Andrew Carnie

Argument hierarchies and the mapping principle

Introduction Andrew Carnie and Heidi Harley Part I: Configurationality and the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis 1. Empty Categories, Case and Configurationality, 1984 Eloise Jelinek 2. The bi-Construction and Pronominal Arguments in Apachean, 1989 Merton Sandoval and Eloise Jelinek 3. Predicates and Pronominal Arguments in Straits Salish, 1994 Eloise Jelinek and Richard Demers 4. Navajo as a Discourse Configurational Language, 2000 Mary Ann Willie and Eloise Jelinek 5. The Pronominal Argument Parameter, 2006 Eloise Jelinek Part II: Hierarchies, Information Structure, and Semantic Mapping 6. Auxiliaries and Ergative Splits: A Typological Parameter, 1987 Eloise Jelinek 7. The Case Split and Argument Type in Choctaw, 1989 Eloise Jelinek 8. Ergative Splits and Argument Type, 1993 Eloise Jelinek 9. Distributing Arguments, 1995 Molly Diesing and Eloise Jelinek 10. Argument Hierarchies and the Mapping Principle, 2003 Eloise Jelinek and Andrew Carnie Part III: Yaqui Morphosyntax 11. Double Accusative Constructions in Yaqui, 1989 Eloise Jelinek and Fernando Escalante 12. Voice and Transitivity as Functional Projections in Yaqui, 1998 Eloise Jelinek 13. Quantification in Yaqui Possessive Sentences, 2003 Eloise Jelinek 14. Impersonal Agreement in a non-Agreement Language: The Hiaki Impersonal Construction Previously unpublished, Eloise Jelinek and Heidi Harley

On the Definition of X0 and XP

In this article, an underdetermined theory of phrasality is presented, in which bar level plays no role with respect to the rest of the grammar. Evidence for this comes from mismatches in bar level and behavior in Irish and Tagalog nonverbal predication structures, Irish construct state nominals, and Persian nominals.

The routledge handbook of syntax

Table of Contents Table of Contents Editors Introduction Contributors Acknowledgements Part 1 Constituency, Categories and Structure * Merge, Labeling and Projection Naoki Fukui and Hiroki Narita * Argument Structure Jaume Mateu * The Integration, Proliferation and Expansion of Functional Categories, Lisa deMena Travis * Functional Structure Inside Nominal Phrases Jeffrey Punske * The Syntax of Adjectives Artemis Alexiadou 6 The Syntax of Adverbs, Thomas Ernst Part 2 Syntactic Phenomena * Head Movement Michael Barrie and Eric Mathieu * Case and Grammatical Relations Maria Polinsky and Omer Preminger * A-bar Movement Norvin Richards * The Syntax of Ellipsis and Related Phenomena Masaya Yoshida, Chizuru Nakao and Ivan Ortega-Santos * Binding Theory Robert Truswell * Control Theory Norbert Hornstein and Jairo Nunes * Scrambling Yosuke Sato and Nobu Goto * Noun Incorporation, Nonconfigurationality, and Polysynthesis Kumiko Murasugi Part 3 Syntactic Interfaces * The Syntax-Semantics/Pragmatics Interface Sylvia L.R. Schreiner * The Syntax-Lexicon Interface Peter Ackema * The Morphology-Syntax Interface Daniel Siddiqi * Prosodic Domains and Syntax-Phonology Interface Dobashi Yoshihito Part 4 Syntax in Context * Syntactic Change Ian Roberts * Syntax in Forward and in Reverse: Form, Memory, and Language Processing Matt Wagers * Major Theories in Acquisition of Syntax Research Susannah Kirby * The Evolutionary Origins of Syntax Maggie Tallerman Part 5 Theoretical Approaches to Syntax 23. The History of Syntax Peter Culicover 24. Comparative Syntax Martin Haspelmath 25 Principles and Parameters/Minimalism Juan Uriagereka and Terje Lohndal 26 Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Felix Bildhauer 27 Lexical-Functional Grammar George Aaron Broadwall 28 Role and Reference Grammar Robert Van Valin 29 Dependency Grammar Timothy Osborne 30 Morphosyntax in Functional Discourse Grammar Lachlan MacKenzie 31 Construction Grammar Seizi Iwata 32 Categorial Grammar Mark Steedman Index

Vowel insertion in Scottish Gaelic

Phonology / Volume 31 / Issue 01 / May 2014, pp 123 153 DOI: 10.1017/S0952675714000050, Published online: 20 May 2014 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0952675714000050 How to cite this article: Michael Hammond, Natasha Warner, Andréa Davis, Andrew Carnie, Diana Archangeli and Muriel Fisher (2014). Vowel insertion in Scottish Gaelic . Phonology, 31, pp 123-153 doi:10.1017/S0952675714000050 Request Permissions : Click here

The aerodynamic puzzle of nasalized fricatives: Aerodynamic and perceptual evidence from Scottish Gaelic

Abstract Scottish Gaelic is sometimes described as having nasalized fricatives (/ṽ/ distinctively, and [f̃, x̃, h̃], etc. through assimilation). However, there are claims that it is not aerodynamically possible to open the velum for nasalization while maintaining frication noise. We present aerodynamic data from 14 native Scottish Gaelic speakers to determine how the posited nasalized fricatives in this language are realized. Most tokens demonstrate loss of nasalization, but nasalization does occur in some contexts without aerodynamic conflict, e.g., nasalization with the consonant realized as an approximant, nasalization of [h̃], nasalization on the preceding vowel, or sequential frication and nasalization. Furthermore, a very few tokens do contain simultaneous nasalization and frication with a trade-off in airflow. We also present perceptual evidence showing that Gaelic listeners can hear this distinction slightly better than chance. Thus, instrumental data from one of the few languages in the world described as having nasalized fricatives confirms that the claimed sounds are not made by producing strong nasalization concurrently with clear frication noise. Furthermore, although speakers most often neutralize the nasalization, when they maintain it, they do so through a variety of phonetic mechanisms, even within a single language.

Shifting objects and procrastinating subjects

We claim that the Minimalist framework of Chomsky (1993) predicts VSO to be t he unmarked word order in a language which has both verb raising and Object Shift (in the sense of Holmberg (1986)). This paper has two sections: In section 1, we will show that ob ject shift entails a subject positions lower than the specifier of AgrS. Thus, in a language wit h verb raising to AgrS, VSO order would be derived trivially. In section 2, we will show how this works in Irish, a language with both overt object shift and VSO matrix ordering. The basic clause structure we assume is (1) after Chomsky (1993): (1) [agrsp AgrS [tp T [agrop AgrO [vp subj. [ V obj.]]]]]

Pronouns, presuppositions, and hierarchies : the work of Eloise Jelinek in context

Introduction Andrew Carnie and Heidi Harley Part I: Configurationality and the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis 1. Empty Categories, Case and Configurationality, 1984 Eloise Jelinek 2. The bi-Construction and Pronominal Arguments in Apachean, 1989 Merton Sandoval and Eloise Jelinek 3. Predicates and Pronominal Arguments in Straits Salish, 1994 Eloise Jelinek and Richard Demers 4. Navajo as a Discourse Configurational Language, 2000 Mary Ann Willie and Eloise Jelinek 5. The Pronominal Argument Parameter, 2006 Eloise Jelinek Part II: Hierarchies, Information Structure, and Semantic Mapping 6. Auxiliaries and Ergative Splits: A Typological Parameter, 1987 Eloise Jelinek 7. The Case Split and Argument Type in Choctaw, 1989 Eloise Jelinek 8. Ergative Splits and Argument Type, 1993 Eloise Jelinek 9. Distributing Arguments, 1995 Molly Diesing and Eloise Jelinek 10. Argument Hierarchies and the Mapping Principle, 2003 Eloise Jelinek and Andrew Carnie Part III: Yaqui Morphosyntax 11. Double Accusative Constructions in Yaqui, 1989 Eloise Jelinek and Fernando Escalante 12. Voice and Transitivity as Functional Projections in Yaqui, 1998 Eloise Jelinek 13. Quantification in Yaqui Possessive Sentences, 2003 Eloise Jelinek 14. Impersonal Agreement in a non-Agreement Language: The Hiaki Impersonal Construction Previously unpublished, Eloise Jelinek and Heidi Harley

The articulation of lexical palatalization in Scottish Gaelic

Scottish Gaelic (Gaidhlig, henceforth SG) exhibits a rich system of consonant mutation, which is mostly governed by its morphology (Ladefoged et al. 1998; Gillies 2002; Stewart 2004). For instance, bata “boat” changes to [v] when the word undergoes morphological inflection—e.g., a bhata “his boat”, in which the sound spelled bh is pronounced as [v]. Using ultrasound imaging, the present study investigates palatalization in SG, which is considered as one of lexicalized consonant mutation types. Experimental data was collected in Sabhal Mor Ostaig, a college on the Isle of Skye. Preliminary results show a clear sign of palatalization across different consonant types in palatalization environments (i.e., when morphologically conditioned), represented by higher tongue contours in the front region of tongue. While the articulatory distinction between plain and palatalized consonants is significant, different syllabic positions (i.e., word-initial vs. -final palatalization) often yield individualized patterns.

Timing of perceptual cues in Scots Gaelic

Scots Gaelic, an endangered language, has several typologically unusual sound distinctions. Work on English or other languages cannot predict what perceptual cues Gaelic listeners might use to perceive these distinctions. The current work uses gating experiments, run in Scotland with 16 native listeners (monolingual in Gaelic until at least school age), to investigate timing of perceptual cues to the palatalization, preaspiration, and nasal frication contrasts. Results show that perceptual information about consonant palatalization is located primarily in the consonant itself, with weaker cues in the preceding vowel. For preaspiration, there is no perceptual information in the preceding vowel, but even half of the preaspiration provides a sufficient cue. The claimed nasal fricatives are particularly interesting, as true nasalized fricatives may be aerodynamically impossible, but nasalization could be realized on the preceding vowel, or without frication. The results show that listeners are only marginally...

Can you say [v] or [x]? Aerodynamics of nasalized fricatives in Scots Gaelic

Scots Gaelic is said to have nasalized fricatives ([ṽ, x, h] etc.). Nasalized fricatives may be aerodynamically impossible (except [h]), because opening the velum would vent the high oral pressure required for frication (Ohala 1975). However, phonologically nasalized fricatives which are realized some other way phonetically are possible, and [h] is possible because the frication occurs behind the velic opening. The current work presents oral and nasal airflow data from 14 native speakers of Scots Gaelic, primarily from the Skye dialect, to investigate the nasalized fricative distinction. Results indicate that the most common solution to the aerodynamic problem is to neutralize the distinction: most phonological nasalized fricatives, from most speakers, are simply not nasalized at all ([v] for [v]. Some tokens show nasalization during the preceding vowel ([av] for [av]). Some tokens in which the expected fricative is pronounced as an approximant (common in Scots Gaelic) show nasalization w for [v]...