Volume 44, Issue 3

In this article I present a corpus-based analysis of Dutch extraposition constructions that contain an adjective which combines with a prepositional object. I discuss two models that explain extraposition constructions in general: the minimalist model of Koster (1994) and Zwart (1993), and the functionalist model of Vandenbosch (1985). Though both models constitute useful approaches to extraposition constructions in Dutch, they cannot account for the most important finding of the corpus investigation, namely that the prepositional object of some adjectives occurs more frequently in extraposition constructions than the prepositional object of other adjectives. I argue that this result can only be explained by the underlying analogy between constructions in which the adjective combines with a prepositional object and constructions in which the adjective combines with a pronominal adverb. Also, I show that the methodology of the corpus investigation(s), the results, and the interpretation of the results can be neatly integrated into the framework of radical construction grammar (Croft 2001).

Case stacking, the phenomenon whereby a single word may bear multiple cases reflecting its relation to a number of different syntactic elements, is an important phenomenon both for the development of theories of inflectional morphology and for our understanding of the relation between morphology and syntax. However, to date it has received virtually no attention from theoretical morphology. Working within the inferential-realizational framework of paradigm function morphology (PFM), we provide a morphological analysis of the phenomenon of case stacking as found in the Australian Aboriginal languages Kayardild (Tangkic) and Martuthunira (Pama-Nyungan). We argue that the standard assumptions concerning morphological property sets in PFM are too weak to satisfactorily accommodate case stacking morphology, and we propose that (in some languages) the morphological property sets which define paradigm cells are structured rather than being the simple objects of the standard view. We show how this provides a comprehensive analysis of the complex case and number stacking facts and further, allows for a straightforward (although nontrivial) mapping between the morphology and the syntax as outlined in Sadler and Nordlinger (2004).

In the field of predictability, the effort of both morphologists and psycholinguists has been primarily concentrated on primary compounds. Little attention has been paid to the meaning predictability of converted naming units. This article discusses some aspects of a theory of predictability which is related to an onomasiological theory of word formation, and points out the specific features of meaning predictability of converted naming units. Theoretical considerations are applied to a sample of non-established converted naming units within experimental research. A method of calculating the predictability rate is proposed. The predictability of various naming units may be compared by means of an objectified predictability rate. The factors affecting the predictability of novel context-free naming units are identified and discussed.

In addition to standard methods of pluralization, Dominican Spanish has an alternative plural formation mechanism, normally referred to as the “double plural,” in which -(e)se [(e)se] is adjoined to the base, libro > librose ‘book-books’, mujer > mujerese ‘woman-women’ (Jiménez Sabater 1976; Núñez-Cedeño 1980; Harris 1980; Terrell 1986; Núñez-Cedeño 2003). Extant analyses of double plural formation in Dominican Spanish suer from framework-specific problems and more general ones, having to do with overgeneration of forms and inability to reveal the true nature of the process. Most analyses postulate a separate plural morpheme for Dominican “double plurals” /(e)se/. This article proposes an optimality-theoretic analysis that demonstrates that there is no “double plural” in Dominican in the sense that the “double plural” is based on the regular plural. There is only one plural morpheme, the traditional /s/. The apparently redundant attachment of the plural morpheme results from general restrictions on coda obstruents in combination with the need for overt realization of morphemes in prominent positions. The difference between the regular plural and the double plural (focused) is that in the latter case, a highly-ranked constraint realize morphemefocus requires that the plural in focused positions have morphological exponence. In more general terms, [se] is the output realization of plural /s/ followed by epenthetic [e] in intonationally prominent (focus) positions. The present analysis also shows that the plural form is in an output-to-output relation to the singular. Epenthesis of [e] in the plural reflects the emergence of the unmarked (McCarthy and Prince 1994), with respect to the constraint against coda consonants (*Coda), whose effects can be seen in the output-to-output phonology of the plural, but not in the language as a whole, for example, mujer vs. mujere .

‘Give’ is a very atypical trivalent verb in many ways. In the present article, an explanation for this anomaly will be proposed. The goal of the article at hand is to show that the anomaly of ‘give’ follows from its high formal transitivity, which also has a semantic basis. This means that ‘give’ shares a number of features with highly transitive two-actant clauses and thus outranks other trivalent verbs in formal transitivity in languages in which there are at least two syntactic classes of trivalent verbs. The discussed features comprise the number and marking of arguments, traits of verb morphology and verbal agreement, and the application of operations like passive and dative shift. The analysis is not applicable to all languages, but the uniformity languages display in this respect cannot be a mere coincidence. After the formal analysis, some reasons that underlie the high formal transitivity of ‘give’ will be examined.

San Ildefonso Tultepec Otomi has three distinctive nasal morphemes that share a substantial number of features. The morphemes are the following: a middle marker, a detransitivizer, and a marker characterizing a closed subclass of intransitive verbs. In this article, I propose an analysis that relates these three morphemes diachronically, and links them to a common source. My analysis is able to account for both the commonalties and differences among the three morphemes. In the article, I claim that the middle marker in Otomi emerged from the reanalysis of an old inflectional morpheme characterizing a subclass of intransitive verbs depicting activities performed by humans. This analysis has important theoretical implications for the understanding of middle voice morphemes, given that, up until now, reflexives have been the only well known source for the emergence of middle markers.