection, participial agreement, voice distinctions, and word order, depending on the language/variety. Most typically, both transitive and intransitive subjects share the same formal coding (they control finite verb agreement and precede the verb in the basic word order) and are distinguished from direct objects (which do not control finite verb agreement and follow the verb in the basic word order). This arrangement of the argument structure is traditionally known as “nominative/accusative” alignment and can be easily identified as the main alignment of the Romance languages. Note that, with very few exceptions, nominal case marking is instead “neutral,” since no overt morphological distinction is made between subject and object arguments after the loss of the Latin case system.
However, although the Romance languages can legitimately be associated with an accusative alignment, it must be borne in mind that, whatever the property selected, natural languages speak against an all-encompassing, holistic typology. A language “belongs” to an alignment type only insofar as it displays a significantly above-average frequency of clause structures with that kind of argument coding, but this does not exclude the existence of several grammatical domains that partake of different alignments. In the Romance family, minor patterns are attested that are not consistent with an accusative alignment. In part, they depend on robust crosslinguistic tendencies in the distribution of the different alignment types when they coexist in the same language. In part, they reflect phenomena of morphosyntactic realignment that can be traced back to the transition from Latin to Romance, when, alongside the dominant accusative alignment of the classical language, Late Latin developed an active alignment in some domains of the grammar—a development that has its roots in Classical and Early Latin. Today, the Romance languages preserve traces of this intermediate stage, but in large part, the signs of it have been replaced with novel accusative structures. In particular, at the level of the sentence, there emerges an accusative-aligned word order, with the preverbal position realizing the default “subject” position and the postverbal position instantiating the default “object” position.
Article
Dislocation in the Romance Languages: Syntax, Semantics, Discourse, Acquisition
Davide Garassino
Dislocations are syntactic constructions consisting of a core sentence and a detached constituent located outside the clause, either at its left (left dislocation) or at its right (right dislocation). Typically, although not invariably, the clause hosts a resumptive element, often a pronoun, which is co-referent with the detached constituent. This separation between an extra-clausal element and the sentence led to the classification of dislocations as “non-canonical” or “marked” syntactic structures.
Dislocations are attested in many language families, to the extent that they can be regarded as a language universal. However, these constructions have predominantly been examined in Germanic and Romance languages, both in formal and functional frameworks.
Left and right dislocations are usually analyzed as topic-marking structures, in which the referent of the detached element has the function of sentence topic. However, specific types of topics appear to preferentially occur in either left or right dislocation. For example, left dislocations often convey topic shifts and contrastive topics, while continuous (or familiar) topics are more commonly found in right dislocations. Nonetheless, corpus-based research unveiled a more nuanced situation. Furthermore, interactionally oriented studies also suggest that exploring dislocations in spontaneous conversations is crucial for comprehending their broad functional spectrum.
Thus, dislocations present many intriguing challenges to Romance linguistics, including the questions, To what extent do left and right dislocations differ syntactically and pragmatically across Romance languages? Are descriptions framed in terms of “topic establishing” and “topic promotion” truly adequate? What are the main prosodic characteristics of left and right dislocations? and What challenges do L1 and L2 learners encounter in the acquisition of these constructions?
Article
Gothic and Other East Germanic Varieties
Stefan Schaffner
Biblical Gothic is the earliest Germanic language preserved in a longer text. The main source is represented by the Bible translation of the Visigothic Arian Christian bishop Wulfila ( born ca. 311, deceased ca. 382–383). Another few short Gothic texts are extant. For the translation of the Bible (ca. 350–380), on the basis of a Greek text, Wulfila invented his own alphabet (called Wulfila’s alphabet), using the Greek alphabet as model, with the addition of Latin and runic characters. Several manuscripts (5th/6th century; the most famous is the Uppsala Codex argenteus) contain the greater part of the New Testament. In spite of its fragmentary documentation, Gothic represents without doubt an important basis for the reconstruction of Proto-Germanic, because it offers—due to its early attestation—very archaic features in all areas of its grammar in comparison with the other old Germanic languages, the documentation of which began some centuries later. Gothic also shows recent innovations (especially the almost complete elimination of the effects of Verner’s Law within the strong verbs). The position of Gothic within the other Germanic subgroups, North and West Germanic, is still a matter of controversial discussion. Whereas older research stressed the correspondences between Gothic and North Germanic and, therefore, favored a closer relationship between them, postulating a subgroup Goto-Nordic, currently, a subgrouping into Northwest Germanic on the one hand and East Germanic (with Gothic as the most important representative) one the other hand is preferred, although this model also leaves open a couple of questions, giving impetus to further research. Other varieties of East Germanic are runic epigraphic texts (less than 10, most of them probably Gothic) from the 1st half of the 3rd century until the end of the 6th century. One of them (on the Charnay fibula, 2nd half of the 6th century) is probably of Burgundian origin. The documentation of other EGrm (East Germanic). languages is very poor and consists almost only of a few names. Two short syntagmata can probably be attributed to Vandalic. Crimean Gothic, the latest attested EGrm. language, is documented in a list of several dozen words and three lines of a cantilena. Most attested forms seem to represent a late EGrm. dialect.
Article
PPs and Particles in Germanic
Marion Elenbaas
Prepositional phrases (PPs) are headed by a preposition, an indeclinable word that expresses relationships between two entities, the Figure and the Ground. Prepositions are members of a larger class of adpositions, which also includes postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. The Germanic languages are predominantly prepositional, while postpositions and circumpositions are much rarer. Prepositions express either spatial (locative, directional) relationships or nonspatial (such as temporal, aspectual) relationships. PPs may function as nonargument modifiers (of verbs, nouns, adjectives) or as arguments (of verbs, nouns, adjectives). The syntax and argument structure of PPs is characterized by a range of phenomena that are found across the Germanic languages, though not necessarily to the same extent and with the same properties.
A number of prepositions are homonymous with so-called particles, which feature in what is often called a particle (or “phrasal”) verb. Particle verbs are extremely common in all Germanic languages and have an array of spatial and nonspatial meanings. While there is some variation in the morphosyntactic behavior of particle verbs across the Germanic languages, they have in common that they straddle the boundary between morphology and syntax: the verb and the particle behave as a unit, and yet they are separable. Particles are often treated as intransitive prepositions (with a Figure but without a Ground) and therefore as a type of adposition. The heterogeneous nature of the category of adposition and the characteristics of PPs and particles in Germanic languages have led to considerable debate concerning the functional or lexical nature of adpositions as well as the morphological (word) status or syntactic (phrasal) status of particle verbs.
Article
The Syntax of Causatives in the Romance Languages
Fabienne Martin
This article discusses the syntax of lexical and periphrastic causative verbs in the Romance languages. Several aspects of these verbs are examined: the building blocks of lexical causative verbs, the role of reflexive marking on the anticausative form, the interaction between causativity and agentivity, the morphosyntactic make-up of causative verbs with causative semantics. It offers a comprehensive typology of lexical causatives, resultatives and periphrastic causatives, relying on recent research on these topics.
Article
Diatheses in Germanic
Simon Kasper
An alternation between clauses is treated as a diathetical alternation (a) if one or more semantic roles associated with the main verb exhibit differential grammatical (i.e., morphological or syntactic) encoding, (b) if the overt lexical expressions have same lexical roots, and (c) if the clauses approximately share at least the meaning and truth conditions of the semantically less specific clause alternant. This qualifies as diathesis what has come to be known as the canonical passive, impersonal passive, non-canonical passive, pseudo-passive, anticausative, the dative alternation, and the locative alternation, among others. The focus of this article is on the semantic restrictions governing a clause’s participation in various diathetical alternations across the modern Germanic (standard) languages. Semantic differences between alternating clauses are captured using a sophisticated semantic role account. Grammatical encoding of diathesis is described in a theory-neutral manner using the four-case system of the old Germanic languages as a tertium comparationis and syntactic function notions from descriptive typology. Diatheses are differentiated by the semantic roles that are fore- and backgrounded by means of the syntactic functions they bear. The roles that alternate in grammatical coding are foregrounded in the clause in which they have the higher syntactic function in a syntactic function hierarchy, and they are backgrounded in the clause in which they have the lower syntactic function. In a first set of diatheses, alternations are described in which the proto-agent role is backgrounded and a proto-patient is foregrounded. This set includes a “patient passive” and the “anticausative domain.” In a second set of diatheses, the proto-agent is again backgrounded, but now the proto-recipient is foregrounded. This is illustrated using the “eventive recipient passive.” Completing this pattern, the “locational passive” represents a diathetical pattern in which the proto-agent role is backgrounded once more and the proto-locational role is foregrounded. Other types of diatheses in which the proto-locational is foregrounded and the proto-patient is backgrounded are exemplified by means of the location/possession alternation (dative alternation) and the location/affection alternation (e.g., locative and applicative alternations).
