The Nonuniform Syntax of Postverbal Elements in SOV Languages: Hindi, Bangla, and the Rightward Scrambling Debate

Simpson, Andrew; Choudhury, Arunima

doi:10.1162/ling_a_00191

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15. VAuxOS and VAuxSO-patterns in languages with a strictly head-final TP, such as Hindi-Urdu (Manetta 2012) and Bangla (Simpson & Choudhury 2015), would then have to be analysed in such a way that the occurrence of multiple arguments to the right of an auxiliary does not come about through repeated application of either high rightward adjunction, or of left-peripheral fronting followed by remnant movement. 16.…”

Section: In Situ or At The Vp-edge?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Subject Placement in the History of Latin

Danckaert

2017

catjl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to provide further support for one aspect of the analysis of Classical and Late Latin clause structure proposed in Danckaert (2017a), namely the diachrony of subject placement. According to the relevant proposal, one needs to distinguish an earlier grammar ('Grammar A', whose heyday is the period from ca. 200 BC until 200 AD), in which there is no A-movement for subjects, and a later grammar ('Grammar B', which is on the rise from ca. 50-100 AD, and fully productive from ca. 200 AD onwards), where subjects optionally move to the inflectional layer. Assuming the variationist acquisition model of language change developed in Yang (2000, 2002a,b), I present corpus evidence which confirms that it is only in the Late Latin period that TP-internal subjects fully establish themselves as a grammatical option.Keywords: Latin; language change; word order; subject placement; grammar competition Resum. La posició del subjecte en la historia del llatí L'objectiu d'aquest article és proporcionar un suport addicional a un aspecte de l'anàlisi de l'estructura oracional del llatí clàssic i llatí tardà proposada a Danckaert (2017a), a saber, la diacronia de la posició del subjecte. D'acord amb la proposta rellevant, cal distingir una gramàtica anterior ('Gramàtica A', l'apogeu de la qual és aproximadament el període comprès entre el 200aC i el 200dC), en què no hi ha moviment-A per als subjectes, i una gramàtica posterior ('Gramàtica B', que sorgeix aproximadament el 50-100dC, i esdevé totalment productiva a partir del 200dC en endavant), on els subjectes es mouen opcionalment a la capa flexional. Assumint el model variacionista d'adquisició del canvi lingüístic desenvolupat a Yang (2000, 2002a,b), presento evidència de corpus que confirma que és només en el període del llatí tardà que els subjectes interns a l'ST s'estableixen plenament com una opció gramatical. Paraules clau:

show abstract

Section: In Situ or At The Vp-edge?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Subject Placement in the History of Latin

Danckaert

2017

catjl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elements in Turkish can appear to the right of the verb through the operation called "Right Dislocation" (henceforth RD). RD has been observed in many head-final languages such as Japanese (Whitman 2000, Takita 2011), Korean (Ko 2022), Hindi (Mahajan 1997, Bhatt andDayal 2007), Bangla (Simpson and Choudhury 2014), and Tamil (Sarma 2003). Turkish is among these languages and allows post-verbal constituents (henceforth PVCs) much more readily than other SOV languages (Kornfilt 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Right dislocation in Turkish

Öney

2023

PTU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates a scrambling operation called Right Dislocation (RD) in Turkish. Despite the limited understanding of RD in Turkish, previous studies have converged on the conclusion that (i) RD in Turkish involves rightward movement (Kural 1997, Kornfilt 2005), and (ii) post-verbal constituents (PVCs) consistently undergo reconstruction (with the exception of scope, as suggested by Kural (1997)), indicating that PVCs occupy an A’-position. This paper presents instances where PVCs are interpreted in their surface position, casting doubt on the presumed A’-properties. Additionally, it demonstrates that RD of higher arguments (e.g., subjects or indirect objects) seems to create new binding and scope relations with respect to lower arguments (e.g., direct and indirect objects). To address these issues, this paper proposes a structure that is governed by the interaction between discourse, pragmatics, and syntax. It argues that RD is a by-product of focus movement which is found in cleft-like constructions, and RD is preceded by the scrambling of lower arguments to discourse-functional projections such as FocusP and TopicP. Similarly, the RD of lower arguments is preceded by their short scrambling to the specifier of vP, driven by the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC). By aligning syntax with dis- course through a one-to-one mapping, in conjunction with independently motivated principles like the Scope principle, LF-approach to Condition C, and the Anywhere Condition of Condition A and pronominal binding, the proposed framework provides a consistent explanation for RD in Turkish, attributing all A-properties to the short scrambling of arguments.

show abstract

“…A number of authors have attempted to account for the binding facts within an anti-symmetric approach(Mahajan 1997;Simpson and Bhattacharya 2003;Simpson and Choudhury 2015). These authors take SVO to be the "default" word-order and argue that nominals get to a pre-verbal position via leftward movement, likely for Case reasons.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%