Language Research

Primary and Secondary Predicate Ellipsis in Complement and Adjunct Small Clauses: A minimalist Approach (Phase Theory)

Shabnam Majidi; Fatemeh Bahrami; Mazdak Anoushe

Volume 13, Issue 2 , May 2023, , Pages 105-134

https://doi.org/10.22059/jolr.2023.352971.666819

Abstract

The phenomenon of the head- and constituent ellipsis is one of the most discussed issues that grammarians have given a different name to each of its types. The present paper deals with ... Read More The phenomenon of the head- and constituent ellipsis is one of the most discussed issues that grammarians have given a different name to each of its types. The present paper deals with a specific type of ellipsis within the clause, which is referred to, in the tradition of generative grammar, as the Right Node Raising, and it is distinct from the deletion of the second coordinate clause, namely gapping. In the aforementioned ellipsis, the verb alone, or together with its dependents, is removed from the first coordinate clause. While examining such structures, the present article analyzes the ellipsis from the coordinate clauses which contain a complement or adjunct small clause, and therefore, due to the simultaneous deletion of the primary predicate (from the main clause) and the secondary predicate (from the subordinate clause), they represent more syntactic complexity of its own. In the analysis, which is based on the assumption of two processes, namely the “verb movement out of the vP” and the “object shift”, the discussed structures are divided into two types: coordinates with a common subject and ones with a non-common subject; and thus, a different explanation is provided for each kind. In coordinates that have a common subject and host a small clause in their argument structure, in fact, two vPs, and not two clauses, are coordinated, and the process known as Across-the-Board movement, which is applied to the verb and the subject of the clause, leaves some gaps in the first coordinate clause in place. In contrary, the ellipsis phenomenon is applied to coordinates with non-common subjects. Since this phenomenon occurs at PF level, it is expected that its occurrence is related to the phase domain. In this research, based on the Phase Theory, as well as the empirical evidence of the Persian, we argue that in the latter structures, ellipsis occurs at the higher phase stage, and the elements that have already reached the edge of the phase are pronounced at the phonetic level, following the Phase Impenetrability Condition.

Allomorph Alternation in Ezafe/Possessive Constructions in Sanandaji Kurdish: A Distributed Morphology Approach

Fatemeh Bahrami; Sadaf Kalami

Volume 10, Issue 1 , June 2019, , Pages 39-58

https://doi.org/10.22059/jolr.2019.72000

Abstract

Conditions governing Ezafe/possessive marker allomorphy in Sanandaji Kurdish are of vital importance. There are four possible cases for the head noun of Ezafe construction; i.e. it ... Read More Conditions governing Ezafe/possessive marker allomorphy in Sanandaji Kurdish are of vital importance. There are four possible cases for the head noun of Ezafe construction; i.e. it can be definite and accompanied by an adjective; definite without any adjective complement; and indefinite with or without an adjective complement. Also, there are two possible cases for the head noun of possessive constructions; i.e. it is always definite, but it may be accompanied by an adjective complement or not. Amongst them, there is just one case with an evident case marker «=æ»: A definite noun phrase accompanied by an adjective reflects the Ezafe/possessive relation by linker «=æ», otherwise «=i» inserts. Hence, the rationale behind the aforementioned morpho-syntactic conditions is a challenging issue in Ezafe/possessive constructions. Furthermore the distinctive interpretation of the two constructions; is not to be disregarded just the possessive construction bears the meaning of possession. The present paper aims at investigating Ezafe/possessive constructions from a Distributed Morphology view and provides an analysis of their derivations which explains the structural similarities and constraints determining the alternation of case marking. It is supposed, the value of features in «Ez» determines the winner of the competition between «=æ» and «=i». Accordingly, when uninterpretable features in node Ez are valued as [Ez, +MOD, +DEF], «=æ» inserts into the node, and in other three cases, based on the under-specification principle «=i» inserts. Also, the difference in morphological features of the Complement of EzP nodes is responsible for the distinctive meaning of Ez- and Possessive constructions. In possessive constructions, the head of the adjective phrase, as a complement of EzP, contains an uninterpretable feature [POSS] which must be satisfied by merging EzP node with a possessive complement. Therefore the difference is related to the complement of EzP not the Ez node itself.

Articles in Press

Current Issue

Volume 14 (2023)

Volume 13 (2022)

Volume 12 (2021)

Volume 11 (2020)

Volume 10 (2019)

Volume 9 (2018)

Volume 8 (2017)

Volume 7 (2017)

Volume 6 (2015)

Volume 5 (2014)

Volume 4 (2013)

Volume 3 (2012)

Volume 2 (2012)

Volume 1 (2010)

Author = Fatemeh Bahrami

Primary and Secondary Predicate Ellipsis in Complement and Adjunct Small Clauses: A minimalist Approach (Phase Theory)

Abstract

Allomorph Alternation in Ezafe/Possessive Constructions in Sanandaji Kurdish: A Distributed Morphology Approach

Abstract