* This paper grew out of an earlier proposal for the structure of English PPs (Koopman 1991). Koo... more * This paper grew out of an earlier proposal for the structure of English PPs (Koopman 1991). Koopman (1993) was originally written as an illustration that restrictive theoretical assumptions completely determine particular analyses and do so quite successfully.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, Nov 1, 1992
The present version contains some minor changes and an all new conclusion. I would like to thank ... more The present version contains some minor changes and an all new conclusion. I would like to thank the audiences at UCLA where this material was first presented and developed, as well as Mark Baker, Noarn Chomsky. Harold Crook, Richard Kayne, Dominique Sportiche and various anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. The Bambara data discussed here are drawn from Bird, Hutchison and Kante (1976), Bird and Kante (1976), Bird (1966), Courtenay (undated), and my own fieldwork. Standard Bambara orthography will be adopted, except for tones, which will not be marked.
The conception of Universal Grammar s a System of principles and parameters from which a specific... more The conception of Universal Grammar s a System of principles and parameters from which a specific core grammar can be derived by fixing the Parameters of the System, has lead to a renewed interest in comparative syntax. Indeed, the powerful analytic tools resulting from recent theoretical developments, not only contributes to discover deep similarities between superficially very different languages, but also permits the discovery of systematic patterns of variations and allows one to reduce them to different choices in the value of some parameter of the System. Here, we want to look at one particular principle of UG (the ECP) and the crosslinguistic Variation surrounding its scope of application. More specifically, we will be concerned with subject/object asymmetries which obtain with respect to both syntactic and LF wA-movement, and with the nature of proper government of wA-traces in subject position. Chomsky (1981) proposes to account for subject/object asymmetries, exhibited in English for example by the so-called that-t phenomena, (*wAo do you think t that t came) by means of the Empty Category Principle (ECP), a principle governing the distribution of empty categories at LF. The ECP can be stated s:
... rules out the interpretations (4) for the sentences in (3). In Chomsky (1981), a modification... more ... rules out the interpretations (4) for the sentences in (3). In Chomsky (1981), a modification of definition (2) is proposed, in accordance with the general idea that the nature of empty categories should be determined functionally, by looking at their closest antecedent, if any. ...
Grammatical theories all use in one form or another the concept of canonical position of a phrase... more Grammatical theories all use in one form or another the concept of canonical position of a phrase. If this notion is used in the syntax, when comparing the two sentences: (la) John will see Bill. (1 b) Bill John will see. we say that Bill occupies its canonical position in (la) but not in (lb). Adopting the terminology of the Extended Standard Theory, we can think of the canonical position of a phrase as its D-structure position. Since the concept of canonical position is available, it becomes legitimate to ask of each syntactic unit in a given sentence what its canonical position is, relative to the other units of the sentence. The central question we address in this article is: what is the canonical position of subjects1 Starting with English, we propose that the structure of an English clause is as in (2): * The first section of this article has circulated as part of Koopman and Sportiche (1988) and is a written version of talks given in various places. It was given in March 1985 at the GLOW conference in Brussels as Koopman and Sportiche (1985), at the June 1985 CLA meeting in Montreal, at MIT and Umass Amherst in the winter of 1986, and presented at UCLA and USC since. The input of these audiences is gratefully acknowledged. The second section is almost completely new.
It is well documented that the study of differences in grammaticality contrasts across the world'... more It is well documented that the study of differences in grammaticality contrasts across the world's languages has implications for the synchronic study of preferential/ frequency contrasts within a single language. Our paper extends this observation, arguing that the cross-linguistic study of both grammaticality and frequency contrasts can be crucial to the proper characterization of patterns of diachronic change. As an illustration of this proposal, we investigate patterns of synchronic and diachronic variation in the use of postverbal negative quantifiers (e.g., nothing, nobody, no book, etc., as in, I know nothing) versus negative polarity items under negation (e.g., not … anything, not … anybody, not … any book, etc., as in, I don't know anything) in English. We show how a detailed comparison with similar patterns found elsewhere in closely related languages can give us a better understanding of which linguistic factors condition the use of these different kinds of indefinites in Modern Spoken English and a new perspective on a well-studied proposed change in progress in the English quantificational system. This paper argues that generalizations concerning the cross-linguistic distribution of fine-grained (and possibly abstract) properties of syntactic structure have an
This paper argues that "Spec head" agreement, construed as agreement under left to right Merge is... more This paper argues that "Spec head" agreement, construed as agreement under left to right Merge is not only a possible agreement configuration, but probably the only agreement configuration, contra Agree (Chomsky 2001).The first part addresses DP internal agreement in Maasai and English. The attested agreement patterns within the Maasai DP fall out from Spec head agreement (Koopman 2003a, 2003b). Attested and unattested agreement patterns fall out from the syntactic hierarchy and the derivation. English long distance agreement in the DP does not support Agree, as agreement can be triggered early in the derivation. The second part of the paper discusses individual cases that have been taken to provide support for Agree. I will show how each case is in fact consistent with Spec head, where the following play an important role: agreement can be triggered under pied-piping, accounting for long distance in Tsez (Polinsky and Potsdam 2001) and agreement can be triggered low in the derivation, as in English existential constructions. A case study of nominative objects in Icelandic implements a Spec head account, and argues on the basis of morphological evidence that these constructions should be analyzed as double nominative constructions, with the verb agreeing with two nominatives. The analysis bears on the nature of inherent case (an argument is presented that inherent case must be decomposed), the structural location of nominative case, clausal structure, silent expletives, default agreement, double agreement and intervention effects. The latter are shown not to bear on Agree.
Data from this class can be found in master_maasai_1 and master_maasai_2. 2 This form also occurs... more Data from this class can be found in master_maasai_1 and master_maasai_2. 2 This form also occurs in optative and subjunctive contexts, as well as in certain "infinitival" forms with a singular agreement prefix, but not with a plural agreement prefix. I will leave these forms out of the discussion.
This paper argues that Spec head" agreement, construed as agreement under left to right Merge is ... more This paper argues that Spec head" agreement, construed as agreement under left to right Merge is not only a possible agreement configuration, but probably the only agreement configuration, contra Agree (Chomsl~2001).The first part addresses DP internal agreement in Maasai and English. The attested agreement patterns within the Maasai DP fall out from Spec head agreement (Koopman 2003a, 2003b). Attested and unattested agreement patterns fall out from the syntactic hierarchy and the derivation. English long distance agreement in the DP does not support Agree, as agreement can be triggered early in the derivation. The second part of the paper discusses individual cases that have been taken to provide support for Agree. I will show how each case is in fact consistent with Spec head, where the following play an important role: agreement can be triggered under pied-piping, accounting for long distance agreement in Tsez (Polinsky and Potsdam 2001) and agreement can be triggered low in the derivation, as in English existential constructions. A case study of nominative objects in Icelandic implements a Spec head account, and argues on the basis of morphological evidence that these constructions should he analyzed as double nominative constructions, with the verb agreeing with two nominatives. The analysis hears on the nature of inherent case (an argument is presented that inherent case must he decomposed), the structural location of nominative case, clausal structure, silent expletives, default agreement, double agreement and intervention effects. The latter are shown not to hear on Agree.
(3) im faaldong an brok im fut 'he/she fell and broke his/her leg' Similarly, (b) is not a serial... more (3) im faaldong an brok im fut 'he/she fell and broke his/her leg' Similarly, (b) is not a serial construction since it contains the complemen tizer fi_ 'for ... t o 1: (b) im waan fi go 'he/she wants to go' By criteria (c) and (d) we want to exclude modal and true auxiliaries from the discussion, as in sentence (5): (5) Jan wuda hafi ron 'John would have to run' These criteria are a little harder to apply, but a useful distinction may be made as follows: (f) the configuration V KP V NP is indicative of serialization; (g) in the configuration V V ... V Vn , only can be the "lexical" verb in serial constructions, ancTonly V in infinitival complements or constructions with modal auxiliaries. More examples of serial constructions will be presented in the next section. An important question to answer is: when is there any basis to assume that we are dealing with a verb at all? Here the simple criterion has been applied of lexical origin, since Creole languages do not distinguish verbs morphologically. If the item is a verb in the European, lexifier language, we may assume that it is in the Creole language as well.
Reply to David Lightfoot: The base component as a locus of syntactic change. In Current progress ... more Reply to David Lightfoot: The base component as a locus of syntactic change. In Current progress in historical linguistics, ed. William Christie, 32-34. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Williams, Edwin. 1975. Small clauses in English. In Syntax and semantics, vol. 4, ed. John Kimball, 249-273. New York: Academic Press.
* This paper grew out of an earlier proposal for the structure of English PPs (Koopman 1991). Koo... more * This paper grew out of an earlier proposal for the structure of English PPs (Koopman 1991). Koopman (1993) was originally written as an illustration that restrictive theoretical assumptions completely determine particular analyses and do so quite successfully.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, Nov 1, 1992
The present version contains some minor changes and an all new conclusion. I would like to thank ... more The present version contains some minor changes and an all new conclusion. I would like to thank the audiences at UCLA where this material was first presented and developed, as well as Mark Baker, Noarn Chomsky. Harold Crook, Richard Kayne, Dominique Sportiche and various anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. The Bambara data discussed here are drawn from Bird, Hutchison and Kante (1976), Bird and Kante (1976), Bird (1966), Courtenay (undated), and my own fieldwork. Standard Bambara orthography will be adopted, except for tones, which will not be marked.
The conception of Universal Grammar s a System of principles and parameters from which a specific... more The conception of Universal Grammar s a System of principles and parameters from which a specific core grammar can be derived by fixing the Parameters of the System, has lead to a renewed interest in comparative syntax. Indeed, the powerful analytic tools resulting from recent theoretical developments, not only contributes to discover deep similarities between superficially very different languages, but also permits the discovery of systematic patterns of variations and allows one to reduce them to different choices in the value of some parameter of the System. Here, we want to look at one particular principle of UG (the ECP) and the crosslinguistic Variation surrounding its scope of application. More specifically, we will be concerned with subject/object asymmetries which obtain with respect to both syntactic and LF wA-movement, and with the nature of proper government of wA-traces in subject position. Chomsky (1981) proposes to account for subject/object asymmetries, exhibited in English for example by the so-called that-t phenomena, (*wAo do you think t that t came) by means of the Empty Category Principle (ECP), a principle governing the distribution of empty categories at LF. The ECP can be stated s:
... rules out the interpretations (4) for the sentences in (3). In Chomsky (1981), a modification... more ... rules out the interpretations (4) for the sentences in (3). In Chomsky (1981), a modification of definition (2) is proposed, in accordance with the general idea that the nature of empty categories should be determined functionally, by looking at their closest antecedent, if any. ...
Grammatical theories all use in one form or another the concept of canonical position of a phrase... more Grammatical theories all use in one form or another the concept of canonical position of a phrase. If this notion is used in the syntax, when comparing the two sentences: (la) John will see Bill. (1 b) Bill John will see. we say that Bill occupies its canonical position in (la) but not in (lb). Adopting the terminology of the Extended Standard Theory, we can think of the canonical position of a phrase as its D-structure position. Since the concept of canonical position is available, it becomes legitimate to ask of each syntactic unit in a given sentence what its canonical position is, relative to the other units of the sentence. The central question we address in this article is: what is the canonical position of subjects1 Starting with English, we propose that the structure of an English clause is as in (2): * The first section of this article has circulated as part of Koopman and Sportiche (1988) and is a written version of talks given in various places. It was given in March 1985 at the GLOW conference in Brussels as Koopman and Sportiche (1985), at the June 1985 CLA meeting in Montreal, at MIT and Umass Amherst in the winter of 1986, and presented at UCLA and USC since. The input of these audiences is gratefully acknowledged. The second section is almost completely new.
It is well documented that the study of differences in grammaticality contrasts across the world'... more It is well documented that the study of differences in grammaticality contrasts across the world's languages has implications for the synchronic study of preferential/ frequency contrasts within a single language. Our paper extends this observation, arguing that the cross-linguistic study of both grammaticality and frequency contrasts can be crucial to the proper characterization of patterns of diachronic change. As an illustration of this proposal, we investigate patterns of synchronic and diachronic variation in the use of postverbal negative quantifiers (e.g., nothing, nobody, no book, etc., as in, I know nothing) versus negative polarity items under negation (e.g., not … anything, not … anybody, not … any book, etc., as in, I don't know anything) in English. We show how a detailed comparison with similar patterns found elsewhere in closely related languages can give us a better understanding of which linguistic factors condition the use of these different kinds of indefinites in Modern Spoken English and a new perspective on a well-studied proposed change in progress in the English quantificational system. This paper argues that generalizations concerning the cross-linguistic distribution of fine-grained (and possibly abstract) properties of syntactic structure have an
This paper argues that "Spec head" agreement, construed as agreement under left to right Merge is... more This paper argues that "Spec head" agreement, construed as agreement under left to right Merge is not only a possible agreement configuration, but probably the only agreement configuration, contra Agree (Chomsky 2001).The first part addresses DP internal agreement in Maasai and English. The attested agreement patterns within the Maasai DP fall out from Spec head agreement (Koopman 2003a, 2003b). Attested and unattested agreement patterns fall out from the syntactic hierarchy and the derivation. English long distance agreement in the DP does not support Agree, as agreement can be triggered early in the derivation. The second part of the paper discusses individual cases that have been taken to provide support for Agree. I will show how each case is in fact consistent with Spec head, where the following play an important role: agreement can be triggered under pied-piping, accounting for long distance in Tsez (Polinsky and Potsdam 2001) and agreement can be triggered low in the derivation, as in English existential constructions. A case study of nominative objects in Icelandic implements a Spec head account, and argues on the basis of morphological evidence that these constructions should be analyzed as double nominative constructions, with the verb agreeing with two nominatives. The analysis bears on the nature of inherent case (an argument is presented that inherent case must be decomposed), the structural location of nominative case, clausal structure, silent expletives, default agreement, double agreement and intervention effects. The latter are shown not to bear on Agree.
Data from this class can be found in master_maasai_1 and master_maasai_2. 2 This form also occurs... more Data from this class can be found in master_maasai_1 and master_maasai_2. 2 This form also occurs in optative and subjunctive contexts, as well as in certain "infinitival" forms with a singular agreement prefix, but not with a plural agreement prefix. I will leave these forms out of the discussion.
This paper argues that Spec head" agreement, construed as agreement under left to right Merge is ... more This paper argues that Spec head" agreement, construed as agreement under left to right Merge is not only a possible agreement configuration, but probably the only agreement configuration, contra Agree (Chomsl~2001).The first part addresses DP internal agreement in Maasai and English. The attested agreement patterns within the Maasai DP fall out from Spec head agreement (Koopman 2003a, 2003b). Attested and unattested agreement patterns fall out from the syntactic hierarchy and the derivation. English long distance agreement in the DP does not support Agree, as agreement can be triggered early in the derivation. The second part of the paper discusses individual cases that have been taken to provide support for Agree. I will show how each case is in fact consistent with Spec head, where the following play an important role: agreement can be triggered under pied-piping, accounting for long distance agreement in Tsez (Polinsky and Potsdam 2001) and agreement can be triggered low in the derivation, as in English existential constructions. A case study of nominative objects in Icelandic implements a Spec head account, and argues on the basis of morphological evidence that these constructions should he analyzed as double nominative constructions, with the verb agreeing with two nominatives. The analysis hears on the nature of inherent case (an argument is presented that inherent case must he decomposed), the structural location of nominative case, clausal structure, silent expletives, default agreement, double agreement and intervention effects. The latter are shown not to hear on Agree.
(3) im faaldong an brok im fut 'he/she fell and broke his/her leg' Similarly, (b) is not a serial... more (3) im faaldong an brok im fut 'he/she fell and broke his/her leg' Similarly, (b) is not a serial construction since it contains the complemen tizer fi_ 'for ... t o 1: (b) im waan fi go 'he/she wants to go' By criteria (c) and (d) we want to exclude modal and true auxiliaries from the discussion, as in sentence (5): (5) Jan wuda hafi ron 'John would have to run' These criteria are a little harder to apply, but a useful distinction may be made as follows: (f) the configuration V KP V NP is indicative of serialization; (g) in the configuration V V ... V Vn , only can be the "lexical" verb in serial constructions, ancTonly V in infinitival complements or constructions with modal auxiliaries. More examples of serial constructions will be presented in the next section. An important question to answer is: when is there any basis to assume that we are dealing with a verb at all? Here the simple criterion has been applied of lexical origin, since Creole languages do not distinguish verbs morphologically. If the item is a verb in the European, lexifier language, we may assume that it is in the Creole language as well.
Reply to David Lightfoot: The base component as a locus of syntactic change. In Current progress ... more Reply to David Lightfoot: The base component as a locus of syntactic change. In Current progress in historical linguistics, ed. William Christie, 32-34. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Williams, Edwin. 1975. Small clauses in English. In Syntax and semantics, vol. 4, ed. John Kimball, 249-273. New York: Academic Press.
Uploads
Papers by Hilda Koopman