Sank's Glossary of Linguistics 
Exh-Ez

EXHAUSTIFICATION

  1. (Semantics) A process where one proposition is asserted, and stronger alternatives to that proposition are negated. It's something that's often used in work on questions, scalar implicatures, and focus particles, to name a few areas. | Curt Anderson, 2020
  2. (Semantics) The "grammatical approach to implicatures" provides a way to square Cooperative Speaker with the facts (cf. Krifka 1995, Fox 2007, Chierchia et al. 2012). The idea is that we have to tinker with the grammar after all. The core of the proposal is the postulation of a covert lexical item, EXHC, which composes with a sentence φ, its prejacent, to affirm φ and negate a selection of φ's alternatives. | Tue Trinh, 2019
  3. (Semantics) The term exhaustiveness was first used by Baker (1968) to refer to the requirement that a constituent question be given a complete answer. For example, (1b) would not be fully adequate as an answer to (1a) if Mary had eaten a calzone too. If such were the case, (1c) would be a correct answer.
    1. a. What did Mary eat?
      b. Mary ate a pizza.
      c. Mary ate a pizza and a calzone.
     As an answer, we can think of (1b) as being ruled out by (1c), because (1c) is more exhaustive, in the sense that it contains additional true information. A number of researchers (e.g., Kuno 1972, Atlas and Levinson 1981, Horn 1981, Szabolcsi 1981, É. Kiss 1998) have noted that exhaustification effects are not limited to questions. More precisely, there are a range of syntactic and phonological devices for signalling exhaustive listing interpretations. For example, the cleft (2a) and the pseudocleft (2b) both require such an interpretation:
    1. a. It was a pizza that Mary ate.
      b. What Mary ate was a pizza.
     Both sentences in (2) say:
    1. that Mary ate a pizza, and
    2. that Mary ate nothing else.
     That (ii) is part of the assertion of these sentences and not a conversational implicature is confirmed by tests devised by Szabolcsi (1981) and Donka Farkas. | Alastair Butler, 2001

EXHAUSTIFICATION OPERATOR
(Semantics) According to grammatical accounts of Scalar Implicatures (SIs), SIs are triggered by an exhaustification operator, exh, which asserts both its prejacent and the negation of each of its excludable alternatives (Gennaro Chierchia et al. 2011, a.o.).
 For a structure φ of propositional type and context c:

  1. exh(φ)⟧ = ⟦φ⟧ ∧ ⋀ ¬ ⟦ψ⟧ : ψExcl(φ) ∧ ⟦ψ⟧ ∈ R.
  2. Excl(φ) is a subset of the set of formal alternatives of φ, such that, for each ψExcl(φ), ⟦ψ⟧ isn't logically entailed by ⟦φ⟧ (or equivalently, such that ⟦φ⟧ is logically consistent with ¬⟦ψ⟧).
  3. R = a contextually assigned 'relevance' predicate which minimally satisfies the following two conditions:
    1. the prejacent, φ, is relevant, i.e. ⟦φ⟧ ∈ R, and
    2. any proposition that is contextually equivalent to the prejacent is also in R
       (i.e., if ⟦φ⟧ ∩ c ≡ ⟦ψ⟧ ∩ c, then ⟦ψ⟧ ∈ R).
 | Itai Bassi, Guillermo Del Pinal, and Uli Sauerland, 2021

EXHAUSTIVE IDENTIFICATION MARKING
(Semantics) In Wolof (West Atlantic Niger-Congo, Senegal), exhaustive identification of a DP involves moving it to Spec,CP, as in (1). The complementizer that hosts the moved nominal in its specifier is the A′-movement complementizer (l)a.

  1. Exhaustive Identification

    Musaa
    Moussa
    l-a
    l-CWH
    ñu
    they
    gis.
    see
     'It's Moussa who they saw.'
 In exhaustive identification of a DP, the sentence particle (l)a occurs, and the exhaustively identified DP A′-moves to Spec,CP (Dunigan 1994, Martinović 2013, Torrence 2005, 2012, etc.). (L)a has all the properties of an A′-movement complementizer:
  1. It is obligatory in long-distance extraction.
  2. It occurs in every C position in successive-cyclic movement (as the Irish aL; McCloskey 2000, 2001).
  3. It exhibits a subject/non-subject asymmetry, akin to the that-trace effect: it surfaces as a in case of subject extraction, and as la in case of non-subject extraction (Martinović 2013).
  1. a. Exhaustive Identification of a non-subject

    Goloi
    monkey
    l-a
    l-CWH
    xale
    child
    yi
    DEF.PL
    gis
    see
    ti
    ti.
      'It's a monkey that the children saw.'
    b. Exhaustive Identification of a subject

    Xale
    child
    yi-a (>yee)
    DEF.PL-CWH
    gis
    see
    golo.
    monkey
      'It's the children that saw the monkey.'
Exhaustive identification marking is usually related to a specialized syntactic position (e.g. É Kiss 1995, Torrence 2013) and a syntactic feature on a head which triggers movement of the exhaustively identified constituent (such as a focus feature in Horvath 1986, 1995, Brody 1990, 1995 or the Exhaustive Identification operator in Horvath 2007). What throws a wrench in such an analysis are cases of DP movement to the "exhaustifying" position which are not accompanied by exhaustive interpretation. | Peter Klecha and Martina Martinović, 2015

EXISTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
(Syntax) Or, existential clause construction. The term has been used in two senses:

  1. For construction-functions (e.g. Clark 1978).
  2. For construction-strategies (e.g. McNally 2016, Creissels 2019).
 In the first sense (which I prefer), an existential clause construction is "a clause construction in which an indefinite and discourse-new nominal phrase (the existent) is said to be in some location". In this sense, all of the clauses in (1)-(6) are existential clauses.
  1. English
    There is a bird on the roof.
    A bird is on the roof.
  2. Finnish
    Kato-lla
    roof-ADESS
    on
    is
    lintu.
    bird
    'There is a bird on the roof.'
    (Cf. Lintu on katolla. 'The bird is on the roof.')
  3. Logudorese Sardinian
    In
    in
    custu
    this
    istradone
    road
    nch'
    there
    at
    have.3SG
    una
    a
    creža.
    church
    'In this road there is a church.'
    (Lit. 'It there has a church in this road.') (Bentley et al. 2015)
  4. Tagalog
    May
    EXV
    mga
    PL
    tao
    person
    sa
    LOC
    labas.
    outside
    'There are people outside.' (Sabbagh 2009)
  5. Wambaya (Mirndi, Australia)
    Garnguji
    many.NOM
    julaji-rdarra
    bird-GROUP.NOM
    gayangga
    high
    darranggu-ni.
    tree-LOC
    'There are lots of bird up in the trees.' (Nordlinger 1998)
  6. German
    1. Temporary Location of Existent
      Auf
      on
      dem
      the
      Tisch
      table
      stehen
      stand
      Blumen.
      flowers
      'There are flowers on the table.'
      (Cf. ?* Auf dem Tisch gibt es Blumen.)
    2. Permanent Presence of Existent
      In
      in
      Thailand
      Thailand
      gibt
      gives
      es
      it
      Tiger.
      tigers
      'There are tigers in Thailand.'
      (Cf. ?* In Thailand sind Tiger.)
 | Martin Haspelmath, 2021

EXISTENTIAL MARKER
(Grammar) A word, found in a distinct clause type, which marks a referent's existence.
 The word hay in (1) is an existential marker:

  1. Spanish
    Hay
    EXIST
    muchos
    many
    libros
    books
    en
    in
    la
    the
    biblioteca.
    library
    'There are many books in the library.' (Schachter 1985)
 | SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms, 2003

EXOCENTRIC COMPOUND

  1. (Morphology) A form or a word which does not have a head. This means that there is not one morphological segment that contributes the core meaning, and instead the meaning is comprised of all components together. | INLP Linguistic Glossary, 2021
  2. (Morphology) A compound that is not a hyponym of one of its elements, and thus appears to lack a head or perhaps to have a head (or "center") external to the compound itself. English examples such as redhead 'a person with red hair', flat-foot 'policeman (slang)' and egghead 'intellectual' abound. | Laurie Bauer, 2008
See Also ENDOCENTRIC COMPOUND.

EXOCENTRIC CONSTRUCTION
(Syntax) A construction that does not contain any head element that is capable of being a syntactically adequate substitution for the whole construction.
 Examples, in English:

  1. Prepositional phrase:
    Neither the component preposition nor the noun phrase may substitute for the whole prepositional phrase.
  2. Clause:
    No single element of the clause may substitute for the whole.
 (Hartmann and Stork 1972, Pei and Gaynor 1954, Crystal 1985, Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik 1985) | Alphabetical Glossary of Lingustic Terms

EXPANDING FOCUS

  1. (Information Structure) When the focused referent extends the set of referents mentioned in a previous (incomplete) statement for which the proposition is true. If the previous statement had an exhaustive aspect of meaning, the extension corrects this exhaustivity, as in (1).
    1.  A: Did you buy beans?
       B: Yes, but I also bought [ rice ] FOC .
     | Jenneke van der Wal and Stavros Skopeteas, 2019
  2. (Information Structure) Among the many kinds of focus that linguists have written about, I found a particularly large number of examples of Expanding Focus (Dik 1987). Expanding focus is a mechanism for adding information to the previously presupposed information. This is easy to identify operationally because it involves creating lists, as in (1).
    1.  A: Sally drinks coffee with breakfast.
       B: Yes, but she also drinks [ orange juice ] FOC .
     | Rebecca A. Hatch, 2014

EXPECTATION-BASED MINIMALIST GRAMMAR
(Syntax) Abbreviated e-MG. Any of certain simplified versions of the (Conflated) Minimalist Grammars, (C)MGs, formalized by Stabler (Stabler 2011, 2013, 1997) and Phase-based Minimalist Grammars (PMGs; Chesi 2005, 2007, Stabler 2011). The crucial simplification consists of driving structure building only using lexically encoded categorial top-down expectations. The commitment on a top-down procedure (in e-MGs and PMGs, as opposed to (C)MGs, Chomsky 1995, Stabler 2011) allows us to define a core derivation that is the same in both parsing and generation (Momma and Phillips 2018). | Cristiano Chesi, 2021

EXPLETIVE

  1. (Grammar) From Latin expletivus 'serving to fill out or take up space' (Beaven 2017, Halsi 1891). A word or phrase inserted into a sentence that is not needed to express the basic meaning of the sentence (Svenonius 2002). It is regarded as semantically null or a placeholder (Moro 1997). Expletives are not insignificant or meaningless in all senses; they may be used to give emphasis or tone, to contribute to the meter in verse, or to indicate tense (Lederer 1995, Lounsbury 1907).
     Examples:
    1. The teacher was not, in fact, present.
    2. Indeed, the teacher was absent.
     In conversation the expressions like and you know, when they are not meaningful, are expletives (Scott 1965). | Wikipedia, 2022
  2. (Syntax) A grammatical element having no semantic content and occurring in theta-bar positions. Examples:
    1. There is a man in the room.
    2. It seems that John is ill.
     (Chomsky 1981, 1986, 1993) | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001

EXPLICATURE
(Pragmatics) There are two types of communicated assumptions on the relevance-theoretic account: explicatures and implicatures. An explicature is a propositional form communicated by an utterance which is pragmatically constructed on the basis of the propositional schema or template (logical form) that the utterance encodes; its content is an amalgam of linguistically decoded material and pragmatically inferred material. An implicature is any other propositional form communicated by an utterance; its content consists of wholly pragmatically inferred matter (see Sperber and Wilson 1986). So the explicature / implicature distinction is a derivational distinction and, by definition, it arises only for verbal (or, more generally, code-based) ostensive communication. For example, an utterance of (1a), in an appropriate context, can express the proposition in (1b), which, if ostensively communicated, is an explicature; the same goes for the propositional form in (2b) expressed by an utterance of (2a):

  1. a. It's raining.
    b. It's raining in Christchurch, New Zealand, at time tx.
  2. a. Bill ran into John and John stopped his car in an illegal position.
    b. [ Billi ran into John at tx ]P & [ as a result of P, Johnj stopped at tx+y in an illegal position ]
 There are several points to note here:

 I. Since the content of explicatures is derived from the two distinct processes of decoding and pragmatic inference, different token explicatures which have the same propositional content may vary with regard to the relative contributions made by each of these processes. That is, they may vary in degree of explicitness:

  1. a. Mary Jones put the book by Chomsky on the table in the downstairs sitting-room.
    b. Mary put the book on the table.
    c. She put it there.
    d. On the table.
 All of these could be used in different contexts to communicate explicitly one and the same propositional form. Clearly (3c) and (3d) leave a great deal more to pragmatic inference than does (3b), which in turn is less explicit than (3a).
 II. The explicature / implicature distinction applies only to ostensively communicated assumptions, that is, to those that the speaker has made evident she intends the hearer to pick up.
 III. On the basis of what has been said so far, it looks as if an utterance has a single explicature, the proposition it expresses when that is communicated (endorsed) by the speaker. But in fact Sperber and Wilson's idea is that utterances typically have several explicatures. The logical form may be embedded in a range of different sorts of higher-level schemas, including speech-act and propositional-attitude descriptions.
 IV. Although explicature is a term specific to a particular pragmatic theory, Relevance Theory, the phenomenon it picks out, at least at the first level, bears strong resemblances to that denoted by terms used in other frameworks, such as what is said as used by Recanati (1989, 1993), impliciture as used by Bach (1994) and the "pragmatic view" of context-sensitive saying defended by Travis (1985, 1997). | Robyn Carston, 2004

EXPONE
(Examples) 

  1. In the lack of overt case, then, this determiner is simply null, but the nominal is nevertheless assigned absolutive or oblique case that is not overtly exponed. | Ksenia Alexeyevna Ershova, 2019
  2. A key assumption of Distributed Morphology is that the syntax manipulates feature bundles that lack morphophonology; these feature bundles are exponed post-syntactically by matching the syntactic feature bundles to Vocabulary Items (VI's; pieces of morphophonology). | Ruth Kramer and Lindley Winchester, 2018
  3. In the case of phonologically-conditioned suppletive allomorphy, two or more distinct, phonologically-unrelated surface forms expone the same semantic material, as dictated by phonological constraints (for surveys, see e.g., Paster 2006, Nevins 2011). | Stephanie S. Shih, 2017
  4. In the case of the count and mass noun [in Neapolitan] we have some of the strongest evidence for root-initial consonants being alternated, strong and weak, to expone an aspect of the morpho-syntax. | Michela Russo and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn, 2016
  5. What Löwenadler shows is that the form pry:dt, with a cluster, would violate a phonotactic constraint against such clusters, that the form pryt, with vowel shortening (and vowel quality changes) as well as assimilation is also disliked, that pry:t violates a constraint on assimilation of the stem, and that pry:d, with no evidence of suffixation, fails to expone the neuter gender. | Andrew Nevins, 2014
  6. This analysis results in the right values ending up on the features of v, but it does not necessarily explain how the phi features and the goal feature are exponed separately. | Mark Baker and Ruth Kramer, 2013
  7. A syllabic nasal is possible at word initial position [in Dagaare syllable structure] although phonetically, especially when produced with a lento tempo, it is common for it to "expone" as VC. | Samuel Gyasi Obeng, 1999

EXPONENCE

  1. (Grammar) Any relation between a linguistic unit, structure, etc. and its realization in speech, and any relation of realization by which this is mediated. E.g., an exponent of stress, as a phonological unit, might be the lengthening of a syllable. | Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 2014
  2. (Grammar) For many linguists, exponence has the same meaning as realization, actualization, manifestation, and some less frequent alternatives. The verb related to it is expound, synonymous with realize, actualize, etc. That which expounds is an exponent.
     Once upon a time, the use of expound was regarded as a distinguishing feature of the linguistics of John R. Firth and his followers in the London School, and realize (or actualize etc.) was used more generally outside British linguistics. The term exponence and its relatives and synonyms have to do with the correspondence between the categories of some analytic level and those of another. Most often, they are used of relations between more abstract and more concrete categories, especially within a framework which conducts its analyses of language metaphorically moving from meaning "down" to pronunciation or orthography (cf. Firth 1957).
     Examples of exponence-relations might include:
    1. Phonemes expounded as speech sounds.
    2. Any unit expounded by its allo-units.
    3. (Sets of) abstract grammatical features expounded by real morphological markers.
     In such a framework, exponents might be viewed as devices by means of which properties of "higher" categories might be recognized. | Richard Coates, 2000
See Also EXPONE.

EXPRESSIVE
(Grammar; Semantics) A class that encompasses many different expressions whose main function is to display some kind of evaluative attitude or emotion, mostly of the speaker. Examples for expressives are expressive attributive adjectives (1), epithets (2).

  1. I have to mow the damn lawn.
  2. That bastard Kaplan was promoted.
 Expressives display a set of specific properties which seem to set them apart from all other kinds of meaning. First of all, the meaning they convey is independent of the descriptive content (at-issue content in Potts' older terminology). This meaning is contributed by the conventional meaning of the expressive items, and the attitude or emotion expressives display is mostly speaker-oriented. | Daniel Gutzmann, 2011

EXPRESSIVE CONTENT

  1. (Pragmatics) Semantic contribution that conveys non truth-conditional information about the speaker's attitude/emotive status. | ?
  2. (Pragmatics) Some utterances apparently do not express a proposition: for example Wow!, Ouch!, Hello and Goodbye. Such utterances express rather than describing, and in philosophy of language they are often said to have expressive (rather than descriptive) content.
     According to this perspective, an utterance of Wow! expresses the speaker's amazement, and Ouch! expresses mild pain. It is harder to paraphrase what Hello and Goodbye express.
     Some expressions of this type, including wow and ouch, can be used ironically. In such cases the speaker does not intend to endorse the standard expressive content of the utterance. | Nicholas Allott, 2010

EXTENDED PROJECTION PRINCIPLE

  1. (Syntax) All clauses must have subjects, and lexical information is expressed at all levels. [Spec,TP] must be filled. | The TrevTutor, 2017
  2. (Syntax) A linguistic hypothesis about subjects. It was proposed by Noam Chomsky as an addendum to the projection principle. The basic idea of the EPP is that clauses must contain a noun phrase or determiner phrase in the subject position (i.e. in the specifier of a tense phrase or inflectional phrase or in the specifier of a verb phrase in languages in which subjects don't raise to TP/IP, e.g. Welsh).
     Most verbs require meaningful subjects—for example, kick in Tom kicked the ball takes the subject Tom. However, other verbs do not require (and in fact, do not permit) meaningful subjects—for example, one can say it rains but not the sky rains. The EPP states that regardless of whether the main predicate assigns a meaningful theta role to a subject, a subject must be present syntactically. As a result, verbs that do not assign external theta roles will appear with subjects that are either dummy pronouns (e.g. expletive it, there), or ones which have been moved into subject position from a lower position (e.g., subject of an embedded clause after the verbs, like seem, appear, etc). | Wikipedia, 2021
  3. (Syntax) A principle which extends the Projection Principle with the requirement that clauses have subjects.
      The EPP requires that sentence (1) have an expletive subject (to which no theta-role is assigned):
    1. It is raining.
     (Chomsky 1981, 1986) | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001

EXTENSION
(Philosophical Semantics; Philosophy of Language) The set of things a concept or expression extends to, or applies to, if it is the sort of concept or expression that a single object by itself can satisfy. Concepts and expressions of this sort are monadic or 'one-place' concepts and expressions.
 So the extension of the word dog is the set of all (past, present and future) dogs in the world: the set includes Fido, Rover, Lassie, Rex, and so on. The extension of the phrase Wikipedia reader includes each person who has ever read Wikipedia, including you.
 The extension of a whole statement, as opposed to a word or phrase, is defined (since Frege 1892) as its truth value. So the extension of Lassie is famous is the logical value 'true', since Lassie is famous.
 Some concepts and expressions are such that they don't apply to objects individually, but rather serve to relate objects to objects. For example, the words before and after do not apply to objects individually—it makes no sense to say Jim is before or Jim is after—but to one thing in relation to another, as in The wedding is before the reception and The reception is after the wedding. Such relational or polyadic ('many-place') concepts and expressions have, for their extension, the set of all sequences of objects that satisfy the concept or expression in question. So the extension of before is the set of all (ordered) pairs of objects such that the first one is before the second one. | Wikipedia, 2023

EXTERNAL ARGUMENT

  1. (Syntax) Argument of a predicate X, which is not contained in the maximal projection of X. In general, this is the subject of a predicate.
     In (1), John is the external argument of the verb buy, and is not part of its maximal projection VP.
    1. John [VP buys books]
     An argument of a predicate X which is contained in its maximal projection is called the internal argument. In (1) the NP books is the internal argument of the verb buy. (Chomsky 1981, 1986, Williams 1980) | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001
  2. (Syntax) Predicates, or verb phrases, take arguments. Broadly, arguments can be divided into two types: internal or external. Internal arguments are those that are contained within the maximal projection of the verb phrase, and there can be more than one of them (Levin and Rappaport 1986, Spencer 1991, Williams 1981). External arguments are those that are not contained within the maximal projection of the verb phrase and are typically the subject of the sentence (Chomsky 1981, 1986, Williams 1980).
     Examples:
    Sentence Internal argument(s) External argument
    Karen [VP went to the store] [DP the store] [DP Karen]
    Karen [VP drove herself to the store] [DP herself], [DP the store] [DP Karen]
     | Wikipedia, 2023

EXTERNAL POSSESSION

  1. (Syntax) In a number of languages, a possessor of a subject or an object can be expressed as a separate constituent and behave like an argument of the verb. The following are examples from some languages exhibiting the this construction. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as External Possession (Payne and Barshi 1999).
    1. Spanish
      a.
      El
      The
      enfermero
      nurse
      le
      him-DAT
      lavó
      washed
      la
      the
      cara
      face
      al
      to-the
      paciente.
      patient
        'The nurse washed the patient's face for him.' (Kempchinsky 1992)
      b.
      El
      the
      hombre
      man
      le
      him-DAT
      cortó
      cut
      las
      the
      ramas
      branches
      al
      to-the
      árbol.
      tree
        'The man cut the branches of the tree.'
    2. Hebrew
      a.
      Gil
      Gil
      higdil
      enlarged
      le-Rina
      to-Rina
      et
      ACC
      ha-tmuna.
      the-picture
        'Gil enlarged Rina's picture.' (Landau 1999)
      b.
      ha-yalda
      the-girl
      kilkela
      spoiled
      l-Dan
      to-Dan
      'et
      ACC
      ha-radio.
      the-radio
        'The girl broke Dan's radio.' (Borer and Grodzinsky 1986)
    3. German
      a.
      Jan
      Jan
      hat
      has
      der
      Maria
      Maria-DAT
      die
      the
      Haare
      hair-ACC
      geschnitten.
      cut
        'Jan cut Mary's hair yesterday.'
      b.
      Tim
      Tim
      hat
      has
      der
      the
      Nachbarin
      neighbor.DAT.FEM
      das
      the
      Auto
      car-ACC
      gewaschen.
      washed
        'Tim washed the neighbor's car.' (Lee-Schoenfeld 2003)
    4. Japanese
      a.
      usagi-ga
      rabbit-NOM
      mimi-ga
      ear-NOM
      naga-i.
      long-PRES
        'It is rabbits which have long ears.' (modified from Takahashi 1994)
      b.
      dansei-ga
      male-NOM
      heikin-zyumyoo-ga
      average-life-span-NOM
      mizikai.
      short-PRES
        'It is men whose average life-span is short.' (modified from Kuno 1973)
    5. Korean
      a.
      Mary-ka
      Mary-NOM
      meli-ka
      hair-NOM
      kil-ta.
      long-DECL
        'It is Mary whose hair is long.'
      b.
      Mary-ka
      Mary-NOM
      John-ul
      John-ACC
      tali-lul
      leg-ACC
      cha-ss-ta.
      kick-PAST-DECL
        'Mary kicked John's leg.' (D.-I. Cho 1992)
     In the examples in (1), (2), (3) and (5b), a possessor of the direct object is realized externally to the constituent head by the direct object, while in the examples (4) and (5a), a possessor of the subject is realized externally. I will call these possessors external possessors. Most common types of external possession found across languages involve possessors of direct objects, as in the Spanish, German and Hebrew examples above.
     It is well known that external possessors display regular argument properties. | Reiko Vermeulen, 2005
  2. (Syntax) External possession constructions are quite common cross-linguistically, and they have received significant attention in the the theoretical literature because they exhibit a(n at least apparent) mismatch between syntax and semantics: a noun phrase behaves semantically as a possessor of another noun, but syntactically as an argument of the verb.
     There are three families of approaches to the phenomenon (cf. Deal 2017):
    1. The possessor is base-generated as an argument of the verb. The possessor reading arises via binding of an operator within the DP (e.g. Borer and Grodzinsky 1986). This analysis is akin to a control configuration.
    2. The possessor is base-generated inside the DP, where it receives its thematic role. It then moves to a position within the vP. This analysis is akin to a raising configuration.
       This position could be a thematic position (e.g., Lee-Schoenfeld 2006) or a position that is only associated with case/licensing (e.g., Landau 1999, Deal 2013).
    3. The possessor is introduced by a low applicative, and it is the semantics of the low applicative that give rise to the possession reading (e.g. Pylkkänen 2008, Nie 2019).
     | Maria Kouneli, 2023

EXTRACTION

  1. (Syntax) A syntactic process which moves a constituent from within a unit to a position outside that unit.
     For example, it is possible to take the subject John in the sentence John saw the elephant and extract it to function as the head of the complement in the associated cleft sentence: It was John who saw the elephant.  | David Crystal, 2008
  2. (Syntax) It has been known at least since Ross (1967) that many constructions allow an embedded constituent to be realized in an arbitrarily high position in syntactic structure. These include clefts, topicalization, non-subject relatives, and wh-questions. Typically, the extracted element is a subject or a complement, as in (1) and (2), but it is also well-known that certain adverbial structures can be extracted, as illustrated in (3).
    1. a. Who do you think [ __ left the party in a hurry ]?
      b. This is who I think [ __will win in the documentary category ].
      c. Which movie did you think I said [ __ would just be a lame parody of Star Wars ]?
    2. a. This is the movie that [ I really like __ ].
      b. That actor, I think [ I've never seen __ before ].
      c. This book will not be easy [ to convince young children to read __ ].
      d. What did you write [ a book about __ ]?
      e. What are you [ a doctor of __ ]?
      f. Which movie did you hear [ rumors [ that we had boycotted __ ] ]?
      g. Kim is the sort of person that I just don't know [ a lot of [ people who think well of __ ] ].
    3. a. [ How often ] do you think that [ Fred was late this week __ ]?
      b. [ On Monday ], I think that [ Kim went home very late __ ].
      c. [ Yesterday ], it seems that [ Kim arrived home very early __ ].
    Extraction from subject phrases is difficult, but not impossible, as argued by Ross (1967), Pollard and Sag (1994), Huddleston et al. (2002), Levine and Sag (2003), Kluender (1998, 2004), Levine and Hukari (2006), and others. This is illustrated in (4), for a wide range of constructions. The examples (4e–i) are my own. These require a prosodic break at the gap site and some contrastive stress on the nominal head of the subject.
    1. a. Of which cars were [ the hoods __ ] damaged by the explosion?
      b. They have eight children [ of whom ] I think [ [ five __ ] are still living at home ].
      c. What were [ pictures of __ ] seen around the globe?
      d. Who does [ being able to bake ginger cookies for __ ] give her great pleasure?
      e. Which president would [ the impeachment of __ ] cause outrage?
      f. Which book will [ the author of __ ] never be known?
      g. Which problem will [ no solution to __ ] ever be found?
      h. Which crime will [ the punishment for __ ] never be carried out?
      i. There are people in this world that [ (for me) to describe __ as despicable ] would be an understatement.
     Not only is it possible to extract from complement phrases and subject phrases, but it is also possible to extract from adjunct phrases. Ross (1967), Chomsky (1982), Engdahl (1983), Hegarty (1990), Cinque (1990), Pollard and Sag (1994), and Borgonovo and Neeleman (2000), among others, note that (non-parasitic) extraction from adjuncts is possible, as illustrated in (5).
    1. a. That's the symphony that Schubert [ died without finishing __ ].
      b. Which report did Kim [ go to lunch without reading __ ]?
      c. A problem this important, I could never [ go home without solving __ first ].
      d. What did he [ fall asleep complaining about __ ]?
      e. What did John [ drive Mary crazy trying to fix __ ]?
      f. Who did you [ go to Girona in order to meet __ ]?
      g. Who would you rather [ sing with __ ]?
     I note that this includes some tensed adjuncts, contrary to what's commonly assumed:
    1. a. Which email account would you be in trouble if someone broke into __?
      b. Which problem would you be devastated if someone had already solved __?
      c. This is the formula that I would be devastated if someone had already discovered __.
     | Rui P. Chaves, 2012

EXTRAVERSION
(Syntax) In Yucatec Maya:

  1. a.
    hun-túul
    one-CL.AN
    máak
    person
    túun
    PROG:SBJ.3
    yáakan
    groan
    mèen
    because
    hach
    very
    yah
    ache
    baʼx
    what
    k
    IMPF
    yùuchul
    SBJ.3:happen:INCMPL
    tiʼ
    him
      'a person groans because it hurts him what is happening to him' (MPK_016)
    b.
    tu
    PRV:SBJ.3
    yáakan-t-ah
    groan-TRR-CMPL
    u
    POSS.3
    yahiloʼ
    ache:REL:D2
      'he bemoaned his pain' (ACC_0463)
  2. a.
    tin
    PRV:SBJ.1.SG
    bul-ah
    gamble-CMPL
    tuláakal
    all
    in
    POSS.1.SG
    tàakʼin
    money
      'I gambled away all my money' (RMC_0231)
    b.
    koʼneʼx
    lets.go
    bùul
    gamble\INTRV
      'let's play cards' (RMC_0234)
 The terms extraversion and introversion (introduced in Paris 1985) refer to derivational operations on a verb stem, thus lexical operations that change the syntactic potential of that stem. The main verb in (1a) is intransitive; in (1b), a direct object slot is installed on it by extraversion. The main verb in (2a) is transitive; in (2b) its direct object slot is blocked by introversion, whose morphological mark is low tone in the base. | Christian Lehmann and Elisabeth Verhoeven, 2006

 

Page Last Modified August 16, 2024

 
B a c k   T o   I n d e x