We discuss an empirical study that suggests a finer categorization of pronouns versus lexical noun phrases in terms of their feature valuation. We argue that not all lexical noun phrases have their φ -features valued from the lexicon. By investigating Polish politeness markers, we demonstrate that certain noun phrases can have their features (specifically, the person feature) valued in a manner parallel to feature valuation in free pronouns. The proposal thus refines our understanding of the categorical distinction between different types of nominals, and suggests that in addition to known morphological and syntactic variation in the domain of pronouns and lexical noun phrases there is a more finetuned classification of feature valuation types.
Assuming that features on functional heads are variables (Borer, 2005), we expect to find syntactic operations and functional elements that target and manipulate these variables beyond matching and valuation in agree. We argue that such syntactic operations and functional elements exist. This paper presents such a functional element: a polarity operator manipulating features of a functional head it modifies. The empirical motivation or our proposal comes fromparallel systematic homophony over the same set of functional interpretations and features within the nominal extended projection in Slavic and Arabic dialects.
This paper presents novel evidence for Polish nominals being phases. The core of the argument comes from the interaction between the size of a nominal domain and the corresponding person-feature valuation. While an nP-size nominal structure only exhibits feature valuation within the narrow-syntax module, the DP-size nominal structure exhibits interface feature interactions. Since interface interactions can only arise during spell-out, the corresponding nominal domain, i.e., DP, must be a phase and D must be a phase head that triggers spell-out. The empirical focus of this paper is on a syntactic variation in the domain of politeness markers in Polish (pan.m/ pani.f).
We show that in order to account for the distribution of auxiliaries/modals in verbal-phrase (VP) ellipsis contexts in Czech, VP ellipsis needs to have the option to be licensed via low coordination of the antecedent and anaphora VPs. Evidence for such constructions comes from contrasts in the licensing of Czech VP ellipsis vis `a vis epistemic and root modal readings of high and low auxiliaries. The contrast is best accounted for within a phase-based theory of ellipsis.
Recent work in Distributed Morphology, most prominently Harley (2014), argues for roots being able to take syntactic complements, which opens the door for the possibility of having syntactic features within a root’s representation – something most DM literature rejects (Embick 2015). Upon a closer inspection of the arguments presented in the literature, it is not clear whether the disagreement has an empirical underpinning, or whether it stems from the lack of methodological clarity as far as the identification of the precise nature of what constitutes a syntactic feature. This paper takes this methodological question seriously and investigates a type of derivational behavior that, in our view, provides a decisive argument for the presence of syntactic features on roots. We argue that the presence of a syntactic feature on the root can be conclusively established based on a feature’s impact on specific properties within a larger syntactic structure. Based on empirical evidence form gender agreement phenomena, we introduce a model of grammar that distinguishes roots with syntactic features from those which do not have them. We propose that such a distinction between roots will manifest itself in the timing of root insertion – roots without syntactic features are late inserted, while roots with syntactic features must be early inserted.
We propose that roots are not homogeneous when it gets to their syntactic features. While some roots don't have any syntactic features from the lexicon, other roots do. This distinction has consequences for derivational timing and properties of the extended functional domain. We argue that it also has consequences for our typology of features.
The paper proposes that degree/amount relative clauses are derived via overt Degree Phrase raising out of the CP. I show that there exist two distinct types of degree relative clauses whose properties can be deduced from the differences between the two types of DegP argued to be present in the grammar by Neelman, van de Koot & Doetjes (2004). This raises the possibility that syntactic and semantic variation between classes of relative constructions can be reduced to the type of lexical item that is raised out of the CP.
n this paper the author claims on the basis of Polish data that: (1) Sluicing does not alleviate islands, just like VP ellipsis; (2) Ellipsis is not licensed by syntactic identity (no PF, LF Islands, or trace deletion); (3) There is syntactic structure in the ellipsis site; (4) ellipsis is licensed by a recoverability condition--if there is enough information in the non-elided signal, ellipsis is acceptable, including case-mismatches, PP stranding violations, adjunct islands, etc.
This paper supports the model where VP ellipsis is licensed via de-stressing which in turn is licensed via Focus closure (Rooth 1992). However, it is also argued that we have to assume that ellipsis is preceded by the establishment of Focus/Topic relations in overt syntax. This can be done in two ways: by focusing the subject, provided a Σ head is in the numeration, or by topicalizing the VP. The first strategy gives rise to non bare-VP ellipsis, the second to bare-VP ellipsis.