PSEUDO-ALLOMORPH

1. (Morphophonology) I call phonologically conditioned but semantically different affixes pseudo-allomorphs. | Varvara Magomedova, 2017

PSEUDO-ALLOMORPHY

1. (Morphophonology) Allomorphy is commonly described as any situation where the same grammatical information is realized in more than one way (multiple realization). However, this common definition is not theoretically insightful because it obscures the distinction between two very different situations (Bonet and Harbour 2010).
    The first is where multiple realization is solely due to phonological processes that differentiate the surface form of a single underlying exponent. For a straightforward example of this think of the possessive suffix of Turkish which can be: -ɨm, -im, -um, -ym depending on the final vowel of the stem (Charette and Göksel 1998, Nevins 2010, Kabak 2011).
    The second is where multiple realization is due to the contextual insertion of one underlying exponent in place of another underlying exponent. These cases would seem to be necessary to handle cases of allomorphy that cannot be derived by the phonology. For a common example of this, see the Korean nominative suffix: -ka after V-final stems and –i after C-final stems: se-ka 'bird-NOM' vs. pap-i 'rice-NOM' (Cho 2016). Here one cannot derive the two surface forms from a single underlying form, so there have to be two underlying forms inserted contextually.
    From a theoretical standpoint, the former should not be classified as allomorphy at all, otherwise any phonological operation or phonetic realization could be classed as allomorphy and the phenomenon would have no coherence. This situation (such as the Turkish case above), in which the surface variation is generated entirely by the phonology is referred to as pseudo-allomorphy. Conversely, the second situation does have a clear characterization and can be referred to technically as allomorphy. | Shanti Ulfsbjorninn, 2022
2. (Example)
    ○ We take a formal diachronic look at the Phonologically Conditioned Allomorphy (Paster 2006) in the articles and fused Preposition + Determiner/article forms of Roman (the variety of Romanesco spoken in the city of Rome). Our take is that this is not bona fide allomorphy at all, since there is no competition for insertion between multiple underlying forms (er > aː). We propose this is all pseudo-allomorphy, where a single set of exponents spells out the syntactic structure of the PP and DP and all the surface variation is derived in the phonology. This makes Romanesco an example of the pseudo-allomorphy also seen in other Italian languages/dialects. | Michela Russo, 2024

PSEUDO-CLEFT CONSTRUCTION

1. (Grammar) A pseudo-cleft sentence is a kind of cleft sentence in which the subordinated clause is a relative clause headed by an interrogative pro-form. In English they are of the form:
   1. wh-relative clause + be + X
      where X can be a constituent of one of many varieties.
    The so-called inverted pseudo-cleft sentence reverses the order of the two constituents:
   2. X + be + wh-relative clause
    | SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms, 2003
2. (Grammar) Pseudo-clefts are "divisions of the sentence into two clauses, each with its own verb" (Quirk et al. 1985), and "all the elements of the clause as a message are organized into two constituents ... linked by a relationship of identity, a kind of 'equals sign', expressed by some form of the verb be" (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004). Pseudo-clefts are "tools for presenting and highlighting new information" (Bondi 2017). | Hui Zhou and Ming Chen, 2021
3. (Grammar) There are two features which are by many authors taken as defining features of pseudo-clefts:
   1. A semantic kinship to cleft sentences, and a consequent semi-formal requirement that pseudo-cleft sentences should have a bipartite form, looking like a broken-up form of a simple sentence, with a "focal" constituent which in some sense is being emphasized, and a remainder.
   2. A formal requirement that the sentence is a copular sentence with a subject that consists of a clause introduced by a wh-item, usually what, this subject clause constituting the remainder of the simple sentence, and a portion which follows the copula and constitutes the focal constituent, the constituent which is being emphasized.
    Examples such as the following would typically be called pseudo-cleft sentences:
   1. What he bought was a donkey.
   2. What they are is silly.
   3. What appeals to them most is a go on the swings.
   4. What he did then was cut his finger.
   5. What proves that you are wrong is that they weren't even there.
    | Francis Roger Higgins, 1973

PSEUDO-COORDINATION

1. (Syntax-Semantics) Many languages of the world exhibit the possibility of stacking more than one verb displaying the same inflectional features for Tense, Aspect and Mood in the presence of a linking element homophonous to a coordinative conjunction, as in (1).
   1. Spanish (Arnaiz and Camacho 1999)
      a.
       

      Ramón
      Ramon

      fue
      go.PST.3SG

       y 
      and

      se
      REFL

      cayó.
      fall.PST.3SG

        'Ramon unexpectedly fell.'
      
      Swedish (Wiklund 1996)
      b.
       

      Hans
      Hans

      prövar
      try.PRES

      och
      and

      läser.
      read.PRES

        'Hans tries to read.'
      
      Russian (Weiss 2007)
      c.
       

      Koška
      cat

      vzjala
      take.PST.3SG.M

       i 
      and

      umerla.
      die.PST.3SG.M

        'Suddenly, the cat died.'
      
      Palestinian Arabic (Gamliel and Mar'i 2015)
      d.
       

      Qaʔdat
      sit.PST.1SG

       wa -katbat ...
      and-write.PST.1SG

        'I was writing ...'
   
    These are said to be instances of Pseudo-Coordination because they do not display the semantic and morpho-syntactic properties of a coordination. For example, they refer to a single event and allow extraction of the object of V2. | Giuliana Giusti, Vincenzo Nicolò Di Caro, and Daniel Ross, 2022
2. (Syntax-Semantics) The discussion of pseudo-coordination is made quite intricate by virtue of the fact that there are a number of different constructions that appear to coordinate verbal categories, although arguably not all of them do. Here are some types:
   1. Ordinary coordination (OCo)
       Caesar went across the Rubicon and he conquered Gaul.
   2. Scene-setting coordination (SceCo)
       Caesar went to Gaul and devastated it.
   3. Contiguous coordination (ConCo)
       Caesar saluted his legions before ... he went and addressed them.
   4. Reduplicative coordination (ReCo)
       Caesar's legions marched and marched for days.
   
    OCo: Arguably coordinating IPs. The events referred to in each conjunct are distinct from each other. The temporal ordering of the conjuncts is irrelevant and is not necessarily reflected in the word-order of the conjuncts.
    SceCo: The predicate in the first conjunct seems to set the scene for the action denoted by the verb in the second conjunct to take place.
    ConCo: The verb string is contiguous as opposed to SceCo, where it may be interrupted by a PP or particle.
    ReCo: This type of construction may also coordinate verbal categories and, like ConCo, appears to refer to a single (marching) event. However, this cannot be the entire explanation since this type of construction may also yield serial and repetitive readings. In addition, the construction is associated with pragmatic readings whereby the activity expressed is intensified in some sense. | Mark Andrew de Vos, 1975
3. (Examples)
    ○ Diachronically, we can find some examples of Pseudo-Coordination featuring the connecting element e, which is the continuation of Latin et, in Rohlfs 1969:
   a.
    
   Sutta
   under
   a
   at
   la
   the
   te
   your
   finestra
   window
   vegnu
   come.1SG
   e
   and
   staju.
   stay.1SG
     'I come and stand under your window.'
   b.
    
   Vaju
   go.1SG
   e
   and
   truovu
   find.1SG
   la
   and
   vecchia
   old
   Zia
   aunt
   Driana.
   Driana
     'I'm going to see my old aunt Driana.'
   c.
    
   Valeriu
   Valeriu
   grida,
   shout.3SG
   jamulu
   go.IMP.1PL+it.CL
   e
   and
   cacciamu.
   hunt.IMP.1PL
     'Valeriu shouts: let's go and hunt it.'
   
    | Vincenzo Nicolò di Caro, 2019
    ○  I will call this construction pseudo coordination (PCO) and verbs like sit and go which enter into it PCO verbs.
   1. What has John sat and done all day?
      'What has John done with his time all day?'
   2. What has John gone and done all day?
      'What has John done with his time all day?'
   
    | Mark de Vos, 2004
    ○ The construction exemplified by (1) can be considered as another instance of Pseudocoordination (Ross 1967, Schmerling 1975, Na and Huck 1992).
   1. I've got to try and find that screw. (Ross 1967)
   
    Despite its apparent coordinate form, the meaning of this construction is far from that of ordinary coordination and some of its grammatical properties deviate from those of ordinary coordination. For example, as Ross noted, (1) allows Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) violations. | Etsuyo Yuasa and Jerry M. Sadock, 2002

PSEUDO-COPULA

1. (Grammar) Besides copular verbs, Spanish has a wide set of verbs usually called pseudo-copular verbs. Generally, these are verbs that have lost all or at least a large part of their lexical meaning, which has been grammaticalized such that they are at present closer to auxiliary verbs than real lexical verbs, and in particular to copular verbs. | Rafael Marin, 2009
2. (Grammar) Or, semi-copular verb. In many analyses a distinction is made between the copula in English, the verb be, and all other verbs which serve to link the subject and the predicate such as appear, seem, look, grow and so on which are referred to as pseudo-copular verbs.
    The pseudo-copular verbs fall into two categories:
   1. Verbs which indicate the current state of something:
      She felt unwell.
   2. Verbs which indicate a change in state which are known as inchoate verbs (the term inchoate means 'not fully formed'). You may also see them described as inceptive verbs:
      She became unwell.
    | ELT Concourse, ?

PSEUDO-INCORPORATION

1. (Syntax) Or, pseudo noun incorporation. One of the main and most notable differences between noun incorporation (NI) and pseudo-incorporation (PI) is that a pseudo-incorporated noun has more syntactic freedom than a strictly incorporated one. This relates to the fact that in PI, not only nouns but also nominal phrases (NPs or, arguably, even larger constituents) can incorporate; this is evident from the fact that the nouns in PI sometimes retain case marking and sometimes allow modification, though they always lack definiteness marking (and usually also explicit number marking).
    In PI constructions a constituent that incorporates is larger than a noun and should rather be treated as a phrase. Consider, for instance, example (1) from Niuean (Austronesian; Niue).
   1. Ne
      PAST

      inu
      drink

      kofe
      bitter

      kono
      coffee

      a
      ABS

      Mele
      Mele

      'Mary drank bitter coffee.' (Massam 2001)
   
    In this particular case, the incorporated constituent is a modified noun phrase bitter coffee, where the presence of a modifier clearly indicates the phrasal status of the nominal constituent. Massam discusses material other than adjectival modifiers that can appear with the PI-ed nominals, such as comitatives, absolutives, and subjunctives. | Olga Borik and Berit Gehrke, 2015
2. (Examples)
    ○ Pseudo-incorporation (PI) features a cluster of morphosyntactic properties that distinguish it from canonical argumentation. For example, in Turkish, the theme NP receives accusative case when interpreted as a definite singular, as shown in (1a), but lacks an overt case marker when PI'ed, as in (1b) (Taylan 1984, Öztürk 2005).
   1. a.
       

      Ali
      Ali

      kitab-ı
      book-ACC

      oku-du.
      read-PST

        'Ali read the book.'
        Not: 'Ali read one or more books / the books.' canonical transitive
      b.
       

      Ali
      Ali

      kitap
      book

      oku-du.
      read-PST

        'Ali read one or more books. / Ali did book-reading.'
        Not: 'Ali read the book / the books.'
   
    | Yağmur Sağ, Ömer Demirok, and Muhammet Bal, 2025
    ○ Hindi incorporated nominals are phrasal and enjoy a great deal of syntactic freedom. That is, Hindi exemplifies a very liberal kind of pseudo-incorporation. | Veneeta Dayal, 2011
    ○ Defining a subset of NI constructions in semantic terms opens the door to the inclusion of constructions without the morphology of noun incorporation (NI), but with the same or similar semantics. Spanning the gap between purely semantic and purely morphological definitions of NI, are cases falling under the juxtaposition category of Mithun (1984). These cases have recently been termed pseudo-noun-incorporation (PNI) (e.g. Massam 2001) or discord or semitransitive structures, as in Margetts (2008) and Sugita (1973), or noun stripping (Miner 1986, 1989, Gerdts and Hukari 2008). In such cases, there is no true morphological incorporation, but there is a reduced or stripped nominal object phrase that forms a closer-than-usual relation with the verb. Recently discussed examples are found in Turkish (Öztürk 2004, Kamali unpublished), Hindi (Mohanan 1995, Dayal 1999, 2007/2011), Hungarian (Koopman and Szabolsci 2000, Farkas and de Swart 2003) and in Oceanic languages (e.g. Fijian by Dixon 1988, Aranovich 2008, and Niuean and Tongan by Seiter 1980, Massam 2001, Asudeh and Ball 2005, Ball 2005). In Chung and Ladusaw (2004), we see another situation intermediate between purely semantic and truly morphological definitions of NI in their account of Māori, where a morphologically special determiner is used, signaling that the object combines with the verb via Restrict, also operative in NI. | Diane Massam, 2009

PSEUDO NOUN INCORPORATION

1. (Syntax-Semantics) Pseudo-noun incorporation (PNI) describes a phenomenon in which an argument forms a "closer than usual" relation with the verb. The syntactic consequence most often diagnosed is loss of case marking, potentially along with the lack of other functional material such as number marking and overtly expressed determiners. A correlating interpretive consequence is expressed by scope inertness. Both aspects are exemplarily shown for Hindi (Dayal 2011) in (1), where (1a) shows that objects can be optionally marked for case and (1b) illustrates the correlation of case loss and an obligatory narrow scope reading.
   1. a.
       

      Anu
      Anu

      bacca / bacce-ko
      child / child-ACC

      sambhaaltii
      look.after.IMPF

      hai
      be.PRS

        'Anu looks after (one or more) children / the child.'
      b.
       

      Anu
      Anu

      bacca
      child

      nahiiN
      not

      samhaalegii
      look.after.FUT

       ¬∃, *∃¬
       

        'Anu will not look after children.'
   
    | Imke Driemel, 2023
2. (Syntax-Semantics) Pseudo-incorporated arguments constitute hybrid categories; they are part nominal and part verbal. The two core properties of pseudo-noun incorporation—lack of case marking and restriction to low scope—as well as the additional observations with respect to movement can be traced back to its verbal nature. The properties PNI-ed arguments share with proper arguments reflect the nominal status, that is they check a c-selectional feature of the verb, they are assigned a θ-role. They can also appear with adjectival modification, which is one of the key characteristics that separates pseudo-noun incorporation from proper noun incorporation (Massam 2001). | Imke Driemel, 2020
3. (Examples)
    ○ Niuean Pseudo Noun Incorporation (Massam 2001)
   1. a.
       

      [ Takafaga
       hunt

      t_k ]
       

      tūmau
      always

      nī
      EMPH

      e
      ERG

      ia
      he

      [ e
      ABS

      tau
      PL

      ika ]_k
      fish

        'He is always fishing.'

      b.
       

      [ Takafaga
       hunt

      ika ]
      fish

      tūmau
      always

      nī
      EMPH

      a
      ABS

      ia
      he

        'He is always fishing.'
   
    | Lisa Travis, 2025
    ○ The phenomenon of so-called Pseudo Noun Incorporation (PNI) provides an interesting challenge to our theories of the relationship between syntax and semantics. First, these constructions seem to have a special semantics, in which the erstwhile object of the verb is interpreted as a predicate, rather than an argument, with consequences for its scope relative to verb phrase operators, among other things (see especially Dayal 2011). These constructions also seem to have a special syntax, at least in some languages, in that the object must be strictly adjacent to the verb in the surface syntactic structure and is not marked for accusative case the way that other objects are (see especially Massam 2001). | Mark C. Baker, 2014

PSEUDO-PASSIVE
(Grammar) Or, prepositional passive. In English, the "pseudo-passive" is a verb construction that has a passive form but either an active meaning or no grammatically active equivalent.

 "It has been well recognized in the literature that not all pseudo-passive sentences are acceptable." (Kuno and Takami 2004)

1. The high-priced concert-and-dinner tickets were selling well, but seats in the house were selling slowly. (Rena Fruchter, Dudley Moore: An Intimate Portrait. Ebury Press, 2005)
2. Gita felt that she no longer existed except as a sodden, aching huddle under the rock, waiting to be rained on, a creature utterly isolated from the rest of the human race. (Terry Morris, "The Life-Giving Power of Love." Good Housekeeping, December 1969)
3. I came to the station meaning to tell you everything then. But we had started with a lie, and I got frightened. (E.M. Forster, Where Angels Fear to Tread, 1905)
4. Juliet's bed was empty, too, though it had been slept in. (Linda Winstead Jones, The Sun Witch. Berkley Sensation, 2004)

PSEUDO-SLUICING

1. (Syntax) 
   1. Sluicing
      John saw someone, but I don't know [who_i [John saw t_i]].
      John will buy something; but I don't know what.
   2. Pseudo-sluicing
      John saw someone, but I don't know [who it is].
      John will buy something; but I don't know what it is.
    | Audrey Li and Tingchi Wei, 2023
2. (Syntax) Sentence (1) is an example of the Japanese pseudo-sluicing construction. Japanese "pseudo-sluicing" is apparently very similar to the English sluicing exemplified in (2).
   1. Taro-ga
      Taro-NOM

      nanika-o
      something-ACC

      kat-ta
      buy-PAST

      ga,
      but

      watasi-wa
      I-TOP

      nani
      what

      ka
      Q

      sira-nai.
      know-NOT

      'Taro bought something, but I don’t know what.'
   2. Taro bought something, but I don't know what.
      Taro bought something, but I don't know [_CP what_i C⁰ [_IP Taro bought t_i ]].
    | Chizuru Nakao, 2005
3. (Syntax) One proposal in analyzing elliptical structures considers the source of the ellipsis not to consist necessarily of full sentential material, but rather to have the structure of a cleft whose pivot is an extracted wh-phrase, as in (1). This type of ellipsis I will call "pseudosluicing", as it gives rise to structures seemingly indistinguishable from sluicing as in (2).
   1. Pseudosluicing
      I don't know who [it was __ (that Abby saw) ].
   2. Sluicing
      I don't know who [Abby saw {someone / __} ].
    | Jason Merchant, 1998

PSEUDOGAPPING

1. (Syntax) A somewhat odd instance of ellipsis in which a lexical verb under an auxiliary is deleted, leaving behind its own complement(s). There are clear family resemblances between pseudogapping on the one hand and Gapping and VP ellipsis on the other:
   1. Pseudogapping
      Mary hasn't dated Bill, but she has Ø Harry.
   2. Gapping
      Smoke bothers Fred, and loud music, Ø Fred's parents.
   3. VP ellipsis
      Smoke might have bothered Fred, but it didn't Ø.
   
    In both pseudogapping and Gapping, the lexical verb is missing, leaving behind some (or all) of its complements as remnants, but in pseudogapping, an auxiliary in the ellipsed clause must be present (just like in VP ellipsis), whereas in Gapping no auxiliary is found. Gapping is moreover different from the other two in that it is restricted to coordination environments, as seen in (4a) vs (4b).
   4. a. I'll contact John if you will (Mary).
      b. * I'll contact John if you Mary.
   
    | Yusuke Kubota and Robert Levine, 2016
2. (Syntax) The ellipsis phenomenon in (1) displays some properties of gapping (there is a right side remnant) along some properties of VP ellipsis (there is a finite auxiliary):
   1.  John will select me, and Bill will you.
   
    Sag (1976) presents a number of instances, suggesting that they relate to VP deletion, and tentatively concluding that VP deletion must therefore be formulated as a rule deleting a variable (rather than specifically a VP), since a portion of the VP survives the deletion. The following are all from Sag (1976), with (4) and (5) cited from Halliday and Hasan (1973):
   2.  John could pull you out of a plane, like he did ∅ his brother.
   3.  Mary hasn't dated Bill, but she has ∅ Harry.
   4.  Is she suing the hospital? She is ∅ the doctor.
   5.  Has he sold his collection yet? He has ∅ some of his paintings; I'm not sure about the rest.
   6.  Gee, I've never seen you on campus before. Yea! Neither have I ∅ you.
   
    Levin (1978, 1979/1986) provides an extensive examination of this type of ellipsis and employs the name it is now standardly associated with: pseudogapping. Among her many example are the following, all from Levin (1978) and all marked "?" by her:
   7.  If you don't believe me, you will ∅ the weatherman.
   8.  I rolled up a newspaper, and Lynn did ∅ a magazine.
   9.  Kathy likes astronomy, but she doesn't ∅ meteorology.
   
    By and large, the best instances of pseudogapping involve an NP or PP remnant. Levin (1978) cites the following unacceptable example with adjectival remnants:
   10.  * You just probably feel relieved, but I do ∅ jubilant.
   11.  * Rona sounded annoyed, and Sue did ∅ frustrated.
   12.  A: These leeks taste terrible.
        B: * Your steak will ∅ better.
   
    | Howard Lasnik, 1999
3. (Syntax) The English ellipsis construction known as pseudogapping is shown in the second conjunct of (1), in which a VP-like string is deleted (by a deletion rule similar to VP-ellipsis) to the exclusion of one other focused VP-contained constituent, called the remnant. In (1), the remnant is beer, and the second clause is interpreted as 'Mary will bring beer to the party.'
   1.  John will bring wine to the party, and Mary will beer.
   
    | Gary Thoms, 2016 s
4. (Syntax) Gapping elides a finite verb in the non-initial conjunct of a coordinate structure while VP ellipsis deletes a whole VP after an auxiliary. Unlike these two, pseudogapping elides most of the VP except one remnant. Pseudogapping additionally differs from gapping and VP ellipsis, in that it involves ellipsis of part of a non-finite VP. | Jong-Bok Kim and Jeffrey T. Runner, 2022
5. (Examples)
    ○ Pseudogapping
   1.  Speaker A: Drinks like that knock me over.
       Speaker B: They would me.
   2.  He asked curiously, "Which of all those sculptures in the book was the hardest for you to make?"
       "The most difficult was the gypsy's crystal ball."
       It surprised him, as it did most people.
   
    | Kirsten Gengel, 2007
    ○ Compare:
   1. a. Pseudogapping
        That may not bother you, but it does me.
      b. Gapping
        Smoke bothers Fred, and loud music Fred's parents.
      c. VP Ellipsis
        Smoke might have bothered Fred, but it didn't.
   
    | Jack Hoeksema, 2006

PSEUDOPARTITIVE

1. (Grammar) Partitives are defined as constructions that may express the proportional relation of a subset to a superset (the true-partitive relation). On the functional side, partitives may have functions in the following domains in addition to the true-partitive relation: plain quantification (pseudo-partitives), hypothetical events, predicate negation and aspectuality. | Ilja A. Seržant, 2021
2. (Grammar) Bi-nominal constructions exemplified in (1-2) are often referred to as partitives, but many researchers further differentiate between proper partitives (1) and pseudo-partitives (2) (see Selkirk 1977, Jackendoff 1977, Deevy 1999, Koptjevaskaja-Tamm 2001, Stickney 2004, a.o.).
   1. a. a bottle of this vodka
      b. a glass of my favorite juice
      c. a pile of Caesar's toys
   2. a. a bottle of vodka
      b. a glass of juice
      c. a pile of toys
   
    Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001) defines pseudo-partitives as expressions referring to an amount/quantity of some (indefinite) substance rather than to a part/subset of a (definite) superset, as is the case for proper partitives. She lists various semantic classes of nouns which may act as the first element of the pseudo-partitive construction (N1):
   • Conventionalized measures: a litre of milk, a kilo of apples.
   • Abstract quantity nouns: a large amount of apples.
   • Containers: a cup of tea, a pail of apples.
   • Fractions/parts: a slice of bread, a quarter of an hour, a large section of students.
   • Quantums (for mass nouns): a lump of sugar, a drop of milk.
   • Collections (for count nouns): a group of students, a herd of sheep.
   • Forms (both for mass and count nouns): a pile of sand/bricks, a bouquet of roses.
   
    Distinctions between partitives and pseudo-partitives are observed in many natural languages. | Paweł Rutkowski, 2007
3. (Grammar) Nominal expressions such as those illustrated in (1), known as pseudopartitives, have been discussed in relation to the literature on partitivity (Jackendoff 1977, Selkirk 1977, Corver 1998, Alexiadou et al. 2007, Stavrou 2003, Stickney 2007, a.o.). However, pseudopartitives differ from partitives in that the former correspond to "expressions referring to an amount/quantity of some (indefinite) substance rather than to a part/subset of a (definite) superset, as is the case for proper partitives” (Rutkowsky 2007).
   1. French
      a. un verre d'eau
        'a glass of water'
      Italian
      b. una bottiglia di vino
        'a bottle of wine'
   
    Notice, furthermore, that in pseudopartitives the lexical item preceding de is not a quantifier determiner but a measure/classifier noun, and the complement of de is not a definite but an indefinite expression. In fact, that is one of the main properties that has been claimed to distinguish true partitives (2a)–(3a) from pseudopartitives (2b)–(3b).
   2. Spanish
      a. un kilo de aquellas manzanas
        'a kilogram of those apples'
      b. un kilo de manzanas
        'a kilogram of apples'
   3. French
      a. un verre de cette biere
        'a glass of this beer'
      b. un verre de biere
        'a glass of beer'
   
    | M.Teresa Espinal and Sonia Cyrino, 2022
4. (Examples)
    ○ Measured ACC-ing gerunds pattern like pseudopartitives (1), merely picking out some quantity of a substance or event, while measured POSS-ing gerunds pattern with partitives (2), necessarily denoting a strict subpart of a larger whole.
   1. a. Pseudopartitive
       Nick put two cups of cherries into the pie.
      b. Partitive
       Nick put two cups of the cherries into the pie.
   
    | Aidan Katson, 2025
    ○ One particular dialect of Germanic, Viennese German, uses number morphology to distinguish between two different readings of numeral pseudo-partitives (NUM-N1-(of)- N2, e.g., English three glasses of water), the container reading (in which N1 is referential) and the quantity reading (in which N1 is non-referential). | Laura Grestenberger, 2015

PSEUDOWORD

1. (Morphology; Psycholinguistics) A letter string that resembles a real word by adhering to phonotactic and orthotactic rules. E.g., fambo follows the rules of English phonology and orthography, but it does not have an actual meaning.
    Pseudowords have been used in research to isolate specific features of words to examine the cognitive mechanisms underlying various aspects of their processing, including orthographic, phonological decoding, lexical-semantic, and syntactic components, as well as to the way those empirical observations have shaped theories and models of word recognition. Broader applications include studying non-alphabetic scripts, speech processing, and language disorders like dyslexia. Research using pseudowords offers critical insights into the interconnected nature of cognitive mechanisms in language processing. | Celia Martínez-Tomás, Ana Baciero, Miguel Lázaro, and José A. Hinojosa, 2025
2. (Morphology; Psycholinguistics) Pseudowords are stimuli created from letters that look like words but are not words. They differ from nonwords, which are also stimuli created from letters but do not look like words (cnlme is an example of a nonword in English). For a long time, pseudowords have been generated by changing one or more letters of an existing word (e.g., cleam created from clean in Davis and Lupker 2006). Pseudowords are intensively used in psycholinguistics research. They are essential in a task widely used in that field, namely the lexical decision task, where participants have to decide as quickly as possible whether the stimulus presented on the screen is a word. To cause participants to access their mental lexicon, it is essential that the pseudowords respect the phonotactic rules of the language; in other words, that they are potential words. | Boris New, Jessica Bourgin, Julien Barra, and Christophe Pallier, 2024
3. (Morphology) Here, we define a pseudoword as a phonotactically licit phone sequence that could form a word in a language but happens not to (such as blick in English), while nonword is used to mean a phone sequence that could not form a word in a language (such as bnick in English). | Matthew C. Kelley and Benjamin V. Tucker, 2022
4. (Examples)
    ○ Words (e.g., table), pseudowords (e.g., toble), and illegal nonwords (e.g., tpbfe). | Jonathan Grainger, Sébastien Bouttevin, Cathy Truc, Mireille Bastien, and Johannes Ziegler, 2003
    ○ In most brain regions, we found that pseudowords, which have unfamiliar phonological associations and no associated semantic association, produce greater activation than words. | C.J. Price, R.J.S. Wise, and R.S.J. Frackowiak, 1996
    ○ Most researchers have assumed that readers make direct use of spelling-sound rules when faced with pronounceable nonwords, or pseudowords. | Mary Beth Rosson, 1983

PSI (Greek letter ψ)
(Phonology) Symbol for a vocalic mora. | ?

PSYCH-PREDICATE

1. (Syntax; Semantics) We take the position that a psych-predicate describes an event or eventuality such that it has the beginning, duration, end and result of a psychological state involved. It is argued that there must be distinctions between emotional verbs, sensory/perceptual verbs, and cognitive verbs, on one hand, and between those verbs and psych-verbs turned accomplishment verbs, on the other. Thus, it takes issue with van Voorst (1992) for failing to recognize those distinctions and treating all of them uniformly as achievement verbs. Emotion verbs, with no telic end-points in aspect, behave more like states (with the flavor of process/activity). Psychological achievements are "resultatives", as states implying previous "mental" events. Particularly in Korean, the sense of state continuation is becoming stronger even in the case of psychological achievements (cognition), not only emotions / sensations. | Chungmin Lee, 1999
2. (Example)
    ○  In nominative object constructions (NOC), e.g. (1a), two NPs are selected by an experiencer psych predicate. The subject (NP1) can be followed by various markers, including a nominative marker, a dative marker, or a combination of two case markers. On the other hand, the object (NP2) is marked with a nominative marker. This distinguishes NOCs from sentences where the object (NP2) is marked with an accusative marker, as shown in (1b).
   1. Korean: nominative object and accusative object
      a. Nominative object constructions (NOCs)
        Mary-{ka/eykey(-ka)}
        Mary-{NOM / DAT(-NOM)}

      John-i
      John-NOM

      coh-(a ci)-ass-ta.
      like-(become)-PST-DECL

        'Mary liked (comes to like) John.'
      b. Accusative object constructions (Non-NOCs)
        Mary-ka
        Mary-NOM

      John-ul
      John-ACC

      coh-*(a ha)-yess-ta.
      like-*(do)-PST-DECL

        'Mary liked John.'
   
    | Juyeon Cho, 2024

PSYCH VERB

1. (Syntax; Semantics) Any verb that carries psychological entailments with respect to one of its arguments (the experiencer). A psychological entailment involves an individual being in a certain mental state (Landau 2010). | Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Rint Sybesma, 2015
2. (Examples)
    ○ Psych-verbs exhibit a fairly large variation in argument structure patterns, as the following examples from German show. Many of these verbs allow alternations between stimuli and experiencers in subject position (1a vs. 1b), between nominal and clausal realizations of arguments (1a vs. 1c, 1b vs. 1d), between inanimate and agent-like animate stimuli (1a vs. 1e), between simple stimuli and "split-stimuli" that are spread out over two constituents, a subject NP and a PP (1a vs. 1f), and between explicit and implicit argument realization (1b vs. 1g).
   1. a.
       

      Rebeccas
      Rebecca's

      bösartige
      malicious

      Bemerkung
      remark.NOM

      ärgerte
      anger.3SG.PST

      Jamaal.
      Jamaal.ACC

        'Rebecca's malicious remark angered Jamaal.'
      b.
       

      Jamaal
      Jamaal.NOM

      ärgerte
      anger.3SG.PST

      sich
      RFL

      über
      over

      Rebeccas
      Rebecca's

      bösartige
      malicious

      Bemerkung.
      remark.ACC

        'Jamaal was / became angry about Rebecca's malicious remark.'
      c.
       

      Dass
      that

      Rebecca
      Rebecca

      so
      such

      eine
      a

      bösartige
      malicious

      Bemerkung
      remark

      gemacht
      made

      hatte,
      had,

      ärgerte
      anger.3SG.PST

      Jamaal.
      Jamaal.ACC

        'That Rebecca had made such a malicious remark angered Jamaal.'
      d.
       

      Jamaal
      Jamaal.NOM

      ärgerte
      anger.3SG.PST

      sich
      RFL

      (dar-über),
      there-over

      dass
      that

      Rebecca
      Rebecca

      so
      such

      eine
      a

      bösartige
      malicious

      Bemerkung
      remark

      gemacht
      made

      hatte.
      had

        'Jamaal was / became angry that Rebecca had made such a malicious remark.'
      e.
       

      Rebecca
      Rebecca.NOM

      ärgerte
      anger.3SG.PST

      Jamaal.
      Jamaal.ACC

        'Rebecca angered Jamaal.'
      f.
       

      Rebecca
      Rebecca.NOM

      ärgerte
      anger.3SG.PST

      Jamaal
      Jamaal.ACC

      mit
      with

      ihrer
      her

      bösartigen
      malicious

      Bemerkung.
      remark

        'Rebecca angered Jamaal with her malicious remark.'
      g.
       

      Jamaal
      Jamaal.NOM

      ärgerte
      anger.3SG.PST

      sich.
      RFL

        'Jamaal was / became angry.'
   
    | Stefan Engelberg, 2018
    ○ Psych verb constructions show peculiar properties. They appear to project the same θ-relations into inverse configurations (John fears sharks / Sharks frighten John). Furthermore, Experiencer Object psych verb constructions admit backward binding in apparent violation of familiar c-command conditions (Pictures of himself anger John). | Candice Chi-Hang Cheung and Richard K. Larson, 2014
    ○ Belleti and Rizzi (1988) identify three "primitive lexical classes" that are manifested in Psych verbs in Italian and elsewhere. Each of the verb classes has a distinct syntax and a particular theta grid.
   1. Subject is Experiencer
      Gianni teme questo.
      'Gianni fears this'
   2. Object is Experiencer
      Questo preoccupa Gianni
      This worries Gianni
   3. Dative is Experiencer
      A Gianni piace questo
      to Gianni pleases this
   
    | Eloise Jelinek and Maryann Willie, 1996

PURPOSE CLAUSE
(Syntax) Expresses the purpose or intended use of a particular object which the main clause is in some sense "about". It is attached as a daughter of VP and is fixed in VP final position. It has the following variants, distinguished trivially by the position of the gap [which is represented by e]:

1. I bought the shelf_i [e_i to hold my cookbooks]
2. I bought the cookies_i [for Mary to eat e_i]
3. I bought the cushion_i [for Mary to sit on e_i]

Page Last Modified October 17, 2026

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x