Sank's Glossary of Linguistics 
Sim-So

SIMPLER SYNTAX HYPOTHESIS
(Syntax) Culicover and Jackendoff (2005 [2019], 2006) put forward the Simpler Syntax Hypothesis, which calls for an alternative view of fragments and response particles as bare nonsentential constituents that relate to their antecedent semantically rather than syntactically:

The Simpler Syntax Hypothesis (Culicover and Jackendoff 2005)
The most explanatory syntactic theory is one that imputes the minimum structure necessary to mediate between phonology and meaning.
 | M. Teresa Espinal and Susagna Tubau, 2019

SINGLE COMPLEMENT HYPOTHESIS

  1. (Syntax) Larson (1988, 1990) uses contrasts like those in (1)–(3), originally presented by Barss and Lasnik (1986), to argue for the Single Complement Hypothesis (SCH) shown schematically in (4). Under the SCH, only the last of a string of XP arguments of a multiargument verb is a D-structure complement of the verb. The other phrases are in the specifier position of any number of higher, "shell" VPs with empty head verbs, and the verb is raised to the highest V at S-Structure.

    1. a.  I showed Mary herself.
      b. * I showed herself Mary.
    2. a.  I gave every workeri hisi paycheck.
      b. * I gave itsi owner every paychecki.
    3. a.  I showed no one anything.
      b. * I showed anyone nothing.
    4.     VP
          /\
         /  \
        V   VP
            /\
           /  \
         XP1   V′
              /\
             /  \
            V   VP
                /\
               /  \
              XP2  V′
                  /\
                 /  \
                V   XP3
      
     Adopting the structure in (4) allows one to preserve a strict c-command condition on anaphor binding (1), bound pronoun anaphora (2), and negative polarity item (NPI) licensing (3). | Thomas Ernst, 1994
  2. (Syntax) Chomsky's (1986) X-bar theory allows more than one complement to a single head. This X′ theory does not incorporate any binary branching requirement. Complements are sisters of X. The representation of a Head "X" with two or more complements is allowed to be as follows:

    1.          X′
            ╱ /\  ╲  
          ╱  /  \   ╲   
         X   YP  ZP  ...
      
     If there are heads taking two or more sisters then we expect tree structures that are not binary branching, but ternary branching, etc. The claim embodied by such structures will be referred to as the multiple complement hypothesis (MCH).
     Binary branching can be maintained if there is recursion through the X′ node:

    1.        X′
             /\
            /  \
           X′   ZP
           /\
          /  \
         X    YP
      
    In this structure X has two complements and binary branching has been maintained. However, this structure exhibits recursive X-bar nodes. The X-bar theory of Chomsky (1986) does not allow this.
     Adoption of the binary branching hypothesis leads to a more restrictive view than that of the MCH. It follows from binary branching and from the absence of recursion through V′ that there can be only one complement. Binary branching thus entails what will be referred to (following Larson 1988) as the single complement hypothesis, an alternative to the MCH.
     The double object construction provides a good testing-ground for the rival hypotheses. Can a verb have two or more complements (a flat structure) or can it have only one complement (binary branching)? | Erik Hoekstra, 1991
See Also BINARY-BRANCHING CONSTRAINT.

SLOPPY IDENTITY
(Semantics) An interpretive phenomenon found in deletion contexts. If part of a syntactic structure is not overtly realized, and has its interpretation determined as a copy of the interpretation of a constituent elsewhere in the structure or in the discourse, and if the structure whose interpretation is copied into the covert constituent contains an anaphoric element whose interpretation depends on an element not contained in the copied material, then the anaphor's counterpart in the copy may either have the same reference as the original, or pick up an (anaphoric) reference independently. The former case is called strict identity, the latter case sloppy identity. Consider (1):

  1.  Johni [VP likes hisi mother ], and Peter too.
 The missing VP in the right conjunct is interpreted as a copy of the VP in the left conjunct. However, two distinct interpretations may result:

  1. a. Johni [VP likes hisi mother ], and Peterj too [VP likes hisi mother ]
    b. Johni [VP likes hisi mother ], and Peterj too [VP likes hisj mother ]
 The (2b)-interpretation is a case of sloppy identity: the index on his is not identical. Syntactic conditions on sloppy identity have been argued to mirror conditions on bound variable anaphora (Reinhart 1983). (Partee 1978, Reinhart 1983, Sag 1976, Williams 1977) | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001

SLUICING

  1. (Syntax) Reducing a wh-question to its wh-phrase(s) in a context where the omitted part can be reconstructed from the preceding sentence.
     In (1), the content of the complement clause of know is understood as which sonatas Susan has played.

    1.  Susan has played some sonatas, but I don't know which sonatas __.

     Sentences like (1) raise the question whether there is an empty category following which sonatas, and if so, how it is licensed. (Ross 1969) | Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics, 2001
  2. (Syntax) The name given by Ross (1969) to the ellipsis construction bracketed in (1) and (2):

    1.  Somebody just left—guess [ who ].
    2.  They claimed they had settled on something, but it wasn't clear [ what ].

     In this construction, a displaced wh-phrase occurs in isolation in a syntactic environment where one might have expected to find a complete constituent question. Compare the sluices in (1) and (2), for instance, with the corresponding complete embedded questions in (3) and (4):

    1.  Somebody just left—guess [ who t just left ].
    2.  They claimed they had settled on something, but it wasn't clear [ what they had settled on t ].

     | Sandra Chung, William Ladusaw, and James McCloskey, 1995
  3. (Syntax) In English, a type of ellipsis introduced by a wh-expression, whereby everything except the wh-expression is elided from the clause and its interpretation is supplied by the surrounding context (see Ross 1969, Chung et al. 1995, 2011, Ginzburg and Sag 2000, a.o.). | Jong-Bok Kim, 2015
  4. (Syntax) A form of wh-stranding ellipsis (Ross 1969, Chung et al. 1995, Merchant 2001):

    1. a. Sally punched me in the face, but I don't know why.
      b. Sally punched me in the face, but I don't know why  Sally punched me in the face .

     In (1a), we see a sentence in which a lone wh element seems to occupy a position in which we would expect to find a full CP. (1b) illustrates the standard theory of what is going on in (1a): the sentence is interpreted as if the wh element were followed by the  crossed out  material; the ability to make the inference that the wh element should be interpreted as scoping over that material (and therefore the well-formedness of the entire sluicing construction) is determined by the presence of a suitable antecedent clause.
     I will assume here, following the seminal work of Merchant (2001), that the  crossed-out  material in (1b) represents unpronounced syntactic structure. This unpronounced constituent is present in the narrow syntax, but is eliminated from the phonological realization of that string; for this reason, I will refer to the  crossed-out  content as elided material or as the ellipsis site. I assume, still following Merchant (2001), that sluicing is always deletion of a full TP. Sluicing is restricted to clauses headed by null [ +wh, +Q ] Cs. | Deniz Rudin, 2019
  5. (Syntax) I will be concerned in this paper with describing the operation of a rule which I will call Sluicing. This rule converts sentences like those in (1) to the corresponding sentences in (2).

    1. a. Somebody just left—guess who just left.
      b. Ralph is going to invite somebody from Kankakee to the party, but they don't know who he's going to invite to the party.
      c. He is writing (something), but you can't imagine [ what / where / why / how (fast) / to whom / etc. ] he is writing.
    2. a. Somebody just left—guess who.
      b. Ralph is going to invite somebody from Kankakee to the party, but they don't know who.
      c. He is writing something, but you can't imagine [ what / where / why / how (fast) / to whom / etc. ].

     This rule has the effect of deleting everything but the preposed constituent of an embedded question, under the condition that the remainder of the question is identical to some other part of the sentence, or of a preceding sentence. | John Robert Ross, 1969

SLUICING IN ADJUNCT CONSTRUCTION
(Syntax) There seem to be cases where the antecedent for the elided IP in sluicing is smaller than an IP. Something similar has been observed by Merchant (2001, 2002). I argue that the sluicing in adjunct construction exemplified by (1) and (2) is one such case.

  1. a. John does not love anyone without knowing who [IP Δ ].
    b. [IP John does not [VP tJohn love anyone] [PP without [CP [IP PRO [VP knowing [CP who [IP Δ ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
  2. a. John must love someone without knowing who [IP Δ ].
    b. [IP John must [VP [VP love someone] [PP without [CP [IP PRO [VP knowing [CP who [IP Δ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
 | Masaya Yoshida, 2010

SMALL CLAUSE

  1. (Syntax) A part of a sentence that often has a subject and predicate, but may lack a verb or includes a verb without tense. This can be seen in a sentence like The jury found the man guilty, as the section, the man guilty. In this sentence, the main clause has a subject of The jury and a predicate that includes the verb found and the small clause, the man guilty. There is no verb in this section, though it can be considered to include an implied verb in the form of to be since it can be rewritten as the man to be guilty. | G. Wiesen, 2023
  2. (Syntax) The syntactic equivalent of the basic proposition. Small clauses occur in several constructions. Some examples are shown below, where the small clauses are enclosed in square brackets. A small clause is usually the complement of a lexical verb (a cognitive verb):
    1. John considers [ Mary intelligent ].
    2. Bob thinks [ Sal an exceptional person ].
    3. Mary found [ syntax an exceptionally hard subject ].
    4. Egbert believes [ Letitia a fool ].
    5. Pauline prefers [ her steaks rare ].
    6. Zachary discovered [ his son proud of his parents ] after all.
    7. Bill saw [ Jacqueline play the piano ].
    8. Polly saw [ a deer in the park ].
    9. Mabel heard [ Sally scream at her kids ].
    10. Kyle felt [ an arachnid climb up his arm ].
    11. Someone smelled [ the toast burn in the toaster ].
    12. Edith tasted [ ice cream melt in her mouth ].
    13. George remembers [ Agnes burning the stew ].
    14. Reid noticed [ Carmen throwing a memorable fit ].
     | Richard C. DeArmond, 1999
  3. (Syntax) A well-known problem in syntax is what structure to assign to small clauses, where a small clause is an [ NP XP ] construction, as in the following:
    1. a. Mayor Shinn found [ Harold difficult to pin down ].
      b. Marcellus considered [ Harold a great con man ].
      c. The people of River City thought [ Harold in the wrong ].
     Small clauses are widespread. In English alone, they are the complements of verbs, complements of prepositions as in (2a), subjects of sentences as in (2b), or even subjects of small clauses as in (2c):
    1. a. With [ Charlie Cowell intent on ruining him ], Harold wasn't safe.
      b. [ Tommy and Zaneeta in a relationship ] wasn't / * weren't good for Mayor Shinn's blood pressure.
      c. Eulalie considered [ [ Tommy and Zaneeta in a relationship ] bad for Mayor Shinn's blood pressure ].
     | Julie Elizabeth Balazs, 2012

SMUGGLING

  1. (Syntax) Suppose a constituent YP contains XP. Furthermore, suppose that XP is inaccessible to Z because of the presence of W (a barrier, phase boundary, or an intervener for the Minimal Link Condition and/or Relativized Minimality), which blocks a syntactic relation between Z and XP (e.g., movement, Case checking, agreement, binding). If YP moves to a position c-commanding W, we say that YP smuggles XP past W. | Chris Collins, 2005
  2. (Syntax) A special kind of movement interaction. Refers particularly to a situation where the DP is smuggled over the external argument by the movement of a larger constituent, invariably referred to as a verbal chunk (Collins 2005). | Yihan Wang and Yong Zhou, 2023

SOCIOLECT

  1. (Sociolinguistics) Or, social dialect. A dialect spoken by a particular social class, e.g. Cockney English, that is perpetuated by the integrity of the social class. | TESL Glossary, ?
  2. (Sociolinguistics) A socially distinct variety. | Joan Swann, Ana Deumert, Theresa Lillis and Rajend Mesthrie, 2004
  3. (Sociolinguistics) The relationship between linguistic features (e.g. the way a vowel is realized or the use of a particular syntactic structure) and the speaker's social background has been perceived for some time. Often, however, members of a speech community who were aware of such relationships had a prescriptive attitude towards them. They used such expressions as bad speech, sloppy speech, lazy speech as opposed to nice speech, educated speech, a refined way of speaking. Linguists were inclined to shy away from investigating sociolects as it is a mammoth task full of problems and complexities, not least of which is the attitude of speakers being investigated, who may feel that the linguist is adversely judging their speech.
     The term sociolect seems preferable to the term social dialect. It is better to keep the concept of dialect for regional variation only. Of course, it is not uncommon for a dialect to feature as a sociolect, often a low sociolect, in a speech community. There are cases in Germany where in factories in smaller towns, the speech variety spoken by the workers commuting from the surrounding rural areas is considered a "lower" speech variety by workers from the town than their own variety (e.g. Hofmann 1963).
     There are instances of this phenomenon in Australia, where rural speech is often allotted lower social status by certain sections of the city population.
     Social variation in speech could be of a phonetic, lexical, or syntactic nature. | John T. Platt, 1978

SOCIOLINGUISTIC INTERVIEW
(Sociolinguistics) The foundational method of collecting data for sociolinguistic studies, allowing the researcher to collect large amounts of speech from speakers of the language or dialect being studied. The interview takes the form of a long, loosely structured conversation between the researcher and the interview subject; the researcher's primary goal is to elicit the vernacular style of speech: the register associated with everyday casual conversation. This goal is complicated by the observer's paradox: the researcher is trying to elicit the style of speech that would be used if the interviewer were not present.
 To that end, a variety of techniques may be used to reduce the subject's attention to the formality and artificiality of the interview setting. For example, the researcher may attempt to elicit narratives of memorable events from the subject's life, such as fights or near-death experiences; the subject's emotional involvement in telling the story is thought to distract their attention from the formality of the context. Some researchers interview multiple subjects together to allow them to converse more casually with one other than they would with the interviewer alone. The researcher may then study the effects of style-shifting on language by comparing a subject's speech style in more vernacular contexts, such as narratives of personal experience or conversation between subjects, with the more careful style produced when the subject is more attentive to the formal interview setting. The correlations of demographic features such as age, gender, and ethnicity with speech behavior may be studied by comparing the speech of different interview subjects. | Wikipedia, 2024

SONORANT
(Phonetics) Sonorant consonants are like vowels in a number of respects.

  1. Like vowels, sonorants are pronounced with a relatively free escape of the airstream through the oral or nasal cavity.
  2. They are normally voiced, just like vowels.
  3. They are pronounced without friction, again like vowels. As a result of these similarities, we can sing or hum sonorants much as we can vowels.
 On the other hand, sonorant consonants share with obstruents the property of being marginal in the syllable: They occupy a position in the coda or the onset, as opposed to the syllable peak. Nevertheless, it is a noteworthy feature of General American sonorants that, like vowels, they can sometimes be in the peak of the syllable. This is typically the case in the final syllables of button, bottle, and banner. | Ton Broeders, Carlos Gussenhoven, and Victoria Urkewich, 1988

SOUTHERN VOWEL SHIFT
(Phonology) A complicated pattern of vowel changes is found in the American South. Dubbed the Southern Shift, these changes affect seven vowels.

 Elements of the Southern Shift can be heard in an area stretching from Virginia to northern Florida, westward across much of Texas, and northward to roughly the Ohio River. The evidence suggests the changes arose in the decades after the Civil War and became widespread during the 20th century. The shift now appears to be stable and may even be receding in use in some areas, especially in large cities. The shift's future is unclear: It may eventually be lost from Southern speech although it seems more likely to survive. | Matthew J. Gordon, 2006

 

Page Last Modified October 22, 2024

 
B a c k   T o   I n d e x