Sank's Glossary of Linguistics 
 Why-Z

WHY-STRIPPING

  1. (Syntax) A type of sluice-stripping where the wh-element is restricted to why, and the non-wh remnant is typically identical to its antecedent in the preceding clause. Why-Stripping involves a base-generated why and leftward movement of a focused non-wh-element followed by clausal ellipsis.
    1. Spanish
      [A points at pictures of Juan.]
      A:
       
      Juanx
      Juanx
      va
      will
      a
      to
      vender
      sell
      estas
      these
      fotos.
      pictures.
        'Juan will sell these pictures.'
      B:
       
      Por qué
      why
      fotos
      pictures
      de
      of
      sí mismox
      himselfx
      (y
      (and
      no
      not
      de
      of
      otros)?
      others)
        'Why will he sell pictures of himself, and not pictures of others?'
     | Iván Ortega-Santos, Masaya Yoshida, and Chizuru Nakao, 2014
  2. (Syntax) Example:
    1. Japanese
      A:
       
      John-wa
      John-TOP
      natto-o
      natto-ACC
      tabeta.
      ate
        'John ate natto.'
      B:
       
      naze
      why
      NATTO-(O)
      natto-ACC
      (desu)
      COP
      (ka)?
      Q
        'Why natto?'
     | Hiroko Kimura and Hiroki Narita, 2023

WORDHOOD

  1. (Grammar) What are words and how should we individuate them? There are two main answers on the philosophical market. For some, words are bundles of structural-functional features defining a unique performance profile. For others, words are non-eternal continuants individuated by their causal-historical ancestry. These conceptions offer competing views of the nature of words, and it seems natural to assume that at most one of them can capture the essence of wordhood. This paper makes a case for pluralism about wordhood: The view that there is a plurality of acceptable conceptions of the nature of words, none of which is uniquely entitled to inform us as to what wordhood consists in.
     A quick terminological caveat: The term word is ambiguous between a token reading and type reading. On the token reading, the term picks out observable, spatio-temporally located entities like utterances and inscriptions. On the type reading, the term picks out the abstract lexical units that speakers take to be externalized, conveyed, or articulated by appropriately produced utterances and inscriptions. | Luca Gasparri, 2020
  2. (Grammar) Most linguistic theories and descriptions rely, in one way or another, on a concept of the word. The word is argued to be the domain of certain formal properties, which makes it both a useful and a necessary structure for linguistic analysis (Graff 1929, Bloomfield 1933 [1984], Robins 1959, a.o.). In addition, words have proven to be psychologically real for language users, including L1 learners (Sapir 1921 [2004], Bolinger 1963, Tomasello 2003, a.o.). However, defining the word, either within or across languages, is one of the best-known issues in descriptive linguistics (Hiorth 1958, Lehmann 1962, Krámský 1969, a.o.)
     The major complication in defining words is that the relevant formal properties do not always single out the same strings. Such mismatches have motivated arguments for different word units, the most widely accepted of which is the division into phonological (or prosodic, or p-) words and morphological (or grammatical, or g-) words (Dixon 1977, 2010, Hall 1999, Dixon and Aikhenvald 2003, Hall et al. 2008, Hildebrandt 2015). | Tim Zingler, 2020
  3. (Grammar) Many languages of North America exhibit a high degree of polysynthesis, having words with a clause-like level of complexity, a high number of morphemes per word, noun incorporation, and rich agreement, among other phenomena. For instance, the following polysynthetic words from Inuktitut appear in language lessons intended for beginners (Pirurvik Centre, 2015):
    1. Aatuvaa-mu-u-laaq-tunga
      Ottawa-ALL-go-DIST.FUT-DEC.1SG
      'I will be going to Ottawa.'
    2. Katima-qati-gi-junna-qinnga?
      meet-partner-have.as-can-INTER.2SG.1SG
      'Can you meet with me?'
     We can note that both of these examples exhibit noun incorporation and rich agreement and the latter also contains a modal.
     Recent analyses of these words (and particularly in frameworks such as Distributed Morphology, Halle 1993, 1994) posit that they are syntactically complex. But such complexity raises the following question: Are orthographic polysynthetic words really words, in the usual sense?
     Sadock (1980) argues that words in West Greenlandic (part of the Inuit dialect continuum) are words in the usual sense. His arguments include the fact that affixes cannot occur in isolation, that "obligatory sandhi processes operate within words, but are optional or inapplicable between them", that it is "impossible to interrupt words with pauses or parenthetical material", and that "error correction can take place only at the boundaries of words", among other more syntactically oriented arguments, such as the inability to conjoin constituents within words. | Anja Arnhold, Richard Compton, and Emily Elfner, 2018
  4. (Grammar) While zi 'character' has figured prominently throughout the long history of Chinese linguistics, ci 'word' was hardly a topic prior to the twentieth century. According to Lü (1990), the first Chinese scholar to talk about ci 'word', as in contrast to zi 'character', was Shizhao Zhang (1907). Real discussion did not occur until the 1950s, when, prompted by the desire to introduce an alphabetic writing system, wordhood became an issue of urgency and many studies ensued. It was soon realized, however, that the task at hand was harder than one had thought, since testing criteria often conflicted with each other (see, for example, Lu 1964, Ling 1956, Fan 1958, Chao 1968, Lü 1979, Huang 1984, H. Zhang 1992, Dai 1992). This has made some leading scholars doubt whether defining word in Chinese is a meaningful thing to do. For example, in his classic work on Chinese grammar, Y. R. Chao (1968) states that "Not every language has a kind of unit which behaves in most (not to speak all) respects as does the unit called 'word'".
     I conclude that wordhood in Chinese is clearly definable. In particular, a modifier-noun [ M N ] nominal without the particle de is a compound; so are its derivatives, such as [ M [ M N ] ], [ [ M N ] N ], [ [ M N ] [ M N ] ], etc., as proposed by Fan (1958) and Dai (1992). | San Duanmu, 2011
  5. (Grammar) Recent research has clearly shown that the term word conflates a number of notions that must be kept distinct. If we use the term phonological word (p-word) to refer to units of a phonological domain, then there are two types of phonological words, metrical word and prosodic word. Let us use the term syntactic word (s-word) to refer to wordlike units for the purposes of syntax. The expressions John's and isn't in (1a) and (1b) are single p-words, but not single s-words:
    1. a. John's coming here tomorrow.
      b. Isn't he being promoted?
     | Tara Mohanan, 1995
  6. (Grammar) The notion word, which is the atomic unit in grammar, can be defined in different ways in different levels of grammar. The notion "word" can be defined in terms of morphological integrity: the word is a unit whose parts cannot be separated from the rest. It can also be defined in terms of grammatical-functional properties: in the case of a verb, it is the unit that governs its subject and object, and also a unit for certain operations that are related to grammatical functions such as passivization. The word can also be defined as a unit of meaning; it is a unit that conveniently packages meanings in an integrated way. These kinds of different senses of atomicity of the word represent the definition of the word at different levels of representation (i.e. constituent, functional and argument structure). In canonical cases, the same unit functions as an atom in these different senses. | Yo Matsumoto, 1992

WORDLIKENESS JUDGMENTS
(Morphology) It has long been observed that native speakers have strong intuitions about "possible words" in their language. For example, Halle (1962) and Chomsky and Halle (1965, 1968) observe certain unattested words—like [bɪk] or [blɪk]—are judged by native speakers to be possible words of English, whereas others—[bnɪk] or [vnig]—are judged impossible. There have been many experimental studies attempting to probe the source of such wordlikeness judgments, i.e., acceptability judgements of nonce words, and such studies increasingly include sophisticated computational modeling of the judgments obtained.
 One key observation about wordlikeness judgements, going back to some of the earliest work on the topic (Greenberg and Jenkins 1964, Scholes 1966, Chomsky and Halle 1968), is that they are gradient in the sense that nonce words tend to form a cline of acceptability. | Jimin Kahng and Karthik Durvasula, 2023

X-BAR THEORY

  1. (Syntax) A generative theory of language conceived by Noam A. Chomsky. It is a theory about the internal structure of syntactic constituents which was originally intended to place constraints on the power of phrase structure rules. X-bar theory captures the insight that all phrases share some essential structural properties. Its main tenet is that all phrase structure (hence the X) can be reduced to recursive specifier-head configurations.
     The structures in (1) have in common that the head (noun, verb, adjective, or preposition) has an element to its right, which can be construed as its complement.
    1. a. lookV [for you]
      b. the searchN [for you]
      c. angryA [with you]
      d. onP [with you]
     These structural properties are conventionally represented as in (2).

    1.       X''
          ╱╲
         ╱   ╲
       specifier    X'
              ╱╲
            ╱    ╲
           X   complement
     In (2), X is called the head of the phrase. X' and X'' are called projections of X. Typographically, these projections are marked by one or more primes (X' and X''), called bars. Thus, X' is pronounced "X-bar"; X'', "X-double-bar", etc. The head is called the zero projection (also written as X0). The topnode X'' (or XP) is called the maximal projection of X. All other projections between the head and the maximal projection are called intermediate projections. The sister(s) of X are called the complements of the head), and the sister(s) of X' is/are the specifier(s) (of the phrase). (Abner 1987; Chomsky 1970, 1986, 1993, 1994; Jackendoff 1977) | Glottopedia, 2014
  2. (Syntax) Six conditions encapsulate the claims of X-bar theory:  | András Kornai and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 1990

X-PHEMISM

  1. (Pragmatics) The combination set of euphemism and (its opposite) dysphemism. | ?
  2. (Pragmatics) People usually use direct or indirect expressions; they are sometimes formal, normal, polite or informal in their daily conversations. They often use one of the X-phemism expressions in their conversations. These expressions include orthophemisms to be normal and formal, euphemisms to be polite, positive or indirect, and / or dysphemisms to be direct and negative. The choice of using each one depends on several factors, such as the conversation situation, time, place, the speaker, the hearer, and the topic of the conversation.
     For example, in using indirect expressions or what are called euphemisms; as one of these X-phemism expressions, people deliberately avoid being direct and try to hide the truth in different ways and by employing different expressions. This phenomenon is naturally used in different fields and in all languages of the world. These expressions are used in monolingual, bilingual or multilingual situations. By using X-phemism expressions people try to be formal, positive, direct or indirect, or they avoid being impolite, negative, vulgar or not wellmannered with others.
     There are several examples of these X-phemism expressions used in different fields and all languages in the public and professional world. For example, in the public field one may say:  X-phemism is "the union set of euphemisms, orthophemisms and dysphemisms" (Allan 2005). By analogy, as euphemization is used to refer to the process of using euphemisms (Rahimi and Sahragard, 2006, James 2011, a.o.), we can use the term X-phemization to refer to the process of using euphemism, dysphemism and orthophemism locutions in different situations. In accordance with that, terms like dysphemization, orthophemization could also be used. | Hussein Abdo Rababah, 2014
  3. (Pragmatics) Allan and Burridge (1991) call the combination of both euphemism and dysphemism as "x-phemism". The term X-phemism is used to replace one expression with another that carries positive or negative associations. Euphemism is used for making something sound better while dysphemism is used for making something sound worse. Dysphemism then is, roughly speaking, the opposite of euphemism. Grant (1977) uses the term malphemism instead of dysphemism and explains that such an expression is used to be offensive and indicates negative discernment. He mentions that one man's euphemism may be regarded as another man's malphemism or obscenity.
     Other scholars believe that euphemism can be divided into three major categories: euphemism, dysphemism, and doublespeak. Doublespeak is a similar entity to both euphemism and dysphemism, but it contains stronger intentions to interchange or confuse the truth of the issue and deceive the audiences (Lutz 1987, 1990, Hasegawa 2003). Allan (2006) adds another category of euphemism called orthophemism which means straight talking.
     Finally, there are three antonyms of euphemism: dysphemism, cacophemism, and power word. The first as mentioned above can be either offensive or merely humorously deprecating with. The second one is generally used more often in the sense of something deliberately offensive. The last is mainly used in arguments to make a point seem more correct (Wikipedia 2006). | Hashim Alhussaini, 2007

YANG'S VARIATIONAL MODEL
(Language Acquisition) Yang (2002) proposes that "child language consists of a collection of potential adult languages" as opposed to its reflecting "a unique potential adult language". Yang develops the Variational Model of Language Acquisition (VMLA), which has its conceptual foundation in the Darwinian view of biological evolution. In this model, all UG-defined grammars are accessible to the learner from the start, and language acquisition is metaphorically the process of competition among these grammars. The proposed learning algorithm can be schematically shown as follows:

Under the presentation of an input datum s, the child
a. selects a grammar Gi with the probability pi,
b. analyzes s with Gi
c. • if successful, reward Gi by increasing pi
c. • otherwise, punish Gi by decreasing pi
 In simpler terms, this learning algorithm rewards grammars that succeed in analyzing a sentence and punishes those that fail to do so. Hence, learning is the adaptive change in the weights of grammars in response to the sentences successively presented to the child. As learning proceeds, grammars that are more compatible with the input data will be more prominently represented in the learner's hypothesis space. Learning stops when the weights/probabilities of all grammars stabilize and do not change any further; at this point, the target grammar has eliminated all other grammars in the population as a result of learning. | Koji Sugisaki and William Snyder, 2006

YNGVE SCORE

  1. (Syntax) A metric of syntactic complexity using unlabeled tree structures to measure deviation from right-branching trees. Related to the size of a "first in/last out" stack at each word in a top-down, left-to-right parse derivation. | ?
  2. (Syntax) A measure (Yngve 1960) of syntactic complexity that is based on cognitive load (Mayer and Moreno 2003, Sweller and Chandler 1991), specifically on the limited capabilities of the working memory (Baddeley 1998, 2003; Miller 1956). The Yngve score is computed using the tree representation of a sentence obtained by syntactically parsing the sentence. The tree is scanned using a pushdown stack in a top-down, right-to-left order. For every level of the tree, branches are labeled starting with 0 for the rightmost branch and incrementing by 1 as the parse progresses toward the left branch. Each word is then assigned a word score by summing up the labels for each branch in the path from the root node to the word (leaf node). | Nuthan Munaiah, Benjamin S. Meyers, et al., 2017
See Also FRAZIER SCORING.

ZERO ANAPHORA

  1. (Syntax) Relation in which a phonetically null element is seen as linked by anaphora to an antecedent. | Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 2007
  2. (Semantics) In so-called "pro-drop" languages such as Japanese and many Romance languages including Italian, phonetic realization is not required for anaphoric references in contexts in which English noncontrastive pronouns are used: e.g., the subjects of Italian and Japanese translations of buy in (2) and (3) are not explicitly realized. We call these nonrealized mandatory arguments "zero anaphors".
    1. [EN] [John]i went to visit some friends. On the way, [he]i bought some wine.
    2. [IT] [Giovanni]i andò a far visita a degli amici. Per via, φi comprò del vino.
    3. [JA] [John]i-wa yujin-o houmon-sita. Tochu-de φi wain-o ka-tta.
     | Ryu Iida and Massimo Poesio, 2011

ZERO-FORM

  1. (Morphology) A morpheme that doesn't change the word at all, typically in spelling or pronunciation.
  2. (Morphology) Take the following sentences:
    1. I love looking at the sheep in the meadow.
    2. I hit them with a giant baseball bat.
    These sentences illustrate the remarkable concept known as the "zero-form morpheme"—a morpheme that doesn't change the word at all, typically in spelling or pronunciation.
      In the examples provided, so long as the sentences are independent from each other, there is no real way to know what the morphology of the italicized word actually is.
      In (1), sheep could be singular or plural. If there's a field of sheep outside my house, I can enjoy looking at them. If I have a painting of one sheep in a meadow, I love looking at it. In (2), tomorrow, when the sheep annoy me, I will hit them with a bat. Or, yesterday, when the sheep annoyed me, I hit them with a bat.
      Put another way, words that have zero-form morphemes in them require additional information (from context in the sentence or, if unavailable, from surrounding sentences) in order to understand what the semantic meaning is. | "wordnerd", 2004

ZERO-PERSON CONSTRUCTION

  1. (Grammar) Standard Finnish has no overt generic pronoun like English one or you, and uses third-person singular verbs with phonologically null subjects to convey generic human reference in the "zero person" construction (e.g. Hakulinen and Karttunen 1973, Holmberg 2010, Vilkuna 1992). The zero person (1,2) is unacceptable in non-generic, episodic contexts like (3). (The underscore __ denotes the zero.) (1,2) are generic and cannot receive a referential (anaphoric) interpretation, as Finnish does not have third-person pro-drop in main clauses.
    1. Suomessa __ joutuu usein saunaan. (adapted from Laitinen 2006)
      Finland-INE __ end-up-3SG often sauna-ILL
      'In Finland you/one often end(s) up in the sauna'
    2. Jos __ asuu Kaliforniassa, __ pääsee nauttimaan merestä.
      If __ live-3SG California-INE, __ gets-to-PRS-3SG enjoy ocean-ELA
      If you/one live(s) in California, you/one get(s) to enjoy the ocean.'
    3. * Nyt ___ löysi kaksi leppäkerttua. (Hakulinen and Karttunen 1973)
      Now ___ find-PST.3SG two ladybug-PAR
      'Now one/you found two ladybugs.'
      The zero person being phonologically null raises the question of whether it is syntactically realized. However, the zero patterns just like overt arguments for purposes of case assignment.
      The zero person occurs with third person singular agreement on the verb.
      The zero can bind third person reflexive anaphors and possessive suffixes.
      A key property of the Finnish zero person is that it is not acceptable in all semantics contexts or with all kinds of verbs. The zero person frequently occurs with verbs that involve some kind of modality (Hakulinen and Karttunen 1973, Laitinen 1995, Löflund 1998), including the modals täytyy 'must', saa 'be able to' / 'may' / 'be allowed to', voi 'be able to' / 'may'). In addition, the zero person also occurs with some experiencer verbs like ikvystyä 'to become bored' and hermostua 'to become annoyed', as well as other verbs with low agentivity and intentionality like nukahtaa 'to fall asleep' and mahtua 'to fit somewhere'. The zero person can also occur with some verbs of perception and emotion (e.g. Jokela 2012). | Elsi Kaiser, 2019
  2. (Grammar) In his paper "Indefinite zero subjects in Latvian" (1995), Alex Holvoet clearly distinguishes two types of zero-person constructions in Latvian, formally, by number. The notional difference between the two types lies in referentiality: the plural version refers to a non-identified group of persons (possibly having only one member, similar to English indefinite they), while the singular zero subject is never referential—it has a hypothetical or generalized meaning. Holvoet further points out that the singular type is typical for Latvian and hardly attested in Lithuanian, but has parallels in Finnic languages (see also Holvoet 2001). | Nicole Nau, 2021

Page Last Modified March 9, 2024

 
 B a c k   T o   I n d e x