Building on previous work on the syntax and semantics of subordinate clauses, Arsenijević (2006) ... more Building on previous work on the syntax and semantics of subordinate clauses, Arsenijević (2006) argues that all subordinate clauses are derived by a generalized pattern of relativization. One argument in the clause is abstracted, turning the clause into a predicate over the respective type. This predicate combines with an argument of that type in another expression and figures as its modifier. The traditional taxonomy of subordinate clauses neatly maps onto the taxonomy of arguments-from the arguments selected by the verb to the temporal argument, or the argument of comparison. One striking anomaly is that five traditional clause types-conditional, counterfactual, concessive, causal, and purpose clauses-are best analyzed as involving abstraction over the situation argument. In this paper, I present a situation-relative analysis of the five types of subordinate clauses, where their distinctive properties range in a spectrum predicted by their compositional makeup. I argue that they all restrict the situation argument selected by a speech act, attitude, or content predicate of the matrix clause, and hence effectively restrict this predicate. This gives the core of their meaning, while their differences are a matter of the status of an implication component common for all five types, the presupposition of truth for the subordinate and matrix clause, and an implicature of exhaustive relevance of the former. Predictions of the analysis are formulated, tested, and confirmed on data from English and Serbo-Croatian.
There is an ongoing debate in the literature as to whether there is a D-projection for NPs in lan... more There is an ongoing debate in the literature as to whether there is a D-projection for NPs in languages without overt articles. Bošković (2005; 2007; 2009; 2010) claims that there are no determiners in articleless Slavic languages. Pereltsvaig (2007) and many others argue against this claim for Russian. Pereltsvaig assumes that Russian NPs have a DP projection and that demonstratives and possessives are D-level elements in Russian. The contribution of this paper is twofold: I will provide evidence that demonstratives and prenominal possessives in Russian are adjectives, not determiners, and that they occur within NP. However, these facts do not refute the hypothesis that there are functional projections in Russian, at least for some NPs. I will show that Russian has a non-adjectival grammatical expression – každyj ‘every’ – that semantically and syntactically behaves like a quantifier and plausibly occurs in some functional projection above NP level. Whether this is a D-position and...
Traditionally Russian prenominal possessives are classified as possessive adjectives (Isačenko 19... more Traditionally Russian prenominal possessives are classified as possessive adjectives (Isačenko 1960; Townsend 1980). In more recent work by Babyonyshev (1997) it is claimed that prenominal possessives are functional elements that are hosted outside nominal phrase, which means that they cannot be adjectives. This claim is based on the ability of possessives to fill an agent argument of event nominals. In this paper I will provide evidence that syntactically prenominal possessives do behave like adjectives. I will propose a semantic analysis that will account for the peculiar properties that prenominal possessives have.
Traditionally Russian prenominal possessives are classified as possessive adjectives (Isačenko 19... more Traditionally Russian prenominal possessives are classified as possessive adjectives (Isačenko 1960; Townsend 1980). In more recent work by Babyonyshev (1997) it is claimed that prenominal possessives are functional elements that are hosted outside nominal phrase, which means that they cannot be adjectives. This claim is based on the ability of possessives to fill an agent argument of event nominals. In this paper I will provide evidence that syntactically prenominal possessives do behave like adjectives. I will propose a semantic analysis that will account for the peculiar properties that prenominal possessives have.
Building on previous work on the syntax and semantics of subordinate clauses, Arsenijević (2006) ... more Building on previous work on the syntax and semantics of subordinate clauses, Arsenijević (2006) argues that all subordinate clauses are derived by a generalized pattern of relativization. One argument in the clause is abstracted, turning the clause into a predicate over the respective type. This predicate combines with an argument of that type in another expression and figures as its modifier. The traditional taxonomy of subordinate clauses neatly maps onto the taxonomy of arguments-from the arguments selected by the verb to the temporal argument, or the argument of comparison. One striking anomaly is that five traditional clause types-conditional, counterfactual, concessive, causal, and purpose clauses-are best analyzed as involving abstraction over the situation argument. In this paper, I present a situation-relative analysis of the five types of subordinate clauses, where their distinctive properties range in a spectrum predicted by their compositional makeup. I argue that they all restrict the situation argument selected by a speech act, attitude, or content predicate of the matrix clause, and hence effectively restrict this predicate. This gives the core of their meaning, while their differences are a matter of the status of an implication component common for all five types, the presupposition of truth for the subordinate and matrix clause, and an implicature of exhaustive relevance of the former. Predictions of the analysis are formulated, tested, and confirmed on data from English and Serbo-Croatian.
There is an ongoing debate in the literature as to whether there is a D-projection for NPs in lan... more There is an ongoing debate in the literature as to whether there is a D-projection for NPs in languages without overt articles. Bošković (2005; 2007; 2009; 2010) claims that there are no determiners in articleless Slavic languages. Pereltsvaig (2007) and many others argue against this claim for Russian. Pereltsvaig assumes that Russian NPs have a DP projection and that demonstratives and possessives are D-level elements in Russian. The contribution of this paper is twofold: I will provide evidence that demonstratives and prenominal possessives in Russian are adjectives, not determiners, and that they occur within NP. However, these facts do not refute the hypothesis that there are functional projections in Russian, at least for some NPs. I will show that Russian has a non-adjectival grammatical expression – každyj ‘every’ – that semantically and syntactically behaves like a quantifier and plausibly occurs in some functional projection above NP level. Whether this is a D-position and...
Traditionally Russian prenominal possessives are classified as possessive adjectives (Isačenko 19... more Traditionally Russian prenominal possessives are classified as possessive adjectives (Isačenko 1960; Townsend 1980). In more recent work by Babyonyshev (1997) it is claimed that prenominal possessives are functional elements that are hosted outside nominal phrase, which means that they cannot be adjectives. This claim is based on the ability of possessives to fill an agent argument of event nominals. In this paper I will provide evidence that syntactically prenominal possessives do behave like adjectives. I will propose a semantic analysis that will account for the peculiar properties that prenominal possessives have.
Traditionally Russian prenominal possessives are classified as possessive adjectives (Isačenko 19... more Traditionally Russian prenominal possessives are classified as possessive adjectives (Isačenko 1960; Townsend 1980). In more recent work by Babyonyshev (1997) it is claimed that prenominal possessives are functional elements that are hosted outside nominal phrase, which means that they cannot be adjectives. This claim is based on the ability of possessives to fill an agent argument of event nominals. In this paper I will provide evidence that syntactically prenominal possessives do behave like adjectives. I will propose a semantic analysis that will account for the peculiar properties that prenominal possessives have.
Uploads
Papers by Maria Gepner