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

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.

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.
   4. 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).
   5. 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:
   6. 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)

Page Created By Split April 24, 2025

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x