snippets
Issue 32 - January 2018

Contents
1. Wm. G. Bennett. Subject-Auxiliary inversion in interrogative complex NPs.
2. Ken Hiraiwa. Anatomy of what and NUMBER in Japanese.
3. Erik Zyman. Gestures and nonlinguistic objects are subject to the Case Filter.
4. Erik Zyman. Interjections select and project.

ISSN 1590-1807
Published in Led on Line - Electronic Archive by
LED - Edizioni Universitarie di Lettere Economia Diritto - Milano - Italy
https://www.ledonline.it
January 2018
Copyright
The works included in Snippets are the property of their authors and are used by permission.
Readers must apply the same principles of fair use to the works in this electronic archive that theywould to a printed archive. These works may be read online, downloaded and printed for personaluse, copied and freely distributed, or the URL of Snippets included in another electronic document.
Any reference to material included in Snippets must cite the author and the source. The texts may
not be published commercially (in print or electronic form), edited, or otherwise altered without
the permission of the author.

Editors
Sam Alxatib, Graduate Center, City University of New York
Isaac Gould, Ewha Womans University
Orin Percus, Université de Nantes

Review Board
Simon Charlow (Rutgers University), Christopher Davis (University of the Ryukyus), Michael
Yoshitaka Erlewine (National University of Singapore), Ilaria Frana (Università degli Studi di
Enna “Kore”), Daniel Gutzmann (University of Cologne), Jeremy Hartman (University of
Massachusetts, Amherst), Laura Kalin (Princeton University), Peter Klecha (Swarthmore
College), Marie-Christine Meyer (Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft), Neil Myler (Boston
University), Michelle Sheehan (Anglia Ruskin University), Yasutada Sudo (University College
London), Ayaka Sugawara (Mie University), Gary Thoms (University of Glasgow), Maziar
Toosarvandani (University of California, Santa Cruz), Wataru Uegaki (Leiden University), Coppevan Urk (Queen Mary University of London), Alexis Wellwood (Northwestern University),
Rebecca Woods (University of Huddersfield).

Email: snippetsjournal@gmail.com

ii

Editorial Statement
1. Purpose
The aim of Snippets is to publish specific remarks that motivate research or that make theoreticalpoints germane to current work. The ideal contribution is brief, self-contained and explicit. One
encounters short comments of this kind in earlier literature in linguistics. We feel that there nolonger is a forum for them. We want Snippets to help fill that gap.
2. Content
We will publish notes that contribute to the study of syntax and semantics in generative grammar.
The notes are to be brief, self-contained and explicit. They may do any of the following things:• point out an empirical phenomenon that challenges accepted generalizations or influential
theoretical proposals;• point out unnoticed minimal pairs that fall outside the scope of any existing theory;• point out an empirical phenomenon that confirms the predictions of a theory in an area where
the theory has not been tested;• explicitly describe technical inconsistencies in a theory or in a set of frequently adopted
assumptions;• explicitly describe unnoticed assumptions that underlie a theory or assumptions that a theory
needs to be supplemented with in order to make desired predictions;• call attention to little-known or forgotten literature in which issues of immediate relevanceare discussed.
We also encourage submissions that connect psycholinguistic data to theoretical issues. A proposal
for a pilot experiment in language acquisition or language processing could make for an excellent
snippet.
The earliest Linguistic Inquiry squibs exemplify the kind of remark we would like to publish.
Some of them posed unobserved puzzles. For instance, a squib by Postal and Ross in Linguistic Inquiry 1:1 (“A Problem of Adverb Preposing”) noted that whether or not we can construe asentence-initial temporal adverb with an embedded verb depends on the tense of the matrix verb.
A squib by Perlmutter and Ross in LI 1:3 (“Relative Clauses with Split Antecedents”), challenging
the prevailing analyses of coordination and extraposition, noted that conjoined clauses, neither ofwhich contains a plural noun phrase, can appear next to an “extraposed” relative that can only
describe groups. Other squibs drew attention to particular theoretical assumptions. For instance,a squib by Bresnan in LI 1:2 (“A Grammatical Fiction”) outlined an alternative account of thederivation of sentences containing believe and force, and asked whether there were principled reasons for dismissing any of the underlying assumptions (among them that semantic interpretation issensitive to details of a syntactic derivation). A squib by Zwicky in LI 1:2 (“Class Complementsin Phonology”) asked to what extent phonological rules refer to complements of classes. None ofthese squibs was more than a couple of paragraphs; all of them limited themselves to a precise
question or observation.
iii

3. Submission details
Snippets is an electronic journal. We will solicit submissions twice a year. The submissions that we
accept will be posted on the journal website approximately 3 months after each deadline, and all
accepted submissions will remain permanently on the website. Snippets is intended as a service tothe linguistics community. Consequently, authors are advised that, when they submit to Snippets,
we understand them as allowing their submission to be reproduced if published. At the same time,
the rights for the published snippets themselves will remain with the authors. As a result, citationof Snippets material will have to indicate the author’s name and the specific source of the material.
We will accept electronic submissions at the address snippetsjournal@gmail.com. Electronic
submissions may take the form of (a) the text of an e-mail message, or (b) an attached file. The
attached file should be a simple text file, a Word file (Mac or Windows), a Rich Text Format (RTF)
file, or a PDF. The files must be anonymous, but must be accompanied with information about theauthors: name, affiliation, and (postal or electronic) address. Submissions can be of any length
below 500 words (including examples), with an additional half page allowed for diagrams, tables,and references. The submissions may not contain footnotes or general acknowledgments, except
acknowledgements of funding sources, which must be credited in a line following the references.
Authors who wish to acknowledge language consultants are allowed but not required to do so. We
will not consider abstracts.
4. Editorial policy
Submissions will be reviewed by our editorial board and review board, and review will be nameblind both ways. While we guarantee a response within 3 months of the submission deadline, wewill not necessarily provide more than a yes/no response to the submitter. We allow resubmission(once) of the same piece.

This statement reproduces with minor modifications the editorial statement in Issue 1 of Snippets(January 2000), edited by Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati and Orin Percus.

iv

	
  

Subject-Auxiliary inversion in interrogative complex NPs
Wm. G. Bennett · University of Calgary and Rhodes University

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7358/snip-2017-032-bennSubject-auxiliary inversion in English has canonically been taken to be possible only in mainclauses (Emonds 1970). A growing body of more recent literature, however, documents inversion in a variety of non-main clause contexts (McCloskey 2006; see also Green 1996, Goldberg
and Del Giudice 2005, Dayal and Grimshaw 2009, Woods 2016). For example, McCloskey (2006)
documents attested examples like (1), where inversion occurs in a clause embedded under wonder.
The occurrence of inversion here depends on the embedding verb: interrogative verbs like wonder and ask can permit inversion in embedded clauses, while non-interrogative counterparts like
discover and find out do not (McCloskey 2006).
(1) I wondered [was he literate].
This snippet identifies another context where embedded inversion can occur: complex NPs.
(2) It’s really [a question of [CP what should we do]].
The example in (2) shows inversion in an embedded clause contained within a nominal headed byquestion. Judgements about these structures vary, but they commonly occur in natural contexts.
The examples in (3-5) below were produced spontaneously by native American English speakers
in text or speech. (3) shows inversion of are in an embedded wh-question; (4) shows inversion ofhave in a yes/no question; (5) shows do-support.
(3) It’s really a question of [what are the rules].
(4) It really is a question of [have they put in place the institutional mechanisms to control it].
(5) They never resolved the problem of [do you allow friends and next of kin].
Some speakers intuit that examples like (3-5) are quotations, but they do not have the propertiesof direct quotations. Pronoun reference illustrates this clearly. First-person pronouns in direct
quotations refer to the speaker of the quoted utterance – the quotee, not the quoter. But the pronounin the embedded clause of (6) must refer to the speaker, not the person who asked the question.
This embedded clause does not behave like a quotation.
(6) Let me j now respond to Leslie’s question of [how did I j/∗k collect the data].
The availability of inversion in complex NPs parallels the asymmetry between verbs like wondervs. discover. Inversion is possible in clauses embedded after question (cf. Woods 2016:424), andother nouns that have a similarly interrogative flavor (7). Inversion is unacceptable with nouns
that are definitively non-interrogative (8). (Many speakers find both (7) and (8) bad; all English
speakers I have consulted find forms like (8) discernably worse.)(7) The {question/query/problem/puzzle} of [how does an MRI work] is quite complicated.
snippets 32 • 01/2018
	
  

1

	
  
(8) The {*discovery/*answer/*explanation/*result} of [how does an MRI work] is quite
complicated.
The generalization that only interrogative nouns allow for inversion in complex NPs is problematicfor selection-based analyses of embedded inversion. For example, McCloskey (2006) analyzes inversion as T-to-C raising to check a [Q] feature; inversion happens in embedded clauses because
verbs like ask select for a [Q] C head. But in complex NPs like (7), there is no selectional relationship between question and the embedded clause: the embedded CP is not the complementof question, being contained inside of a PP. The availability of inversion in these cases cannot be
attributed to some quirk of of as the P head (e.g. it is not sufficient to say that selection can happen
across of ). The examples in (9) and (10) show that nouns permit inversion in clauses embedded
under other P heads, and even other non-P expressions.
(9) Jane posed a question {about/on/concerning} [what does the theory actually stipulate].
(10) It’s really a puzzle {about/regarding} [what are the rules].

References
Dayal, Veneeta, and Jane Grimshaw. 2009. Subordination at the interface: the quasi-subordination
hypothesis. Ms. Rutgers University.
Emonds, Joseph E. 1970. Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations. Ph.D. dissertation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Goldberg, Adele, and Alex Del Giudice. 2005. Subject-auxiliary inversion: a natural category.
The Linguistic Review 22: 411-428.
Green, Georgia M. 1996. Distinguishing main and subordinate clause; the ROOT of the problem.
Ms. University of Illinois.
McCloskey, James. 2006. Questions and questioning in a local English. In Zanuttini, Raffaella,
Héctor Campos, Elena Herburger, and Paul H. Portner (eds.), Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax
and Semantics: Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture, 87-126. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Woods, Rebecca. 2016. Embedded inverted questions as embedded illocutionary acts. In Kim,
Kyeong-min, Pocholo Umbal, Trevor Block, Queenie Chan, Tanie Cheng, Kelli Finney, MaraKatz, Sophie Nickel-Thompson, and Lisa Shorten (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 33), 417-426.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

William G. Bennett
w.bennett@ru.ac.za
School of Languages, Linguistics, Literatures and Cultures
University of Calgary
2500 University Dr. NW
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
Canada2snippets 32 • 01/2018

	
  

	
  

Anatomy of what and NUMBER in Japanese
Ken Hiraiwa · Meiji Gakuin University

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7358/snip-2017-032-hiraIt has been well known that an inanimate wh-pronoun nani in Japanese is optionally contracted
to nan in colloquial speech if and only if followed by a coronal consonant (Martin 1975, among
many others).
no?
(1) Nan*(i)-ga nan(i)-no jaanaru-ni notta
what-NOM what-GEN journal-on appeared C‘What appeared in what journal?’
It has been unnoticed, however, that the same wh-pronoun is obligatorily “contracted” to nan incertain cases (actual forms are subject to sequential voicing and gemination).
(2)

a. nan(*i)-{kai/pataan/hiki}
what-{CLtimes /CLpattern /CLanimal }‘how many times/patterns/animal’b. nan(*i)-banme
what-order‘which (ordinal) number’c. nan(*i)-{zyuu/hyaku/sen}what-{ten/hundred/thousand}‘(Lit.) how many tens/hundreds/thousands’

Note that the “contraction” in (2) is not phonologically conditioned because it is obligatory evenwhen nan is not followed by a coronal consonant.
This obligatory short form nan in (2), however, has semantics distinct from nani. The latter
refers to a concrete thing or an abstract property/concept etc., but the former exclusively refers tonumber. In all the examples in (2), nan appears in exactly the same position as numerals: before
numeral classifiers (2a), before ordinal nouns (2b), and before numerical bases (as a multiplicand)(2c). It can be replaced with a numeral (e.g. go ‘five’) or another wh-element for amount (e.g. iku‘how many’).
The minimal pair in (3) clearly shows this semantic difference: the same noun ken ‘prefecture’
gives rise to different interpretations, depending on whether it is prefixed by nan or nani.
(3)a. nan-ken
what-prefecture‘how many prefectures’b. nani-ken
what-prefecture‘what prefecture’snippets 32 • 01/2018
	
  

3

	
  
One might hypothesize that nan itself is a numeral and hence a NUM head. But this is not tenablebecause nan co-occurs with a numeral classifier, which is a NUM head (Watanabe 2006). Given
that numeral classifiers (in NUM) in Japanese require a number category as their specifier, nancannot be a functional head higher than NUM either.
(4)a. go-hikifive-CLanimal‘five (animals)’b. *hiki
CLanimal‘(animals)’c. *{takusan/arera}-hiki
many/those-CLanimal‘many/those (animals)’
It is thus reasonable to think that nan is combined with a silent element NUMBER (see Zweig 2005,
Kayne 2005) and forms a numeral in the specifier of NUM P. This silent element NUMBER in (5)can also be overtly realized as a numerical base zyuu/hyaku/zen ‘ten/hundred/thousand’ in example(2c).
(5) [NUM P [NUMERAL {nan/go} NUMBER] [NUM′ [NUM classifier]]]‘{how many/five} (NP)’
If this analysis is correct, the obligatory lack of -i is understood as morphological evidence forthe presence of the silent NUMBER. This in turn suggests that what we call numerals are more
complex than they look. A number of studies have investigated the syntax of numerals (Ionin andMatushansky 2006, Cheng and Sybesma 1999, Watanabe 2006, 2010), but what kind of syntactic
category a numeral is has rarely been addressed. The anatomy of nan shows that a numeral is acombination of a number word (e.g. ichi ‘one’, ni ‘two’, nani ‘what’) and NUMBER.

References
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Rint Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of
NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 509-542.
Ionin, Tania, and Ora Matushansky. 2006. The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of
Semantics 23: 315-360.
Kayne, Richard S. 2005. A note on the syntax of quantity in English. In Kayne, Richard S. (ed.)
Movement and Silence, 176-214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, Samuel E. 1975. A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Watanabe, Akira. 2006. Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: syntax of classifiers.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 241-306.
Watanabe, Akira. 2010. Vague quantity, numerals, and natural numbers. Syntax 13: 37-77.
Zweig, Eytan. 2005. Nouns and adjectives in numeral NPs. In Bateman, Leah, and Cherlon
Ussery (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35), 663-679. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
4snippets 32 • 01/2018

	
  

	
  
Ken Hiraiwa
hiraiwa@ltr.meijigakuin.ac.jp
Department of English
Meiji Gakuin University
1-2-37 Shirokanedai, Minato-ku, Tokyo,108-8636 Japansnippets 32 • 01/2018
	
  

5

	
  

Gestures and nonlinguistic objects are subject to the Case Filter
Erik Zyman · University of California, Santa Cruz

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7358/snip-2017-032-zyma

Gestures can be merged into, and moved within, syntactic structures (see Jackendoff 1984, 2011,
Jouitteau 2004, Postal 2004). This squib shows further that they can appear in DP positions, andwhen they do, the relevant DPs need Case (Vergnaud 1977/2008). (Gestures in non-DP positions(Schlenker to appear) do not need Case.)
What does this predict?
First, a gesture G should complement Case-assigning Vs/Ps. In (pseudo)passives, T[+FIN]
should Case-license G and raise it to [Spec,TP]. If G stays in [Compl,VP/PP], and T[+FIN] Caselicenses expletive it instead, G will be Caseless, producing unacceptability. This is correct:(1) Speaking of gestures,
a. we’re discussing/talking about G.
b. G is being discussed/talked about.
c. *it’s being discussed/talked about G.
Second, G should receive Case in ECM/raising-to-object structures. When the ECM/raising-toobject verb passivizes, T[+FIN] should Case-license G and raise it. If T[+FIN] Case-licenses it instead,
G will be Caseless, yielding unacceptability. This is correct:(2)

a. People consider G (to be) a threatening gesture.
b. G is considered (to be) a threatening gesture.
c. *It’s considered G (to be) a threatening gesture.

Third, a gesture G in [Spec,TP] in a raising infinitival should receive Case from a higher T[+FIN]
and raise. If it doesn’t, and T[+FIN] Case-licenses it, G will be Caseless, causing unacceptability.
This is correct:(3)

a. G seems to be a threatening gesture.
b. *It seems G to be a threatening gesture.

Fourth, a gesture G in [Spec,Tto P] should be Case-licensable by C-for. If for is absent, G will be
Caseless, producing unacceptability. This is correct:(4)

a. For G to be considered a threatening gesture would be unsurprising.
b. *G to be considered a threatening gesture would be unsurprising.

Fifth, if G complements an N/A with no mediating P, it will be Caseless, producing unacceptability.
P-insertion should rescue it. This is correct:(5) Speaking of gestures, {I’m a fan *(of) G/
I’m partial *(to) G}.
6snippets 32 • 01/2018

	
  

	
  
Of course, partial in that sense selects to, and *[partial G] violates that requirement, ruling it out
independently. But G cannot complement any A/N without a mediating P, as predicted:(6) {fond *(of) / reminiscent *(of) / suggestive *(of) /condemnatory *(of) / similar *(to) / reliant *(on)} G(7) {discussion *(of) / condemnation *(of) / promotion *(of) /fondness *(for) / similarity *(to) / prohibition *(on) / reliance *(on)} G
Sixth, G should bear morphological case in relevant languages. This is correct for Japanese:(8) Jesuchaa to ie-ba (watashi-wa) G-*(ga) suki.
gesture C say-if (I-TOP)
G -*( NOM ) like
‘Speaking of gestures, I like G.’[One speaker. For another speaker: *G-ga, **G (without -ga).]
Nonlinguistic objects in syntactic structures, like the arrow below, also need Case:(9) ↑ is an arrow.
In (9), T[+FIN] Case-licenses ↑. A Caseless ↑ produces unacceptability: *It seems ↑ to be an arrow.
In needing Case, gestures and nonlinguistic objects resemble quotes (cf. Bruening 2016:141):(10) {Olivia/*It was} whispered, “Donuts!” (to Mike).
If needing Case is a DP property, this suggests that gestures, quotes, and nonlinguistic objects
complement (possibly different) Ds (silent in English). These Ds are promiscuous: they must takea complement, but it can be almost anything.

References
Bruening, Benjamin. 2016. Alignment in syntax: quotative inversion in English. Syntax 19:
111-155.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1984. On the phrase the phrase ‘the phrase’. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 1: 25-37.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2011. Alternative minimalist visions of language. In Borsley, Robert, and Kersti
Börjars (eds.), Non-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar, 268296. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2004. Gestures as expletives: multichannel syntax. In Chand, Vineeta, Ann
Kelleher, Angelo J. Rodríguez, and Benjamin Schmeiser (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third
Annual Meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 23), 422-435.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Postal, Paul. 2004. The openness of natural languages. In Postal, Paul (ed.), Skeptical Linguistic
Essays, 173-201. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schlenker, Philippe. To appear. Gesture projection and cosuppositions. Linguistics and Philosophy. Available online at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002645.
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1977 [2008]. Letter to Howard Lasnik and Noam Chomsky on ‘Filtersand control’, April 17, 1977. In Freidin, Robert, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta(eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,
3-15. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
snippets 32 • 01/2018
	
  

7

	
  
Many thanks to Hitomi Hirayama and Maho Morimoto for the Japanese data. This material isbased upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
Program under Grant No. DGE-1339067. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewsof the National Science Foundation.

Erik Zyman
ezyman@ucsc.edu
Department of Linguistics
University of California, Santa Cruz
1156 High Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
USA8

snippets 32 • 01/2018

	
  

	
  

Interjections select and project
Erik Zyman · University of California, Santa Cruz

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7358/snip-2017-032-zymb

Although interjections are often considered syntactically uninteresting (Sapir 1921:5, Baker 2003:24), this consensus may be changing. Corver (2015) shows that Dutch interjections can enter
into larger structures, including phrase-structurally regular “clusters”. This suggests that interjections may be syntactically regular generally—governed largely or entirely by the same syntactic
principles as everything else. This squib pushes that view further, arguing that interjections takecomplements and project, like Ns/Vs/As/Ps.
The claim that interjections can take complements is also made by Rodríguez Ramalle (2007).
However, she focuses on the semantics and pragmatics of the relevant structures, and does notprovide syntactic evidence that the relevant post-interjection XPs are actually complements. Thissquib will do just that.
In some English idiolects, an Interj(ection) can colloquially be followed by a with-PP or thatCP (attested examples below; URLs at end):(1)a. . . . wow [with the level of idiocy the Angel baserunners have shown] . . .
b. . . . wow [that they already have copies] . . .

(2)

a. A: . . . really should be ‘Tristan’ . . . I advise you to edit that.
B: . . . yea whoops [with that] . . .
b. whoops [that I don’t have anything fun to say].

(3)

a. oops [with my Republic/Purge mix-up].
b. oops [that I only just found your friend request. . . ]!

(4)

a. So . . . whoop-de-do [with this rule]?
b. . . . whoop-de-doo [that you got tickets]. . .

(5)

a. Damn [with your fucking fly ass]. . .
b. Also, damn [that I missed it].

(6)

a. . . . yuck [with the Amber Rose pictures]. . .
b. Cool that you have deer, yuck [that they poop].

Are these with-PPs/that-CPs complements or adjuncts? The former hypothesis makes several correct predictions.
First, their category should be selected. It is; other categories are out:(7) *Wow/*Whoops {[NP club president]/[AP fond of Debbie]/[AdvP carelessly]/[vP/VP {eat/eats/ate/eating/eaten pie}]}!
snippets 32 • 01/2018
	
  

9

	
  
Secondly, their heads should be selected. They are:
(8) Wow {with/*for/*from/*in/*by/*of} her opinions!
(9) Wow {that she left/*for her to leave/*whether she left}!
Mexican Spanish interjections can also select the head of a following PP:(10) Ay [de/*en/*por/*para/*sobre ti]!
oh [of/*in/*for/*for/*on.top.of you]
‘Woe unto you!’(11) Caramba [contigo/*de/*en/*por/*para/*sobre ti]!
goddammit [with.you/*of/*in/*for/*for/*on.top.of you]
‘Goddammit with you!’Third, the with-PPs/that-CPs should, unlike adjuncts, be un-iterable. They are:(12)

a. *Wow [with her political views] [with her opinions about Obama]!
b. *Wow [that she left] [that she stormed out]!

(13)

a. *Wow [with her departure] [that she left]!
b. *Wow [that she left] [with her departure]!

Interj, then, selects a with-PP/that-CP as its complement. We therefore expect it, not the withPP/that-CP, to project. If [Interj PPwith /CPthat ] is an InterjP (not a larger PPwith /CPthat ), it should
pattern distributionally like an intransitive interjection. This is correct:(14)

a. (If she did THAT, then) wow (with her bravery/that she’s so brave)!
b. Whoops (with my slip-up/that I did that)!

By contrast, [Interj PPwith /CPthat ] should not pattern distributionally like a with-PP/that-CP. Thisis correct:(15)

a. I {spoke/ate} (*wow) [with that astrophysicist].
b. He took issue (*whoops) [with my carelessness].

(16)

a. He said (*wow) [that he was leaving].
b. I concluded (*whoops) [that he’d tripped].

Examples (15-16) also show that, in [Interj PPwith /CPthat ], Interj is not left-adjoined to PPwith /CPthat .
Interjections, then, select complements and project InterjPs, further supporting the hypothesisthat they are syntactically regular (Corver 2015).
Sources of attested examples
http://monkeywithahalo.com/2012-articles/game-preview-4812-easter-egg-hunt-royals-angels.html
http://www.sarahjio.com/2011/07/05/advanced-copies-of-the-bungalow-are-here/
http://www.webook.com/submission.aspx?p=5ea4869522fc4eb1aeed15c64483f64e&st=
0fc8c898eba34ceaa98c7de60ef044ae
http://ssbar.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_archive.html
http://forum.rebelscum.com/showthread.php?t=970981&page=3&s=52efd51535b964ee98cffa2927d8686a

10snippets 32 • 01/2018

	
  

	
  
http://be8.com/profiles/comment/list?attachedToType=User&attachedTo=395m2xcf4zze5&commentId=
4617490%3AComment%3A85212&xg_source=activity [example now gone]
http://duckinunfriendlywaters.blogspot.com/2011/09/halftime-heads-up.html
https://forum.wearejames.com/viewtopic.php?p=117704&sid=a3cdda7efb921885ec125f2b42a6a05a
http://barbarahj.tumblr.com/post/3510995146/jasmynewilliams-damn-with-your-fucking-fly-ass
http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-49663.html [example now gone]
https://worldlyweighs.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/weenies-gone-wild/
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=228072;article=108853;title=Moss%20Creek%
20Goldendoodles%20Forum [example now gone]

References
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Corver, Norbert. 2015. Interjections as structured root expressions. In van Oostendorp, Marc, andHenk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Representing Structure in Phonology and Syntax, 41-84. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rodríguez Ramalle, Teresa María. 2007. Las interjecciones llevan complementos, ¡vaya que sí!
Análisis de las interjecciones con complemento en el discurso. Español Actual 87: 111-125.
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt
Brace.

Many thanks to Nancy Carrasco and Samuel Zyman for the Spanish judgements. This material
is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
Program under Grant No. DGE-1339067. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewsof the National Science Foundation.

Erik Zyman
ezyman@ucsc.edu
Department of Linguistics
University of California, Santa Cruz
1156 High Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
USA

snippets 32 • 01/2018	
  11