1-17 of 17 Results

  • Keywords: categories x
Clear all


Parts of Speech, Lexical Categories, and Word Classes in Morphology  

Jaklin Kornfilt

The term “part of speech” is a traditional one that has been in use since grammars of Classical Greek (e.g., Dionysius Thrax) and Latin were compiled; for all practical purposes, it is synonymous with the term “word class.” The term refers to a system of word classes, whereby class membership depends on similar syntactic distribution and morphological similarity (as well as, in a limited fashion, on similarity in meaning—a point to which we shall return). By “morphological similarity,” reference is made to functional morphemes that are part of words belonging to the same word class. Some examples for both criteria follow: The fact that in English, nouns can be preceded by a determiner such as an article (e.g., a book, the apple) illustrates syntactic distribution. Morphological similarity among members of a given word class can be illustrated by the many adverbs in English that are derived by attaching the suffix –ly, that is, a functional morpheme, to an adjective (quick, quick-ly). A morphological test for nouns in English and many other languages is whether they can bear plural morphemes. Verbs can bear morphology for tense, aspect, and mood, as well as voice morphemes such as passive, causative, or reflexive, that is, morphemes that alter the argument structure of the verbal root. Adjectives typically co-occur with either bound or free morphemes that function as comparative and superlative markers. Syntactically, they modify nouns, while adverbs modify word classes that are not nouns—for example, verbs and adjectives. Most traditional and descriptive approaches to parts of speech draw a distinction between major and minor word classes. The four parts of speech just mentioned—nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs—constitute the major word classes, while a number of others, for example, adpositions, pronouns, conjunctions, determiners, and interjections, make up the minor word classes. Under some approaches, pronouns are included in the class of nouns, as a subclass. While the minor classes are probably not universal, (most of) the major classes are. It is largely assumed that nouns, verbs, and probably also adjectives are universal parts of speech. Adverbs might not constitute a universal word class. There are technical terms that are equivalents to the terms of major versus minor word class, such as content versus function words, lexical versus functional categories, and open versus closed classes, respectively. However, these correspondences might not always be one-to-one. More recent approaches to word classes don’t recognize adverbs as belonging to the major classes; instead, adpositions are candidates for this status under some of these accounts, for example, as in Jackendoff (1977). Under some other theoretical accounts, such as Chomsky (1981) and Baker (2003), only the three word classes noun, verb, and adjective are major or lexical categories. All of the accounts just mentioned are based on binary distinctive features; however, the features used differ from each other. While Chomsky uses the two category features [N] and [V], Jackendoff uses the features [Subj] and [Obj], among others, focusing on the ability of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adpositions to take (directly, without the help of other elements) subjects (thus characterizing verbs and nouns) or objects (thus characterizing verbs and adpositions). Baker (2003), too, uses the property of taking subjects, but attributes it only to verbs. In his approach, the distinctive feature of bearing a referential index characterizes nouns, and only those. Adjectives are characterized by the absence of both of these distinctive features. Another important issue addressed by theoretical studies on lexical categories is whether those categories are formed pre-syntactically, in a morphological component of the lexicon, or whether they are constructed in the syntax or post-syntactically. Jackendoff (1977) is an example of a lexicalist approach to lexical categories, while Marantz (1997), and Borer (2003, 2005a, 2005b, 2013) represent an account where the roots of words are category-neutral, and where their membership to a particular lexical category is determined by their local syntactic context. Baker (2003) offers an account that combines properties of both approaches: words are built in the syntax and not pre-syntactically; however, roots do have category features that are inherent to them. There are empirical phenomena, such as phrasal affixation, phrasal compounding, and suspended affixation, that strongly suggest that a post-syntactic morphological component should be allowed, whereby “syntax feeds morphology.”


The Status of Heads in Morphology  

Beata Moskal and Peter W. Smith

Headedness is a pervasive phenomenon throughout different components of the grammar, which fundamentally encodes an asymmetry between two or more items, such that one is in some sense more important than the other(s). In phonology for instance, the nucleus is the head of the syllable, and not the onset or the coda, whereas in syntax, the verb is the head of a verb phrase, rather than any complements or specifiers that it combines with. It makes sense, then, to question whether the notion of headedness applies to the morphology as well; specifically, do words—complex or simplex—have heads that determine the properties of the word as a whole? Intuitively it makes sense that words have heads: a noun that is derived from an adjective like redness can function only as a noun, and the presence of red in the structure does not confer on the whole form the ability to function as an adjective as well. However, this question is a complex one for a variety of reasons. While it seems clear for some phenomena such as category determination that words have heads, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the properties of complex words are not all derived from one morpheme, but rather that the features are gathered from potentially numerous morphemes within the same word. Furthermore, properties that characterize heads compared to dependents, particularly based on syntactic behavior, do not unambigously pick out a single element, but the tests applied to morphology at times pick out affixes, and at times pick out bases as the head of the whole word.


Syntactic Features  

Peter Svenonius

Syntactic features are formal properties of syntactic objects which determine how they behave with respect to syntactic constraints and operations (such as selection, licensing, agreement, and movement). Syntactic features can be contrasted with properties which are purely phonological, morphological, or semantic, but many features are relevant both to syntax and morphology, or to syntax and semantics, or to all three components. The formal theory of syntactic features builds on the theory of phonological features, and normally takes morphosyntactic features (those expressed in morphology) to be the central case, with other, possibly more abstract features being modeled on the morphosyntactic ones. Many aspects of the formal nature of syntactic features are currently unresolved. Some traditions (such as HPSG) make use of rich feature structures as an analytic tool, while others (such as Minimalism) pursue simplicity in feature structures in the interest of descriptive restrictiveness. Nevertheless, features are essential to all explicit analyses.


Syntactic Categorization of Roots  

Terje Lohndal

A root is a fundamental minimal unit in words. Some languages do not allow their roots to appear on their own, as in the Semitic languages where roots consist of consonant clusters that become stems or words by virtue of vowel insertion. Other languages appear to allow roots to surface without any additional morphology, as in English car. Roots are typically distinguished from affixes in that affixes need a host, although this varies within different theories. Traditionally roots have belonged to the domain of morphology. More recently, though, new theories have emerged according to which words are decomposed and subject to the same principles as sentences. That makes roots a fundamental building block of sentences, unlike words. Contemporary syntactic theories of roots hold that they have little if any grammatical information, which raises the question of how they acquire their seemingly grammatical properties. A central issue has revolved around whether roots have a lexical category inherently or whether they are given a lexical category in some other way. Two main theories are distributed morphology and the exoskeletal approach to grammar. The former holds that roots merge with categorizers in the grammar: a root combined with a nominal categorizer becomes a noun, and a root combined with a verbal categorizer becomes a verb. On the latter approach, it is argued that roots are inserted into syntactic structures which carry the relevant category, meaning that the syntactic environment is created before roots are inserted into the structure. The two views make different predictions and differ in particular in their view of the status of empty categorizers.


Conversion in Germanic  

Martina Werner

In Germanic languages, conversion is seen as a change in category (i.e., syntactic category, word class, part of speech) without (overt) affixation. Conversion is attested in all Germanic languages. The definition of conversion as transposition or as derivation with a so-called zero-affix, which is responsible for the word-class change, depends on the language-specific part-of-speech system as well as, as often argued, the direction of conversion. Different types of conversion (e.g., from adjective to noun) are attested in Germanic languages, which differ especially semantically from each other. Although minor conversion types are attested, the main conversion types in Germanic languages are verb-to-noun conversion (deverbal nouns), adjective-to-noun conversion (deadjectival nouns), and noun-to-verb conversion (denominal verbs). Due to the characteristics of word-class change, conversion displays many parallels to derivational processes such as the directionality of category change and the preservation of lexical and grammatical properties of the underlying stem such as argument structure. Some, however, have argued that conversion does not exist as a specific rule and is only a symptom of lexical relisting. Another question is whether two such words are related by a conversion process that is still productive or are lexically listed relics of a now unproductive process. Furthermore, the direction of conversion of present-day Germanic, for example, the identification of the word class of the input before being converted, is unclear sometimes. Generally, deverbal and deadjectival nominal conversion in Germanic languages is semantically more transparent than denominal and deadjectival verbal conversion: despite the occurrence of some highly frequent, but lexicalized counterexamples, the semantic impact of conversion is only sometimes predictable, slightly more in the nominal domain than in the verbal domain. The semantics of verb formation by conversion (e.g., whether conversion leads to causative readings or not) is hardly predictable. Overall, conversion in Germanic is considered a process with multiple linkages to other morphological phenomena such as derivation, back-formation, and inflectional categories such as grammatical gender. Due to the lack of formal markers, conversion is considered non-iconic. The different kinds of conversions are merely based on language-specific mechanisms, but what all Germanic languages share at least is the ability to form nominal conversion, which is independent of their typological characteristics as isolating-analytic versus inflectional-fusional languages. This is surprising given the crosslinguistic prevalence of verbal conversion in the languages of the world.


Grammaticalization in Morphology  

Muriel Norde

Grammaticalization is traditionally defined as the gradual process whereby a lexical item becomes a grammatical item (primary grammaticalization), which may be followed by further formal and semantic reduction (secondary grammaticalization). It is a composite change that may affect both phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic-pragmatic properties of a morpheme, and it is found in all the world’s languages. On the level of morphology, grammaticalization has been shown to have various effects, ranging from the loss of inflection in primary grammaticalization to the development of bound morphemes or new inflectional classes in secondary grammaticalization. Well-known examples include the development of future auxiliaries from motion verbs (e.g., English to be going to), and the development of the Romance inflection future (e.g., French chanter-ai ‘I sing’, chanter-as ‘you sing’, etc., from a verb meaning ‘to have’). Although lexical-grammatical change is overwhelmingly unidirectional, shifts in the reverse direction, called degrammaticalization, have also been shown to occur. Like grammaticalization, degrammaticalization is a composite change, which is characterized by an increase in phonological and semantic substance as well as in morphosyntactic autonomy. Accordingly, the effects on morphology are different from those in grammaticalization. In primary degrammaticalization new inflections may be acquired (e.g., the Welsh verb nôl ‘to fetch,’ from an adposition meaning ‘after’), and erstwhile bound morphemes may become free morphemes (e.g., English ish). As such effects are also found in other types of changes, degrammaticalization needs to be clearly delineated from those. For example, a shift from a minor to a major category (e.g., English ifs and buts) or the lexicalization of bound affixes (isms), likewise result in new inflections, but these are instantaneous changes, not gradual ones.


Morphology in Austronesian Languages  

Theodore Levin and Maria Polinsky

This is an overview of the major morphological properties of Austronesian languages. We present and analyze data that may bear on the commonly discussed lexical-category neutrality of Austronesian and suggest that Austronesian languages do differentiate between core lexical categories. We address the difference between roots and stems showing that Austronesian roots are more abstract than roots traditionally discussed in morphology. Austronesian derivation and inflexion rely on suffixation and prefixation; some infixation is also attested. Austronesian languages make extensive use of reduplication. In the verbal system, main morphological exponents mark voice distinctions as well as causatives and applicatives. In the nominal domain, the main morphological exponents include case markers, classifiers, and possession markers. Overall, verbal morphology is richer in Austronesian languages than nominal morphology. We also present a short overview of empirically and theoretically challenging issues in Austronesian morphology: the status of infixes and circumfixes, the difference between affixes and clitics, and the morphosyntactic characterization of voice morphology.


Functional Categories: Complementizers and Adpositions  

Lena Baunaz

The standard observation is that complementizers corresponding to English that involve the illocutionary force of the clause, but the situation is not that simple, as factivity and modality may come into play, too. Complementizers are cross-linguistically systematically morpho-phonologically identical to other categories like nouns, verbs, and adpositions (that is, prepositions and post-positions). Recently there have been attempts to account for the formal identity of complementizers with other categories by decomposing the complementizer morpheme into smaller pieces. New ways of thinking about function words like complementizers and (some) prepositions involve digging into their internal structure(s) through determining the presence or absence of structural homogeneity within and across languages or by taking a nanosyntactic approach to cross-category syncretism.


Typological Concepts and Descriptive Categories for Chinese Characters  

Jianming Wu

The typological concepts of graphemes, morphemes, and words are key to linguistic analyses for many languages. In the Western linguistic tradition, graphemes are generally defined as the smallest written signs that may stand for a consonant, a vowel, or a syllable in speech. Morphemes are typically regarded as the minimal linguistic forms with a meaning or function. And words are commonly identified as the minimal free form in a sentence. However, these typological concepts are closely related to but are critically different from the three descriptive categories in Chinese, namely, 基础构件jī chǔ gòu jiàn ‘basic components’, 字zì ‘characters’, and 字组zì zǔ ‘character groups’. jī chǔ gòu jiàn ‘basic components’ are the smallest functional units in the formation of Chinese characters. zì ‘characters’ are visually and auditorily distinct units in Chinese. They are connected to the concept of morphemes but mean much more than a morpheme. zì zǔ ‘character groups’ are word-like units, which consist of two or more characters that are joined together, primarily in a disyllabic unit, yet the boundary between syntax and morphology is blurred among character groups.


Morphology in Cognitive Linguistics  

Tore Nesset

Cognitive linguistics and morphology bear the promise of a happy marriage. Cognitive linguistics provides theoretical concepts and analytical tools for empirical analysis, while morphology offers fertile ground for testing hypotheses and refining core concepts. It is no wonder, then, that numerous contributions to the field of morphology have been couched in cognitive linguistics, and that morphological phenomena have figured prominently in cognitive linguistics. Cognitive linguistics is a family of closely related frameworks that share the idea that language should be analyzed in terms of what is known about the mind and brain from disciplines other than linguistics. Cognitive linguistics furthermore adopts a semiotic perspective, claiming that the raison d’êtreof language is to convey meaning. Another central tenet is the usage-based approach, the idea that grammar emerges through usage, which implies a strong focus on language use in cognitive linguistics. An example of how cognitive linguistics relates morphology to general principles of cognition is the application of general principles of categorization to morphology. Morphological categories are analyzed as radial categories, that is, networks structured around a prototype. Such category networks can be comprised of the allomorphs of a morpheme or be used to model theoretical concepts such as paradigm and inflection class. The radial category is also instrumental in analyzing the meaning of morphological concepts. Rather than assuming abstract invariant meanings for morphemes, cognitive linguistics analyzes the meaning of morphological phenomena through networks of interrelated meanings. The relationships among the nodes in a category network are analyzed in terms of general cognitive processes, such as metaphor, metonymy, and blending. The usage-based approach of cognitive linguistics manifests itself in the strong focus on frequency effects in morphology. It is argued that frequency is an important structuring principle in cognition, and that frequent forms have a privileged status in a morphological paradigm.


Nominalizations in the Romance Languages  

Antonio Fábregas and Rafael Marín

The term nominalization refers to a specific type of category-changing morphological operation that produces nouns from other lexical categories, most productively verbs and adjectives. By extension, it is also used to refer to the resulting derived nouns. In Romance languages, nominalization generally involves addition of a suffix to the base (cf. Italian generoso ‘generous’ > generos-ità ‘generosity’), and such suffixes are called nominalizers. However there are also cases of nouns built from other categories without any overt nominalizer (cf. Spanish inútil ‘useless’ > inútil ‘useless person’); descriptively, this process is called conversion, and it is debatable whether it should also be treated as a nominalization or whether another different kind of morphological operation is involved here. Nominalizations can be divided in several classes depending on a variety of semantic and syntactic factors, such as the type of entities that they denote or the ability to introduce arguments. The main nominalization classes are (a) complex event nominalizations, which come from verbs, can combine with some temporal and aspectual modifiers, and have the ability to introduce at least an internal argument; (b) state nominalizations, which denote states associated to the verbs that serve as their bases; (c) participant nominalizations, which denote different types of arguments of the base, such as agents, resulting objects, locations or recipients; and (d) quality nominalizations, coming from adjectives and more restrictively from verbs, which denote a set of properties related to their base. Different classes of predicates select for different nominalization types, and there is a debate surrounding which tests capture in a more complete way the nuances of this taxonomy. Nominalizers impose different types of restrictions to their bases: aspectual restrictions (individual-level vs. stage-level, (a) telicity, dynamicity, etc.), argument structure restrictions (agent vs. nonagent, different types of internal arguments), morphological restrictions (for instance, selecting only verbs that belong to a particular conjugation class), and finally conceptual restrictions (for instance, showing a strong preference for bases belonging to a particular conceptual domain). In Romance languages, nominalizations sometimes alternate with other word classes, most significantly infinitives (see article on “Infinitival Clauses in the Romance Languages” in this encyclopedia). Infinitival constructions in Romance can display a mixture of verbal and nominal properties, or be totally recategorized as nouns, and in both cases they can compete with prototypical nominalizations. Less generally, participles (see article on “Participial Relative Clauses” in this encyclopedia), gerunds and supines can also display nominalization properties in some Romance varieties.


Subordinate and Synthetic Compounds in Morphology  

Chiara Melloni

Subordinate and synthetic represent well-attested modes of compounding across languages. Although the two classes exhibit some structural and interpretative analogies cross-linguistically, they denote distinct phenomena and entail different parameters of classification. Specifically, subordinate makes reference to the grammatical relation between the compound members, which hold a syntactic dependency (i.e., head-argument) relation; synthetic makes reference to the synthesis or concomitance of two processes (i.e., compounding and derivation). Therefore, while the former term implies the presence of a syntactic relation realized at the word level, the latter has strictly morphological implications and does not directly hinge on the nature of the relation between the compound members. Typical examples of subordinate compounds are [V+N]N formations like pickpocket, a class which is scarcely productive in English but largely attested in most Romance and many other languages (e.g., Italian lavapiatti ‘wash-dishes, dishwater’). Other instances of subordinate compounds are of the type [V+N]V, differing from the pickpocket type since the output is a verb, as in Chinese dài-găng ‘wait for-post, wait for a job’. The presence of a verb, however, is not compulsory since possible instances of subordinate compounds can be found among [N+N]N, [A+N]A, and [P+N]N/A compounds, among others: The consistent feature across subordinate compounds is the complementation relation holding between the constituents, whereby one of the two fills in an argumental slot of the other constituent. For instance, the N tetto ‘roof’ complements P in the Italian compound senza-tetto ‘without-roof, homeless person’, and the N stazione ‘station’ is the internal argument of the relational noun capo in capo-stazione ‘chief-station, station-master’. Synthetic compounds can envisage a subordination relation, as in truck driv-er/-ing, where truck is the internal argument of driver (or driving), so that they are often viewed as the prototypical subordinates. However, subordination does not feature in all synthetic compounds whose members can hold a modification/attribution relation, as in short-legged and three-dimensional: In these cases, the adjective (or numeral) is not an argument but a modifier of the other constituent. The hallmark of a synthetic compound is the presence of a derivational affix having scope over a compound/complex form, though being linearly attached and forming an established (or possible) word with one constituent only. This mismatch between semantics and formal structure has engendered a lively theoretical debate about the nature of these formations. Adopting a binary-branching analysis of morphological complexes, the debate has considered whether the correct analysis for synthetic compounds is the one shown in (1) or (2), which implies answering the question whether derivation applies before or after compounding. (1) a.[[truck] [driv-er]] b. [[short] [leg(g)-ed]] (2) a. [[[truck] [drive]] -er] b. [[[short] [leg(g)]]-ed] Interestingly, the structural and interpretative overlap between subordinate and synthetic compounds with a deverbal head is well represented across language groups: Synthetic compounds of the type in (1–2) are very productive in Germanic languages but virtually absent in Romance languages, where this gap is compensated for by the productive class of subordinate [V+N]N compounds, like Italian porta-lettere ‘carry-letters, mailman’, which are the interpretative analogous of Germanic synthetic formations. The difference between the two complexes lies in constituent order, V+N in Romance versus N+V in Germanic, and lack of an (overt) derivational affix in Romance languages.


Morphology in Indo-European Languages  

Paolo Milizia

Indo-European languages of the most archaic type, such as Old Indic and Ancient Greek, have rich fusional morphologies with predominant use of suffixation and ablaut as formal devices. The presence of cumulative inflectional morphs in final position is also a general IE feature. A noteworthy property of the archaic IE morphological system is its root-based organization. This is well observable in Old Indo-Aryan, where the mental lexicon is largely made up of roots unspecified for word-class membership. In the historical development of the different IE branches, recurrent phenomena are observed that lead to an increase in configurationality and a decrease in the degree of synthesis (use of adpositions at the expense of case forms, rise of auxiliaries and increasing employment of periphrastic morphology, creation of determiners). However, not all the documented developments can be subsumed under the rubric ‘morphological decay’: new synthetic verbal forms, which often coexist with the inherited ones, are often created via resynthesization of periphrases; new nominal case forms are sometimes created through univerbation of adpositional phrases; instances of prefixation recurrently arise from former compound structures consisting of adverb (‘preverb’) + verb. The formation of inflectional paradigms with several mutually unpredictable subsections and of relatively complex systems of inflectional classes is also observed in various IE languages. The same holds for the rising of new patterns of morphophonological alternations, which often allow the preservation of several morphological oppositions even after the loss of inflectional endings. As a consequence, modern IE languages may exhibit higher degrees of fusionality, at least in specific morphological subsystems, than their diachronic foregoers. In the various branches, the system of inflectional morphology could undergo several reshapings at the level of both the structure of grammatical categories and the formal organization of paradigms, sometimes with noteworthy typological changes. English poor morphology, Ossetic and New Armenian agglutinative nominal inflections, lack of verbal inflection of number, and presence of numeral classifiers in Eastern New Indo-Aryan varieties are among the examples of extreme departure from the ancient IE morphological type. A common development concerning word formation is the decline of the root-based organization of morphology.


The Acquisition of Color Words  

Katie Wagner and David Barner

Human experience of color results from a complex interplay of perceptual and linguistic systems. At the lowest level of perception, the human visual system transforms the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum into a rich, continuous three-dimensional experience of color. Despite our ability to perceptually discriminate millions of different color shades, most languages categorize color into a number of discrete color categories. While the meanings of color words are constrained by perception, perception does not fully define them. Once color words are acquired, they may in turn influence our memory and processing speed for color, although it is unlikely that language influences the lowest levels of color perception. One approach to examining the relationship between perception and language in forming our experience of color is to study children as they acquire color language. Children produce color words in speech for many months before acquiring adult meanings for color words. Research in this area has focused on whether children’s difficulties stem from (a) an inability to identify color properties as a likely candidate for word meanings, or alternatively (b) inductive learning of language-specific color word boundaries. Lending plausibility to the first account, there is evidence that children more readily attend to object traits like shape, rather than color, as likely candidates for word meanings. However, recent evidence has found that children have meanings for some color words before they begin to produce them in speech, indicating that in fact, they may be able to successfully identify color as a candidate for word meaning early in the color word learning process. There is also evidence that prelinguistic infants, like adults, perceive color categorically. While these perceptual categories likely constrain the meanings that children consider, they cannot fully define color word meanings because languages vary in both the number and location of color word boundaries. Recent evidence suggests that the delay in color word acquisition primarily stems from an inductive process of refining these boundaries.


Acoustic Theories of Speech Perception  

Melissa Redford and Melissa Baese-Berk

Acoustic theories assume that speech perception begins with an acoustic signal transformed by auditory processing. In classical acoustic theory, this assumption entails perceptual primitives that are akin to those identified in the spectral analyses of speech. The research objective is to link these primitives with phonological units of traditional descriptive linguistics via sound categories and then to understand how these units/categories are bound together in time to recognize words. Achieving this objective is challenging because the signal is replete with variation, making the mapping of signal to sound category nontrivial. Research that grapples with the mapping problem has led to many basic findings about speech perception, including the importance of cue redundancy to category identification and of differential cue weighting to category formation. Research that grapples with the related problem of binding categories into words for speech processing motivates current neuropsychological work on speech perception. The central focus on the mapping problem in classical theory has also led to an alternative type of acoustic theory, namely, exemplar-based theory. According to this type of acoustic theory, variability is critical for processing talker-specific information during speech processing. The problems associated with mapping acoustic cues to sound categories is not addressed because exemplar-based theories assume that perceptual traces of whole words are perceptual primitives. Smaller units of speech sound representation, as well as the phonology as a whole, are emergent from the word-based representations. Yet, like classical acoustic theories, exemplar-based theories assume that production is mediated by a phonology that has no inherent motor information. The presumed disconnect between acoustic and motor information during perceptual processing distinguishes acoustic theories as a class from other theories of speech perception.


Phrase Structure and Movement in Japanese  

Mamoru Saito

Japanese exhibits some unique features with respect to phrase structure and movement. It is well-known that its phrase structure is strictly head-final. It also provides ample evidence that a sentence may have more complex structure than its surface form suggests. Causative sentences are the best-known example of this. They appear to be simple sentences with verbs accompanying the causative suffix, -sase. But the causative suffix is an independent verb and takes a small clause vP complement in the syntactic representation. Japanese sentences can have a rich structure in the right periphery. For example, embedded clauses may contain up to three overt complementizers, corresponding to Finite (no), Interrogative (ka), and Report/Force (to). Matrix clauses may end in a sequence of discourse particles, such as wa, yo, and ne. Each of the complementizers and discourse particles has a selectional requirement of its own. More research is required to settle on the functional heads in the nominal structure. Among the controversial issues are whether D is present and whether Case markers should be analyzed as independent heads. Various kinds of movement operations are observed in the language. NP-movement to the subject position takes place in passive and unaccusative sentences, and clausal comparatives and clefts are derived by operator-movement. Scrambling is a unique movement operation that should be distinguished from both NP-movement and operator-movement. It does not establish operator-variable relations but is not subject to the locality requirements imposed on NP-movement. It cannot be PF-movement as it creates new binding possibilities. It is still debated whether head movement, for example, the movement of verb to tense, takes place in the language.


Nominal Ellipsis in Chinese  

Audrey Yen-hui Li and Ting-chi Wei

Chinese prominently allows its subjects and objects (arguments) or parts of arguments to be omitted (labeled as nominal ellipsis). This partially contributes to the widespread perception that Chinese is a discourse-oriented or topic-prominent language and that discourse/context or pragmatics are responsible for leaving elements unsaid and for interpreting them; what will be understood from context can be omitted. This article emphasizes the fact that, even though context can be a factor, the acceptability of nominal ellipsis and the different interpretive possibilities for null subjects and null objects must follow grammatical constraints. Such restrictions are not predicted or accommodated by approaches that analyze null subjects and null objects in the same way or by a deletion mechanism applying to the Phonological Form (PF-deletion). Available proposals that treat null subjects and null objects differently are evaluated and it will be shown that null subjects and null objects can be distinguished without stipulations. A null subject can be an empty pronoun but not a null object. A null object is a placeholder that is empty in content. Such an empty element is also responsible for the fact that noun phrases restrict their subparts that can be missing. Missing contents are filled via copying of lexical materials at the Logical Form (LF-copying).