Ad Neeleman

Radical Pro Drop and the Morphology of Pronouns

We propose a new generalization governing the crosslinguistic distribution of radical pro drop (the type of pro drop found in Chinese). It occurs only in languages whose pronouns are agglutinating for case, number, or some other nominal feature. Other types of languages cannot omit pronouns freely, although they may have agreement-based pro drop. This generalization can for the most part be derived from three assumptions. (a) Spell-out rules for pronouns may target nonterminal categories. (b) Pro drop is zero spell-out (i.e., deletion) of regular pronouns. (c) Competition between spell-out rules is governed by the Elsewhere Principle. A full derivation relies on an acquisitional strategy motivated by the absence of negative evidence. We test our proposal using data from a sample of twenty languages and The World Atlas of Language Structures (Haspelmath et al. 2005).

The Configurational Matrix

This article presents a theory of grammatical dependencies that is in accordance with basic assumptions of bare phrase structure theory. It explains Kosters (1987) configurational matrix, the observation that such dependencies share five properties: c-command by the antecedent, obligatoriness, uniqueness of the antecedent, nonuniqueness of the dependent, and locality. The theory is based on two primitive syntactic relations (copying and function application) and a nonatomic view of nodes.

CONTEXT-SENSITIVE SPELL-OUT

This paper deals with a class of morphological alternations that seem to involve syntactic adjacency. More specifically, it deals with alternative realizations of syntactic terminals that occur when a particular phrase immediately follows a particular head. We argue that this type of allomorphy is not conditioned by a syntactic adjacency condition. Instead, it is found when the head and phrase in question are contained in the same prosodic phrase at the interface that connects syntax and phonology (PF). We illustrate our approach with six case studies, concerning agreement weakening in Dutch and Arabic, pronoun weakening in Middle Dutch and Celtic, and pro-drop in Old French and Arabic.

Effects of Short-Term Storage in Processing Rightward Movement

There is a striking asymmetry between leftward and rightward movement in syntax: whereas leftward movement can in principle be unbounded, rightward movement is subject to very strict locality conditions. There are two possible approaches to explaining this asymmetry. One can either assume that some syntactic principle disfavours rightward movement, or that some mechanism having to do with sentence processing is responsible. In this chapter we will argue that a processing approach to limitations on rightward movement is more fruitful. In particular, we will argue that the human parser cannot process certain instances of rightward movement because the introduction of an antecedent-trace relation leads to a conflict with information about the parse which is already stored in short-term memory before this relation can be established. Similar problems do not occur in cases of leftward movement.

Predication, verb movement and the distribution of expletives

This paper argues that predication theory is instrumental in capturing the distribution of expletives. (i) In interaction with well-known verb movement parameters, predication theory explains why not all languages have transitive expletive constructions. Conditions on the assignment of external thematic roles have the effect that the functional domain of a clause is only large enough to host both an expletive and a subject if the verb undergoes verb second as well as V to I. (ii) On the assumption that sufficiently rich inflection is argumental, predication theory also provides a trigger for V to I. It is argued that, after verb movement, I can be interpreted as VPs subject. This explains why rich inflection blocks expletive insertion within the verbs predicational domain. (iii) Finally, predication theory forces an analysis of NP raising as predicate formation. As a result, NP raising is optional in many languages, even if no expletive is inserted.

FOCUS, CONTRAST, AND STRESS IN RUSSIAN

FOCUS, CONTRAST, AND STRESS IN RUSSIAN Ad Neeleman University College London Elena Titov University College London Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. Reduplicative constructions. In Universals of human language. Vol. 3, Word structure, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 297–334. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Raimy, Eric. 2000. The phonology and morphology of reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Shaw, Patricia A. 2005. Non-adjacency in reduplication. In Studies on reduplication, ed. by Bernhard Hurch, 161–210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 2000. The bases of double reduplication. In WCCFL 19: Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Roger Billerey and Brooke Danielle Lillehaugen, 173–183. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Ascending and Descending VPs in English

We argue that English allows both rightward-descending VP shell structures and more traditional rightward-ascending VPs. The choice between these depends on case theory and economy. Case theory triggers VP shell formation whenever the verb is merged with a DP object after it has been merged with some other category. The reason is that VP shell formation allows verb and object to surface in adjacent positions, a prerequisite for case licensing in English. Economy has the effect that in all other circumstances, VP shell formation is blocked. Our argument is based on a range of intricate data, many of which involve the distribution of object-oriented floating quantifiers. We end with a discussion of the binding data that are often taken to support a uniformly descending structure—incorrectly, in our view.

Conflict resolution in passive formation

In this paper we will argue that a typology of passive formation can be derived from the optimality-theoretic interaction between three well-known constraints. These are the Extended Projection Principle (VP must have a subject), Stay (do not move) and Parse (elements from the input should occur in the output). The analysis will not only account for different forms of passives (personal passives versus impersonal passives) but also for languages which lack passives (of certain verbs or altogether). To account for this we employ the socalled null parse, a candidate without structure.

Agreement Weakening at PF: A Reply to Benmamoun and Lorimor

Benmamoun and Lorimor (2006) dispute the claim made in Ackema and Neeleman 2003 that certain agreement alternations in Standard Arabic, and various related phenomena, can successfully be analyzed in terms of postsyntactic spell-out rules that are sensitive to prosodic structure. In this reply, we argue that the data discussed by Benmamoun and Lorimor do not warrant their conclusion, and in fact provide further evidence in favor of our original analysis.

Word-Formation in Optimality Theory

A grammar can be defined as the set of principles that distinguish the possible morpheme combinations, word combinations and sound combinations in a language from the impossible ones. In traditional grammars a possible word, sentence or syllable is one that satisfies all the principles pertaining to it. Data may be accounted for by a conspiracy of principles, but the principles themselves do not compete with one another. No principle is violated in order to avoid violating another principle. In fact, no principles are violated at all in a grammatical sentence; violation of even a single grammatical principle inexorably means ungrammaticality. In recent years, theories of grammar have come up in which this no longer holds true, in particular Optimality Theory (henceforth OT) (see Prince and Smolensky 2004 [1993]). This theory emphasizes the role of competition in determining which forms are grammatical and which are not. The crucial question is which of a number of forms that compete for the realization of a particular concept satisfies the principles of grammar better than the others (where ‘better’ is defined in a precise way, to be discussed shortly). This will be the grammatical structure. This implies that grammatical structures can violate principles of grammar – as long as there is no competitor that does better. This also implies that different principles of grammar can impose demands on structure that are in direct conflict (meaning that in any structure at least one of them will be violated). Let us sketch the outlines of an OT-style grammar in a bit more detail. Such a grammar consists of two components. The first is a device, called GEN(erator), that determines how elements can be combined into a structure. The demands that GEN imposes on structures cannot be violated. (Thus, there remains room for inviolable principles in OT). Below, we will assume a minimal GEN component for morphology, one in which an operation of merger is applied to morphemes, so that hierarchically ordered structures for words are built. This parallels the building of structure in syntax, but the morphological GENerator is distinct from the syntactic one and builds structures specifically for the sub-word level. In other words, we assume word structures are not the result of operations in phrasal syntax such as head movement. For a defense of such a specific ‘word syntax’ component to build