Eric Potsdam’s research while affiliated with University of Florida and other places

There is no consensus in the literature on the analysis of phrasal comparatives. Both reduced clause analyses, in which the standard phrase contains elided clausal structure, and direct analyses, in which the standard of comparison is a direct complement to the standard marker, have been proposed. This paper argues for a direct analysis of the phrasal comparative in Malagasy, an Austronesian language spoken on the island of Madagascar. Evidence for the direct analysis comes from the lack of overt clausal comparatives, Binding Theory, scope, and Malagasy‐specific characteristics of the standard. The conclusion contributes to the rapidly expanding picture of cross‐linguistic variation in comparative syntax.

Malagasy demonstratives appear simultaneously initially and finally within the DP and must be identical: ity boky ity ‘DEM book DEM’ “this book”. We argue that the unusual doubling pattern arises from multiple pronunciation of a single demonstrative formative and not from base-generation of two independent formatives. The primary goal is to show that doubling, which has been amply discussed in the verbal domain, particularly in the literature on verb doubling in predicate clefts, also occurs in the nominal domain and can be successfully analyzed with existing theoretical machinery.

We presented and analyzed the expression of exception in Japanese, formally marked with the postposition igai. As a postposition, igai combines with a noun phrase. The internal structure of that noun phrase can be quite complex; in particular, it can include a nominalized CP. Japanese allows both connected and exceptives, which differ, among other things, by whether the exception and the associate form a constituent (yes for the former, no for the latter). We have shown that Japanese free exceptives always include an underlying nominalized CPs (sometimes headed by a null nominal head), with elided material. This kind of ellipsis is different from clausal ellipsis in exceptives in languages like English where no nominal or determiner head is attested. Until now, only two types of free exceptives have been recognized: non-clausal phrasal ones (unattested so far) and clausal (with ellipsis), as in English or Egyptian Arabic (Soltan 2016). The novel Japanese results thus enrich the existing typology of exceptive constructions by recognizing a nominalized CP as another source of exceptive constrictions.

Research on word order has established several possible ways in which VOS order can be derived from VSO order. This chapter considers the derivational relationship between VSO and VOS in the Polynesian language Tongan. VSO order is basic in Tongan, and we address the derivation of VOS from this basic order in the context of multiple possibilities. We argue that Tongan VOS is better analyzed as rightward displacement of the subject as opposed to leftward displacement of the object proposed by Otsuka (2005a,c). The clause-final subject shows many of the hallmarks of rightward movement, including information-structural restrictions, locality with respect to the matrix clause, lack of clitic doubling, and connectivity with respect to case and binding. Given that rightward movement has an uneasy place in syntactic theory, we take pains to establish that the analysis is successful and worth further scrutiny (141 words). VSO appears to be the contextually most neutral order; in particular, it is found in the opening to narratives or conversations (Tchekoff 1981, Otsuka 2000, Custis 2004), is appropriate as a response to broad-focus and verum-focus questions (Polinsky 2016), and in general is used in a broader range of contexts than VOS. In this work, we follow other researchers who assume it as the basic order. However, Tongan also allows VOS order, (1b), in a number of situations. Relevant subjects here and below are underlined.

Extraposition is the non-canonical placement of dependents in a right-peripheral position in a clause. The Austronesian language Malagasy has basic VOXS word order, however, extraposition leads to VOSX. Extraposed constituents behave syntactically as though they were in their undisplaced position inside the predicate at both LF and Spell Out. This paper argues that extraposition is achieved via movement at Phonological Form (PF). I argue against alternatives that would derive extraposition with syntactic A’ movement or stranding analyses. Within a Minimalist model of grammar, movement operations take place on the branch from Spell Out to PF and have only phonological consequences.

Control phenomena have been at the center of syntactic theorizing almost since the inception of generative grammar. To first approximation, control is an interpretive dependency between two arguments: a lexicalized noun phrase (the controller) and a null argument in a dependent clause (the controllee), as in Sandy hopes [Ø to succeed]. The primary concerns of syntactic theories have been accounting for various characteristics of the null controllee and the identification of its controller. This chapter surveys some of the phenomena that have driven our current understanding of these issues. Within the domain of obligatory control, some phenomena speak to the controller: the behavior of polyadic predicates, implicit control, variable control and control shift, and exceptional cases like promise. Other phenomena speak to the controllee: exhaustive control, partial control, split control, and control in embedded questions. Assuming that nonobligatory control is a kind of elsewhere case, the phenomena relevant to nonobligatory control are those where obligatory control restrictions on controller choice fail to materialize: control into subjects, extraposed clauses, and some adjunct clauses. The chapter also discusses phenomena with a non-canonical realization of the control relation: backward control and copy control. Within the context of these phenomena, the chapter surveys current generative approaches to the analysis of control: dominant PRO-based approaches, the movement theory of Control, and restructuring analyses. Relative strengths and weaknesses are highlighted.

This paper investigates the cost of processing syntactic versus extra-syntactic dependencies. The results support the hypothesis that syntactic dependencies require less processing effort than discourse-derived dependencies do (Reuland 2001, 2011; Koornneef 2008). The point is made through the analysis of a novel paradigm in Russian in which a preposed nominal stranding a numeral can show number connectivity (paucal) with a gap following the numeral or can appear in a non-agreeing (plural) form, as in cathedral-paucal/plural, there were three.paucal __. Numerous syntactic diagnostics confirm that when there is number connectivity, the nominal has been fronted via A-chain dependency. In the absence of connectivity, the construction involves a hanging topic related via discourse mechanisms to a base-generated null pronoun. The constructions constitute a minimal pair and Reuland's proposals correctly predict that the A-chain is more easily processed than an anaphoric dependency involving a null pronoun, which must be resolved by discourse-based mechanisms.

In this tribute to Knud Lambrecht, a pioneer of Information Structure, a diverse group of scholars examines the intersection of syntax, discourse, pragmatics, and semantics. The six chapters in the first section of the volume consider issues of grammar with new theoretical and applied insights, pertaining to grammatical constructions such as left dislocation, unaccusatives, null complements, and passives. While the first half of the book presents studies involving a range of languages from Russian to Irish to Italian, the second section is dedicated to papers focused on French. These five chapters feature the application of Construction Grammar and/or Information Structure frameworks to prosody and second language processing, as well as to several distinctive spoken French constructions: clefts, left dislocations, and interrogatives. Collectively, this book offers substantial reading for those interested in the juncture of structure and context, notably a critical take on the important legacy of a preeminent linguist.

It is widely stated that the scope of quantifiers is clause-bound (Chomsky 1977, May 1977, Farkas 1981, 1997, Fodor and Sag 1982, Aoun and Hornstein 1985, Beghelli 1993, Abusch 1994, Hornstein 1995, Fox and Sauerland 1997, and numerous others). This claim is based on the observation that (1a) has no reading in which reviewers covary with plays, while (2a) does. 1. a. A reviewer thinks every play will fail this season. b. *[TP every playi [TP a reviewer thinks [CP ei will fail this season]]] 2. a. A reviewer attended every play this season. b. [TP every playi [TP a reviewer attended ei this season]] Current theories capture the contrast by making Quantifier Raising (QR), the covert syntactic operation that assigns scope to quantified noun phrases (QPs), clause-bound. Only in (2a), in which the universally quantified QP every play and the indefinite a reviewer are clausemates, can the universal QP raise to scope over the indefinite, yielding the Logical Form representation (LF) in (2b). This operation is prohibited for (1a) because the two NPs are not clausemates; hence, the LF in (1b) is illicit. While this observation seems empirically well-grounded, its theoretical basis is less secure. Such clause-boundedness makes QR rather more restricted than one would expect a representative Ā-movement to be (see Reinhart 1997, Cecchetto 2004 for discussion). In what follows, I recap Fox's (1995, 2000) theory of Scope Economy, which provides an explanation for QR's clause-boundedness. I then introduce new data involving the interaction between QPs and certain instances of negation that are problematic for this approach. I conclude by sketching an alternative. Like many who research QR, Fox (1995, 2000) implicitly adopts what Beghelli and Stowell (1997) call Scope Uniformity: QR applies uniformly to all QPs and is not landing-site-selective. Any QP can be adjoined to any (nonargument) XP where it is interpretable. Further restricting this quite general assumption, economy considerations dictate that QR can apply only if it has an effect on semantic interpretation. QR cannot apply if the derivation without it would yield the same meaning. 3. Scope Economy (Fox 2000:23) QR must have a semantic effect. Fox (2000:62-66) proposes that the clause-boundedness of QR follows from Scope Economy. By (3), every application of QR must induce a change in semantic interpretation. At the same time, given that QR is an instance of Ā-movement, each application is subject to locality constraints on movement, which Fox formulates as Shortest Move. 4. Shortest Move (Fox 2000:23) QR moves a QP to the closest position in which it is interpretable. The impossibility of cross-clausal QR follows from a tension between Scope Economy and Shortest Move. QR that does not obey Shortest Move is illicit, but QR that targets a clausal node, obeying Shortest Move, will not normally yield a new semantic interpretation, violating Scope Economy. Returning to (1a), the two constraints derive the unavailability of the non-clause-bound reading of the universal QP in this example, repeated below as (5a). Two potential LFs for the wide scope reading of the QP every play are given in (5b-c). In (5b), every play raises directly to a position above the matrix subject; however, this violates Shortest Move since adjunction to the embedded clause is a closer interpretable position. In (5c), the QP every play targets the embedded clausal node to satisfy Shortest Move; however, Scope Economy is now violated because the move has no semantic consequence. As a result, the embedded QP has no extra, wide scope interpretation, as desired. 5. a. A reviewer thinks every play will fail this season. b. *[TP every playi [TP a reviewer thinks [CP[TP ei will fail this season]]]] c. *[TP every playi [TP a reviewer thinks [CP ei [CP[TP ei will fail this season]]]]] Fox (2000:63) points out that the Scope Economy account makes a surprising prediction: QR's clause-boundedness could be overridden if adjunction to CP (as in (5c)) had semantic motivation. Specifically, if the CP projection contained an element...