On the semantic function and selection of Basque finite complementizers

Artiagoitia, Xabier; Elordieta, Arantzazu; Boye, Kasper; Kehayov, Petar

doi:10.1515/9783110416619-013

Cited by 29 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Basque, complementizers are attached to the finite verb and can take a variety of suffixes. For my purposes here, the main point remains that the NCC examples take the declarative complementizer -(e)la, not the relative complementizer -(e)n. For details on complex complementizers in Basque, see Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina (2003), de Rijk (2008) and Artiagoitia & Elordieta (2016). Krapova (2010Krapova ( : 1266 classifies the set of predicates that can take deto complements as "[…] a subset of 'true' factives, including emotives".…”

Section: (23)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this section I show that in both of these languages, relative complementizers, not declarative complementizers, also appear in clefts and embedded questions, constructions that are typically associated with operator movement to the left-periphery. Following the work of Vikner (1991), Stroh-Wollin (2002) and Franco & Boef (2015) for Scandinavian, and Artiagoitia & Elordieta (2016) for Basque, I assume the generalization that complementizer choice in these languages correlates directly with the presence or absence of an operator in the left-periphery: the relative complementizer shows up when an operator is present and the declarative complementizer appears in the absence of an operator. Given this generalization, the fact that the relative complementizer does not show up in NCCs in these languages casts some doubt on the claim that there is operator movement involved in these constructions.…”

Section: Complementizer Choice and Left-peripheral Operatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Noun complement clauses as referential modifiers

Cuba

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of recent analyses propose that so-called noun complement clauses should be analyzed as a type of relative clause. In this paper, I present a number of complications for any analysis that equates noun complement clauses to relative clauses, and conclude that this type of analysis is on the wrong track. I present cross-linguistic evidence showing that the syntactic behavior of noun complement clauses does not pattern with relative clauses. Patterns of complementizer choice and complementizer drop as well as patterns involving main clause phenomena and extraction differ in the two constructions, which I argue is unexpected under a relative clause analysis that involves operator movement. Instead I present an alternative analysis in which I propose that the referentiality of a noun complement clause is linked to its syntactic behavior. Following recent work, I claim that referential clauses have a syntactically truncated left-periphery, and this truncation can account for the lack of main clause phenomena in noun complement clauses. I argue that the truncation analysis is also able to accommodate complementizer data patterns more easily than relative clause analyses that appeal to operator movement.

show abstract

Section: (23)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Complementizer Choice and Left-peripheral Operatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noun complement clauses as referential modifiers

Cuba

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 The suffix -en also surfaces on subjunctives. Other complementizers include declarative bait-, negative -enik, factive -ena (see Artiagoitia 2003b In line with Ortiz de Urbina (1999) and Artiagoitia & Elordieta (2016), I assume that complementizers -en and -ela -which attach to the right of embedded finite verbs or auxiliariesare hosted on Fin. Ortiz de Urbina (1999) provides evidence for the hypothesis that -en encodes Finiteness rather than Force.…”

Section: The Head-final Domain: Finp and Belowmentioning

confidence: 99%

FOFC as a PF phenomenon: Evidence from Basque clausal embedding

Duguine

2022

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Final-Over-Final Condition (FOFC) accounts for a strong cross-linguistic general- ization whereby head-initial phrases are not dominated by head-final phrases. Giving an explanatory analysis of this condition requires to determine whether it is a narrow syntactic or a PF phenomenon. This paper explores an array of word order patterns in Basque which are different in root vs. em- bedded clauses. These contrasts can be explained as FOFC-effects resulting from strategies that ensure compliance when the syntax creates structures that potentially violate the FOFC. From there, the FOFC is analyzed as a condition on head-initial phrases not being dominated by head-final phrases if both host overt heads. When either of them hosts no overt head, compliance ensues. Consequently, the FOFC is a PF phenomenon, sensitive to the specific positions in which heads surface.

show abstract

“…For example, Greek has a designated factive complementizer pu and a designated non-factive one oti (Roussou 1994;Joseph 2016). Designated factive complementizers are also found in dialects of Basque (Artiagoitia & Elordieta 2016): ena in Western Basque, bait in Lapurdian-Navarrese and Zuberoan dialects. In Adyghe factivity is also marked in the embedded clause: adding the prefix zere to the embedded predicate creates a factive complement (Serdobolskaya 2016).…”

Section: Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Composing CPs: Evidence from disjunction and conjunction

Bassi

Bondarenko

2021

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we compare CP disjunction to TP disjunction and CP conjunction to TP conjunction, and conclude that CPs and TPs do not have identical meanings (cf. similar observations reported in Szabolcsi 1997, 2016; Bjorkman 2013). We argue that this result is incompatible with the view that the CP layer of embedded clauses is semantically vacuous. We propose that the differences between CPs and TPs can be explained under a particular implementation of Kratzer's approach to the semantics of clausal embedding (Kratzer 2006, 2016; Bogal-Allbritten 2016, 2017; Moulton 2009, 2015; Elliott 2017), according to which CPs denote predicates of events whose content equals the embedded proposition.

show abstract

On the semantic function and selection of Basque finite complementizers

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

Noun complement clauses as referential modifiers

Noun complement clauses as referential modifiers

FOFC as a PF phenomenon: Evidence from Basque clausal embedding

Composing CPs: Evidence from disjunction and conjunction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About