NO ACCIDENTAL HOMOPHONY OF CASE MARKERS (Morphology)

No Accidental Homophony of Case Markers (Collins 2020)
Other than zero forms, there can be no accidental homophony of case markers for a single noun. That is, two case markers cannot be specified in the lexicon as having the same phonological form.

Other than forms with no segmental phonology, there can be no accidental homophony of case markers for a single noun. That is, two case markers with the same subcategorization requirements cannot be specified in the lexicon as having the same phonological form, unless that form is zero or consists only of suprasegmental material.

NO CROWDING

1. (Syntax) Collins' (2020) No Crowding Constraint says that only the highest overt head in the Case Field is spelled out, with effects involving phi-agreement which have been noted in many languages since Kinyalolo (1991). | Neil Myler, 2023
2. (Syntax) There are many effects falling under the Doubly Filled Comp Filter in syntax. These are situations where the head and the specifier of a maximal projection cannot be filled overtly at the same time (see Collins 2007, Koopman 2000, Koopman and Szabolcsi 2000). The version from Collins 2007 is given below. (Edge(X) includes both the head and the specifier of X):

   No Crowding Condition

   1. Edge(X) must be phonetically overt.
   2. The condition in (a) applies in a minimal way so that either the head, or the specifier, but not both, are spelled-out overtly.

    | Chris Collins and Richard S. Kayne, 2020

NO TAMPERING CONDITION
(Syntax) 

No Tampering Condition

• Chomsky (2008)
   A natural requirement for efficient computation is a no-tampering condition:
  • Merge of X and Y leaves the two SOs unchanged.
   If so, then Merge of X and Y can be taken to yield the set { X, Y }, the simplest possibility worth considering. Merge cannot break up X or Y, or add new features to them. Therefore Merge is invariably "to the edge" and we also try to establish the inclusiveness principle, dispensing with bar levels, traces, indices, and similar descriptive technology introduced in the course of derivation of an expression.
• Collins and Kayne (2023)
   Third, once the winning vocabulary item is determined, its phonological form will be inserted into the terminal, so when the syntactic object is linearized, the phonological features of the vocabulary item are incorporated into the output. Such insertion changes the syntactic object formed (by replacing one of its morphemes with a morpheme specified for phonological form). So, it is important to stipulate that this process lies outside of syntax, which is constrained by the No Tampering Condition (no altering syntactic objects already formed).

NOLOGISM
(Morphology) When you think you've coined a neologism, but discover the word already exists. Worst of all is when you find out it's in common usage. Whilst writing this article, I "made up" the following nologisms: grasser, trest, kittenish and farrow. | Daniel G. Clark, 2020

NOMINAL ELLIPSIS

1. (Syntax) Ellipsis is distinguished by the structure having some "missing" elements, for example when there is a written sentence as in (1).
   1. Nelly liked the green tiles, I preferred the blue.
    In this type of sentence, it is nominal ellipsis because the omitted headword tiles is a noun. | Diani Syahputri, Hanifah, 2020
2. (Syntax) In Japanese, nominal ellipsis has been widely discussed in the case of genitives containing the morpheme -no, such as (1) and (2) (Kitagawa and Ross 1982, Saito and Murasugi 1990, 1999):
   1. Kono
      this

      hon-wa
      book-TOP

      Taroo
      Taroo

      no
      GEN

      hon
      book

      da.
      is

      'This book is Taroo's book.'
   2. Kono
      this

      hon-wa
      book-TOP

      Taroo
      Taroo

      no
      GEN

      da.
      is

      'This book is Taroo's.'
    | Richard K. Larson and Hiroko Yamakido, 2002
3. (Syntax) In an online experiment with adults, we had our target sentences contain a nominal ellipsis marked by a bare cardinal, as in example (1).
   1. Five ships appeared on the horizon. Three sank.
    | Frank Wijnen, Tom Roeper, and Hiske van der Meulen, 2004

NOMINAL FUNCTIONAL SEQUENCE
(Syntax) I adopt the idea that, universally, in the nominal domain case projections dominate number projections, which in turn dominate the lexical NP (see Moskal 2015 for especially strong evidence, and the references Moskal cites; compare also Universal 39 in Greenberg 1963 and the updating thereof in Kloudová 2020). Following Caha (2009, 2013), and Collins (2020), case is in fact a field of projections with a universal hierarchy of its own. Putting these ideas together yields the following partial hierarchy of projections for the nominal domain (where "≫" means 'dominates').

The Nominal Functional Sequence (partial)
AblP ≫ DatP ≫ GenP ≫ AccP ≫ NomP ≫ NumP ≫ NP

NON-CONSTITUENT COORDINATION

1. (Syntax) In common with other generative theories of the period, Kaplan and Maxwell (1988) dealt only with cases of constituent coordination, like Bill ate rice and recited a haiku (VP → VP and VP), ignoring the grab-bag of other cases of coordination commonly negatively classified as nonconstituent coordination, such as conjunction reduction (1a), Right-Node Raising (1b), Gapping (1c), Ellipsis (1d), and non-symmetric coordination (1e).
   1. a. Bill gave the girls spades and the boys recorders.
      b. Bill likes, and Joe is thought to like cigars from Cuba.
      c. Bill gave a rhino to Fred, and Sue a camera to Marjorie.
      d. Bill likes big cars, and Sally does too.
      e. Bill went and took the test.
    | John T. Maxwell III and Christoper D. Manning, 1996
2. (Syntax) The aspect of coordination that is perhaps most vexing for theories of coordination concerns non-constituent conjuncts (Osborne 2019). Coordination is, namely, not limited to coordinating just constituents, but rather it is quite capable of coordinating non-constituent strings:
   1. [When did he] and [why did he] do that?
   2. [She has] but [he has not] understood the task.
   3. Susan [asked you] but [forced me] to read the book on syntax.
   4. [Jill has been promising] but [Fred is actually trying] to solve the problem.
   5. [The old] and [the new] submarines submerged side-by-side.
   6. [Before the first] and [after the second] presentation, there will be coffee.
   7. Fred sent [Uncle Willy chocolates] and [Aunt Samantha ear rings].
   8. We expect [Connor to laugh] and [Jilian to cry].
    While some of these coordinate structures require a non-standard intonation contour, they can all be acceptable. This situation is problematic for theories of syntax, because most of the coordinated strings do not qualify as constituents. Hence, since the constituent is widely assumed to be the fundamental unit of syntactic analysis, such data seem to require that the theory of coordination admit additional theoretical apparatus. Two examples of the sort of apparatus that has been posited are so-called conjunction reduction (Akmajian and Heny 1980, a.o.) and right node raising (Hudson 1984, McCawley 1988, a.o.). | Wikipedia, 2023

NON-CULMINANT SENTENCE
(Prosody) A sentence lacking a single main stress. It lacks a single culminant sentential stress.
 Chichewa is a non-culminant language, i.e. it does not always show a single main sentential stress. Instead, the heads of any available phonological phrases emerge with the same stress, tone realization and intonation, providing no stress-related cue to what constituent is focused (Downing 2003). | Vieri Samek-Lodovici, 2005

NON-OBLIGATORY CONTROL
(Syntax) 

1. Properties of Obligatory Control (OC)
   The understood subject of OC clauses requires a theta-marked argument as its antecedent; this must be local, c-commanding and unique:
   1.  Bill_i tried [ PRO_i to organize himself ]
   2. * It_i was tried [ PRO_i to organize himself ]
   3. * Bill_i thinks it was tried [ PRO_i to organize himself]
   4. * Bill's_i aunt tried [ PRO_i to organize himself ]
   5. * Bill_i asked Ben_j [ PRO_i&j to kiss Bobby behind the bike shed ]
    Example (b) shows that the antecedent must be a theta-role-bearing argument, whilst (c) demonstrates locality. Example (d) establishes that c-command is operative, and (e) shows the ban on split antecedents.
2. Properties of Non-Obligatory Control (NOC)
    The restrictions operative in OC do not regulate NOC. NOC relations may conform to some of them, but they do not exhibit all and in some instances lack them entirely (see Williams 1980). These criteria give us the following candidates for NOC: infinitival subject clauses, as in (a), controlled interrogative complements, shown in (b), verbal gerunds as in (c), control with implicit arguments, displayed in (d) and (e) and long-distance control, in example (f).
   1. PRO To go to the lecture drunk wasn't one of your best ideas
   2. Peter knows how PRO to fix the head gasket
   3. PRO Walking back home yesterday, a brick fell on my head
   4. It is fun PRO to dance (It is fun for x, for x to dance)
   5. PRO To finish off one sentence in peace would be nice (for x)
   6. Peter said that PRO to get there on time would be very difficult
    Infinitival subjects, verbal gerunds and implicit control constructions have no structurally represented antecedent. The interrogative complement has a non-local argument in the super-ordinate clause, but this is not the antecedent for the implicit subject, which carries a generic interpretation. Long-distance control breaks locality, but also tolerates split antecedents, separating it further from OC:
     g. Peter said to Rita that PRO to get there on time would be very difficult for them

NON-REFERENTIAL MEANING
(Semantics) Antonym: referential meaning. A word that does not have reference is a word that has non-referential meaning. Examples of such words are and and but; these words have meaning but do not have reference such as table or chair. According to Chaer (2013):

 Bila kata-kata mempunyai referen, yaitu sesuatu diluar bahasa yang diacu oleh kata itu maka kata tersebut disebut kata bermakna referensial. Kalau kata-kata itu tidak mempunyai referen maka kata itu disebut dengan kata bermakna nonreferensial.
 
 'When words have a referent, that is, something outside the language that is referred to by the word, then the word is called a word with referential meaning. If the word does not have a referent, then the word is called a meaningful word nonreferential.' [Google translation]

NON-VERIDICALITY

1. (Semantics) From a sentence such as If it is raining outside, Sue will stay home, we cannot infer that (the speaker believes) it is raining outside, in contrast to one such as Because it is raining outside, Sue will stay home. The difference between the conditional vs. causal connective that is intuitive to naïve language users can be captured by the theoretical notion of (non)veridicality, as defined in (1).
   1. Epistemic model of an individual (Giannakidou 1999: 45)
      A model M_E(x) ∈ M is a set of worlds associated with an individual x representing worlds compatible with what x believes and knows.
      1. A propositional operator F is veridical iff Fp entails or presupposes that p is true in some individual's model M_E(x); p is true in M_E(x), if M_E(x) ⊂ p, i.e. if all worlds in M_E(x) are p-worlds.
      2. If (a) is not the case, F is nonveridical.
      3. F is antiveridical iff Fp entails ¬p in some individual's model: iff M_E(x) ∩ p = ∅.
    By these definitions, because is a veridical operator with regard to its first argument p (i.e. the cause content), as it entails or presupposes that p is true in the speaker's belief model. In contrast, if is a nonveridical propositional operator with regard to its first argument (i.e. the content in the antecedent). Based on Giannakidou (1998, 1999), Giannakidou (2014) relates the notion of (non)veridicality to one of (epistemic) commitment (i.e. credence), veridicality to "full commitment of an individual", anti-veridicality to "counter-commitment" and nonveridicality to "weakened commitment". | Mingya Liu, 2019
2. (Examples)
   • (Semantics) The variation illustrates, in the clearest way, the complexity one is confronted with when trying to establish a general pattern of mood choice across a number of languages—and how difficult it is to come up with a single generalization that will be able to handle all cases. In the present paper, we take the variation to suggest that a more nuanced approach is needed, one that might allow verb meanings to combine veridical with nonveridical components. This can be done if we distinguish between what a selecting verb asserts and what it presupposes. Once we make this distinction, we see that verb meanings can exhibit what we call mixed (non)veridicality, i.e. they can combine a nonveridical assertion with veridical presupposition and vice versa. | Anastasia Giannakidou and Alda Mari, 2015
   • (Semantics) In recent works, veridicality and nonveridicality have been proposed to regulate a number of limited distribution phenomena as NPI licensing, free choice indefinites (Giannakidou 1997, 1998, 1999, 2006, 2011, Giannakidou and Quer 2013, Zwarts 1995, Bernardi 2001), mood selection and the so-called polarity subjunctive (Giannakidou1998, 2009, 2011, Quer 1998, 2001, 2009, Paducheva 1985, Marques 2004, 2010, Smirnova 2012), expletive negation (Yoon 2010), negator selection in ancient Greek (Chatzopoulou 2012), the genitive of negation in Russian (Partee 1998, Borchev et al. 2008, Partee et al. 2012, Kagan 2009), to mention just some studies. These studies offer compelling evidence from a substantial number of languages that a big portion of limited distribution phenomena (known as polarity) are about referential deficiency (Giannakidou 1997, 1998)—or, "low referentiality" (Partee 1998), "referential vagueness" (Giannakidou and Quer 2013). Referentially deficient items (also known as "weak" or anti-specific indefinites) favor generally nonveridical contexts. | Anastasia Giannakidou, 2014
   • (Semantics) So, if we take (non)veridicality into consideration, the distinction between assertion and question is not categorical: assertions do not form a natural class, and nonveridical assertions pattern epistemically with questions. This means that the difference between questions and assertions as a division of labor between informativity and inquisitiveness cannot be categorical either. These conclusions support the original tenet of inquisitive semantics that meaning is semantically non-dichotomous. ... I argue that questions convey a true nonveridical equilibrium between p and ¬p. | Anastasia Giannakidou, 2013
   • (Semantics) Montague observes that there would appear to be two senses of the perceptual verb see, a veridical and a nonveridical one. According to the former, there is a unicorn is a logical consequence of Jones sees a unicorn; according to the latter, it is not, for one is not prevented from seeing a unicorn by the fact that there are no unicorns. | Frans Zwarts, 1995

NONCE WORD
(Morphology) Or, occasionalism. Any word (lexeme), or any sequence of sounds or letters (phonemes or graphemes), created for a single occasion or utterance but not otherwise understood or recognized as a word within a given language (Cambridge Dictionaries Online 2011, Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 1995). Nonce words have a variety of functions and are most commonly used for humor, poetry, children's literature, linguistic experiments, psychological studies, and medical diagnoses, or they arise by accident.
 Some nonce words have a meaning at their inception or gradually acquire a fixed meaning inferred from context and use, but if they eventually become an established part of the language (neologisms), they stop being nonce words (Crystal 1997).
 Other nonce words may be essentially meaningless and disposable (nonsense words), but they are useful for exactly that reason—the words wug and blicket, for instance, were invented by researchers to be used in child language testing (Hadley 2001).
 Nonsense words often share orthographic and phonetic similarity with (meaningful) words (Klein and McMullen 1999), as is the case with pseudowords, which make no sense but can still be pronounced in accordance with a language's phonotactic rules (Rathvon 2004). Such invented words are used by psychological and linguistic researchers and educators as a tool to assess a learner's phonetic decoding ability, and the ability to infer the (hypothetical) meaning of a nonsense word from context is used to test for brain damage (Lezak 2004).
 Proper names of real or fictional entities sometimes originate as nonce words. | Wikipedia, 2023

NORMS AND EXPLOITATIONS
(Acquisition) The theory proposed is that anyone (or any machine) acquiring a natural language must acquire competence in not one, but two, interlinked systems of rule-governed behavior. In the first place, there is competence to use words normally and idiomatically. But the whole picture is complicated by the fact that as soon as a human acquires a rule-governed norm for using a word, he or she goes on—or at least has the potential to go on—to exploit that norm in various ways. People play with words and enjoy doing so—but, more importantly, it is this feature of semantic exploitability that enables language users to use existing conventions to say new things. For example, we can say that some new experience is like a familiar experience, and we can leave it to our interlocutors to work out for themselves the question, In what respect?
 A word's syntagmatic preferences consist of a mixture of primary norms, secondary norms, alternations, and exploitations. A word's meaning potential is an intricate web of interlinked semantic and pragmatic norms, not always internally consistent.
 Exploitations are cognitively salient. Social (or statistical) salience may be defined as (or is recognizable as) frequent usage, while cognitive salience involves ease of recall.
 For this reason, exploitations are rhetorically effective. As noted by Quintilian and other rhetoricians of classical antiquity, metaphors and other figures of speech (many of which are imaginative exploitations of norms) are much more memorable than the general run of talk about people talking to people, so classical rhetoricians encouraged their pupils to use them.
 Exploitations make a nonsense of the term selectional restrictions. There is no such thing as a selectional restriction; there are only selectional preferences. Exploitations are perfectly well-formed, meaningful, and intentional uses of language, even though they may lie well outside the scope of a word's selectional preferences. They are not ruled out by a restriction. A problem for the lexical analyst is that there is not a sharp division between norms and exploitations; some words are more normal than others.
 A language consists of a constantly moving and developing double helix of rules governing linguistic behavior: normal uses and exploitations of normal use. | Patrick Hanks, 2013

NOUN CLASS

1. (Grammar) In many languages in various families (Niger-Congo, Caucasic, Sino-Tibetan, Oceanic, Australian, Amerindian of all families, etc.) nominal items are formally divided by diverse means, according to criteria that have to do either with "natural" categories such as being a human (of either sex), or a plant, or an animal, or a dangerous thing, or with descriptive properties of the denoted object, like being elongated, or flat, or liquid, and so forth. Noun classes and classifiers are the names for what these languages present.
    Classical studies for such systems are Dixon (1972) and Lakoff (1987). See Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976) for arguments to the effect that shape is the most basic and stable descriptive property (also see Grandi 2002). | Alain Kihm, 2005
2. (Grammar) A grammatical category; an obligatory grammatical system, where each noun chooses one from a small number of possibilities. Ways of marking noun class include a prefix to the noun (and usually also to other constituents in the noun phrase, or in the sentence, that show concord with it), as in Bantu languages; an obligatory article, as in French and German; or an inflectional suffix that shows a portmanteau of case and noun class, as in Latin.
    Noun classifiers are always separate lexemes, which may be included with a noun in certain syntactic environments. There is usually a largish set of classifiers (perhaps not clearly delimited in scope), but not every specific noun may be able to occur with one.
    In many languages classifiers are required in the context of numeral quantification of a specific noun (see e.g. Adams and DeLancey 1983), but in some languages noun classification exists independently of numeral quantification (e.g. Jacaltec as described in Craig 1983, and many Australian languages, see Dixon 1982. Rude (1983) provides a fascinating description of Eqyptian where the form of lexemes was only partially specified in the hieroglyphic writing system and classifiers thus filled an important disambiguating function. | R.M.W. Dixon, 1983

NOUN INCORPORATION
(Morphology) A process in word formation by which a compound is created by affixing or infixing a noun to a verb, as in baby-sit, house-hunt, and sleep-walk.
 Or, this process resulting in a complex verb, as in the Mohawk and Inuit languages. | Dictionary dot com, 2023
See Also INCORPORATION.

NOUNY PROPOSITIONAL EXPRESSION
(Grammar) Or, nominalized proposition. Abbreviated NomProp. Japanese -no (1,2) and Korean -kes (3,4) head nominalized finite clauses. These can appear under propositional attitude verbs just as their non-nominalized counterparts. We call these NomProps—nominalized propositions.
 
 NomProp complements

1. Japanese
   Watashi-wa
   I-TOP

   [kare-ga
   he-NOM

   shukudai-o
   homework-ACC

   zembu
   all

   shi-ta-(to-yuu)-no-o]
   do-PST-to-yuu-no-ACC

   shinji-teiru.
   believe-ASP

   'I believe that he finished his homework.'
2. Korean
   Na-nun
   I-TOP

   [kay-ka
   he-NOM

   swukecey-lul
   homework-ACC

   ta
   all

   ha-yass-ta-nun
   do-PST-DEC-ADN

   kes-ul]
   kes-ACC

   mit-e.
   believe-DEC

   'I believe that he finished his homework.'

3. Japanese
   Watashi-wa
   I-TOP

   [kare-ga
   he-NOM

   shukudai-o
   homework-ACC

   zembu
   all

   shi-ta-to]
   do-PST-to

   shinji-teiru.
   believe-ASP

   'I believe that he finished his homework.'
4. Korean
   Na-nun
   I-TOP

   [kay-ka
   he-NOM

   swukecey-lul
   homework-ACC

   ta
   all

   ha-yass-ta-ko]
   do-PST-DEC-ko

   mit-e.
   believe-ASP

   'I believe that he finished his homework.'

Page Created By Split July 6, 2024

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x