Distinguishing obligatory and non-obligatory grammaticalcategories with regard to ‘thinking for speaking’
Saartje Ghillebaert, Klaas Willems (Gent University, Gent, Belgium)
Background: According to Slobin (1996; 2003; 2008), the presence of a grammaticallyencoded category directs the focus of speakers in the ‘thinking for speaking’ process. Slobin
adduces evidence for this claim based on experiments with children in which he focuses on theexpression of progressive aspect in various languages, e.g. the present and past continuous in
English (is/was running) as compared to other languages which lack such a category. However,Slobin does not distinguish between obligatory and non-obligatory categories: while both are
encoded form-meaning pairings in a language’s grammar (cf. Levinson 2000, Belligh &Willems 2021), only the former must be used in speech in specific contexts.
Dutch has a dedicated construction that encodes the progressive aspect, viz. theprepositional periphrastic construction aan het + infinitive (ANS, 2012; Van Pottelberge,2004). However, unlike the present and past continuous in English, the ‘aan het construction’in Dutch is non-obligatory. Speakers can choose between this construction (1) or a semanticallyunderspecified verbal form that does not encode the progressive aspect, e.g. (2):(1) De kinderen zijn aan het spelen.
the children are at the play-INF‘The children are playing.’(2) De kinderen spelen.
the children play-PRES.3pl‘The children play/are playing.’
It is important to note that the Dutch ‘aan het construction’ is less grammaticalized than the
English progressive. It “has not reached the level of abstraction found for the English
progressive”, according to Behrens et al. (2013: 128). However, I focus on the use of the ‘aan
het construction’ when referring to an ongoing activity and this is the most appropriate meansof expression according to Flecken (2011) and Behrens et al. (2013).
Objectives and research questions: This paper explores whether the influence of agrammatically encoded category with regard to ‘thinking for speaking’ depends on being
obligatory or non-obligatory. The research question is twofold. On the one hand, the study aims
to determine whether six-year-old Dutch-speaking children spontaneously express progressive
aspect despite the fact that progressive aspect is a non-obligatory grammatical category in
Dutch. On the other hand, the study aims to determine whether there is evidence that speakers
use a non-obligatory construction that grammatically encodes progressive aspect in Dutch in away similar to the use of an obligatory category that grammatically encodes progressive aspectsuch as the present and past continuous in English.
Methodology: An elicitation task was conducted with 34 six-year-old Flemish participants.
The children were asked to describe what activities they see on two pairs of drawings that were
each presented to them consecutively under two different conditions: first a spontaneouscondition and subsequently an elicited condition where the children were specifically prompted
to use the ‘aan het construction’ by drawing their attention to ongoing activities represented in
the drawings. The elicitation was carried out by pointing out that the first activity seen in thedrawings is ongoing; this was done without using the construction in the prompt. If the childdid not use the ‘aan het construction’ after elicitation in either condition, then the child’sknowledge of the construction and its ability of using it in a control condition were assessed. In
the control condition the ‘aan het construction’ was used in the researcher’s question (priming).
Results: We observe that most children initially do not express the progressive aspect by meansof a dedicated construction when asked to describe the ongoing activities represented in thedrawings. With regard to the first pair of drawings, 27% of the children expressed theprogressive aspect spontaneously by means of a dedicated construction.1 This number increased
to 32% with regard to the second pair of drawings. This finding is at variance with what the‘thinking for speaking’ claim predicts, given that the ‘aan het construction’ encodes the
progressive aspect as a form-meaning pairing “enshrined” (Slobin, 1996) in the grammar of
Dutch. However, when appropriately prompted, the majority of the participants does use the‘aan het construction’. After elicitation with regard to the first pair of drawings, 69% of thechildren use the ‘aan het construction’. Similarly, with regard to the second pair of drawings,
61% of the children use the ‘aan het construction’. This shows that ‘thinking for speaking’ isfacilitated when children are prompted to attend to a grammatical category that is readily
available in the grammar, even though Dutch does not require speakers to express the
progressive aspect by means of a dedicated construction. Optional encoded categories can thus
also be shown to have a bearing on ‘thinking for speaking’ under specific conditions. Thesefindings call for an adjustment of Slobin’s (1996; 2003; 2008) account: being a grammaticallyencoded category is a necessary but no sufficient condition for ‘thinking for speaking’, as theencoded category must also be obligatory, yet non-obligatory encoded categories may make thedifference in ‘thinking for speaking’ under more specific conditions.
In conclusion, encoded grammatical categories that are non-obligatory direct the speakers
attention to certain aspects of an event to a considerably lesser degree compared to obligatory
encoded categories.
References
ANS = Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. (2012). Werkwoorden met aan het + infinitief als
aanvulling.
Retrieved
April
6,
2020,
from
http://ans.ruhosting.nl/eans/18/05/05/01/body.html
Belligh, T. & K. Willems (2021). What’s in a code? The code-inference distinction in NeoGricean pragmatics, Relevance Theory and Integral Linguistics. Language Sciences 83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101310
Behrens, B., Flecken, M., & Carroll, M. (2013). Progressive attraction: On the use andgrammaticalization of progressive aspect in Dutch, Norwegian, and German. Journal ofGermanic linguistics, 25(2), 95-136.
Flecken, M. (2011). Event conceptualization by early bilinguals: insights from linguistic andeye tracking data. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 14(1), 61−77.
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational
implicature. Cambridge, Massachusetts & London: MIT Press.
Slobin, D. (1996). From ‘Thought and Language’ to ‘Thinking for Speaking’. In J.J. Gumperz,& S.C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70-96. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic
relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in theinvestigation of language and thought, 157-191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Slobin, D. (2008). The child learns to think for speaking: Puzzles of crosslinguistic diversity inform-meaning mappings. Studies in Language Sciences, 7. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers, 322.
Van Pottelberge, J. (2004). Der am-Progressiv. Struktur und parallele Entwicklung in den
kontinentalwestgermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
1 One child used the posture verb construction ‘zitten + te + infinitive’. Like the ‘aan het construction’,the posture verb construction is a dedicated but optional construction to refer to an ongoing activity in
Dutch.

Why Does Contrast Allow Relational Adjectives to Be Used Predicatively?
A Qualia Structure-Based AccountTakashi Ishida1, 2 and Ryohei Naya3
1
Doctoral Programme in Literature and Linguistics, University of Tsukuba
2
JSPS Research Fellow, 3University of Tsukuba
1. Introduction: Predicability of Relational Adjectives and Contrast
Relational Adjectives (RAs) in English are known as attributive-only modifiers, whose function is toclassify their modifying nouns (Shimamura (2014)). However, previous studies have pointed out thatRAs can be used predicatively in certain contrastive contexts (e.g. Levi (1978), Nagano (2016), Ishida(2020)). In (1a), for example, mechanical in predicate position is not allowed when it stands alone, butwhen it is accompanied by not chemical, the expression is acceptable. Here, the not-phrase evokes an
explicit contrast between mechanical and chemical engineers. This contrast-evoking role is fulfilled by
the adverb primarily in (1b) and by the prefixes mono- and anti- in (2a, b).
(1)
(2)

a.
b.
a.
b.

Our firm’s engineers are {?mechanical / mechanical, not chemical}. (cf. mechanical engineers)
The therapy he does is {?musical / primarily musical}.
(cf. musical therapy)
Those drawings are {*chromatic / monochromatic}.
(cf. (mono-)chromatic drawings)
That fiction is {?colonial / anti-colonial}.
(cf. (anti-)colonial fiction)((1a, b), (2a): Levi (1978: 24, 260); (2b): Ishida (2020: 39))

The studies mentioned above argue that RAs in predicate position are still prenominal modifiers and theirmodifying nouns are merely deleted (e.g. those drawings are monochromatic drawings). This deletionis possible only when the deleted nouns are recoverable, and it is a contrast that ensures recoverability.
However, it remains unclear why contrast allows the deletion of modified nouns (i.e. head nouns), which
strands the RAs in the predicate position. This study pays particular attention to the classificatory
function of RAs and aims to answer this question by arguing that contrast contributes to identifying therole of the qualia structures of the head nouns which should be specified by the stranded RAs, giving
crucial hints to recover the deleted head nouns (cf. Pustejovsky (1995), Johnston and Busa (1999)).
2. Qualia Modification
RAs have nominal properties, and RA-N expressions are fully synonymous with N-N expressions (Levi(1978)). For example, both industrial output (RA-N) and industry output (N-N) denote ‘output of an industry’.
Given this, RAs and the first nouns in N-N expressions can be regarded as sharing the same modifying function.
In their study of the semantic relationship between the elements of N-N compounds, Johnston and Busa (1999)
argue that the modifying noun specifies the role of the qualia structures of the head noun, such as TELIC,AGENTIVE, or CONSTITUTIVE roles. In a glass door ‘a door made of glass’, for example, glass denotes amaterial and functions as specifying the material of which the door is composed; namely, glass specifies theelements of the CONSTITUTIVE role of door. We can also find such qualia modifications in RA-N expressions.
Thus:

(3)

a.
b.
c.
d.

CONSTITUTIVE: monochromatic drawing ‘the type of drawing that consists of one colour’
TELIC:
AGENTIVE:
FORMAL:

insecticidal compound ‘the type of compound that is used to kill insects’
nuclear energy ‘the type of energy brought about by the nucleus’
triangular diagram ‘the type of diagram that has a triangle form’

As exemplified in (3a), monochromatic specifies the CONSTITUTIVE role of drawings. Further, the
FORMAL qualia modification, which is not pointed out by Johnston and Busa (1999), can be found, as in(3d). Here, triangular specifies the FORMAL role of diagram. Therefore, RAs in prenominal
modification, such as modifying nouns in N-N compounds, specify one of the roles of the qualia structuresof the head nouns, thereby fulfilling their classificatory function. The semantics of RAs are determined
only when they are associated with certain roles of the head nouns; this is why RAs are called ‘relational’.
3. Analysis
Predicatively used RAs cannot specify the appropriate roles of the head nouns, since there are no modifying
targets (and roles) for them to fulfil their classificatory function. We claim that this situation is resolved
by a contrastive effect. For example, the prefix mono- in (3a) implicitly evokes other alternatives, suchas {di-/tri-/multi-/…}chromatic. These alternatives together point to an appropriate role to be modified(here, CONSTITUTIVE role), which further recovers the deleted noun; in this case, ‘something that (partly)
CONSISTS OF (some) colours’, namely drawing.
Contrastive environments thus highlight RAs’classificatory function and allow stranded RAs to specify appropriate roles of the head nouns.
4. Implication
Our analysis has interesting implications for cross-linguistic variation. One form of Japanese counterpartof English RAs consists of N+classifier+-no, as in komugi-sei-no (wheat-made.of-GEN) ‘wheaten, made ofwheat’ (see Nagano (2016)). Unlike English RAs, this form can appear in predicate position without
recourse to contrastive contexts. In our analysis, the classifier -sei ‘made of’ explicitly indicates that therelevant modifier should be associated with the CONSTITUTIVE role, which successfully recovers the deleted
noun.
References
Ishida, Takashi (2020) “Prefixed Relational Adjectives in English,” JELS 37, 38–44.
Johnston, Michael and Federica Busa (1999) “Qualia Structure and the Compositional Interpretation ofCompounds,” Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons, ed. by Evelyne Viegas, 167–187, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Levi, Judith N. (1978) The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals, Academic Press, London.
Nagano, Akiko (2016) “Are Relational Adjectives Possible Cross-Linguistically? The Case of Japanese,”
Word Structure 9(1), 42–71.
Pustejovsky, James (1995) The Generative Lexicon, The MIT Press, Massachusetts.
Shimamura, Reiko (2014) Go to Ku to Nazuke-Kinoo (Words, Phrases, and the Naming Function), Kaitakusha,
Tokyo.

A Discussion of Grammatical Indeterminacy from a Pedagogical Perspective
Lee, KyoungNam(Kangwon National University, Korea)
This research explores the problem of grammatical indeterminacy in explaining
grammar to English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. In EFL situations, grammar
tends to be recognized as a set of strict and rigid rules, which often causes
confusion and frustration to nonnative speakers who are faced with exceptions orcomplicated cases. If grammar is posited as a combination of form, meaning, anduse, as suggested in Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999), rather than only as
an area of form, the concepts of gradience (the degree of distance from a prototype)and flexibility interconnected with lexis and grammar will be more readily accepted.
In this case, the problem of grammatical indeterminacy will not weaken their
theoretical framework of linguistics but contribute to reinforcing learners’ cognitive
power in contemplating various linguistic factors operating in grammar.
For this purpose, the criteria necessary to solve grammatical indeterminacy will
be probed. First, case studies of selected lexical verbs, adjectives and adverbs fromthe 1,000 academic words with the highest-ranking frequency from the Corpus ofContemporary American English (COCA) are examined. In the case of verbs, Hanks’Pattern Dictionary of English Verbs is also referred to. Then, the following questions
are investigated in terms of meaning, position, and optionality: 1) In what respects
do multiple meanings of a word influence grammar? 2) What semantic factors
should be considered in respect to word positions? and 3) What determines
optional or obligatory elements in a sentence?
With regard to position, for example, the underlined words of the following
sentences belong to the adverb category and their positions are flexible. In
structural terms, they are treated as adjuncts, but their meanings and grammaticalroles differ according to their positions.
A. a. Tom once dated Mary. (at some unspecified period of time in the past)b. Tom dated Mary once. (frequency)

B. a. Really, the public does not have much choice in the matter.
(disjunct of value judgment type)b. She is really an intelligent child. (subjunct of predication)c. She has a really beautiful face. (emphasizer of beautiful)d. I really will slug you. (intensifying will; intention)Thus, this study reveals some limitations when we deal with grammar only interms of form/structure. Also, it highlights the interconnection between form,
meaning, and use in order to widen EFL learners’ grammatical perspective andimprove their linguistic intuition, in that the grammar of a word in isolation isindeterminable.
References
Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berk, L. M. (1999). English syntax: From word to discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Heinle &Heinle Publishers.
Corpus of Contemporary American English. Retrieved Oct. 17, 2019, from http://www.academicwords.info
Hanks, P. Pattern dictionary of English verbs. University of Wolverrhampton. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2019. From
http://pdev.org.uk
Hanks, P., & Pustejovsky, J. (2005). A pattern dictionary for natural language processing. Revue Francaise deLangue Appliquée, 10(2), 1-7.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (1998). Verbs observed: A corpus-driven pedagogic grammar. Applied Linguistics,

19(1), 45-72.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language.
Essex: Longman Group Ltd.

A Corpus-Based Analysis of Independent Although and Though Clauses:
Their Commonalities and Differences
Yuko Mizuno
National Institute of Technology, Asahikawa College
This paper compares independent although and though clauses in terms of their discourse
functions. It has recently been reported that although and though clauses can occur independently
without their main clause (cf. Mizuno 2018, 2020), as exemplified in (1) and (2) below:(…) And CBO, in fact, projected that, in the first two years, premiums
would rise 10 to 20 percent.
DICKERSON: Although it did say then they would go down.
(COCA)(2) SEVERINO: (…) Some say they can't imagine Brett Kavanaugh behaving the way thatshe described. Her own friend...
CORNISH:
Though none of those people have said they don't believe it happened.
(COCA)(1) CRUZ:

It is generally assumed that although and though are “alternants” or “synonymous” when they areused as subordinators (cf. Biber et al. 1990: 845, Huddleston and Pullum 2002:736). According toKönig (1994), both although and though can express “standard concessive,” “rhetoricalconcessive,” and “rectifying concessive” relations. However, almost no study has comparedalthough and though with respect to the following two points:(A) How frequently (al)though clauses occur independently without their main clause.
(B) What kind of functions independent (al)though clauses have.
The goal of this paper is to examine the commonalities and differences between independent
although and though clauses in spoken discourse with regard to the two respects in (A) and (B)above.
The data were collected from the Spoken section of the Corpus of Contemporary American
English compiled from 1990 to 2011. I first collected tokens of although and though which appear
in turn-initial position, and obtained a total of 586 tokens of although and 194 tokens of though.
Then, I extracted from them tokens of although and though clauses which do not accompany theirmain clause, and obtained a total of 214 tokens of independent although clauses and 34 tokens of
independent though clauses.
My investigation of the data found the following points. First, independent although andthough clauses differ in their frequency: the former is far more frequent than the latter. Second,
independent although and though clauses are similar in that each of them can be classified into twolarge groups according to what they are connected to. That is, independent (al)though clauses areconnected either to the immediately prior utterance by the same speaker or to the immediately priorutterance by the addressee. Third, independent though clauses are more restricted thanindependent although clauses in the kinds of usages: independent though clauses can fulfill only
two discourse functions, i.e., Rectifying Concessive and Disagreement, while independent althoughclauses can fulfill at least four discourse functions, i.e., Standard Concessive, Rectifying Concessive,
Self-correction, and Disagreement, as illustrated in (3), (4), (5), and (6) below, respectively:(3) CLAYSON:(…) And you thought the house was secure?

E-SMART:
CLAYSON:

We thought the house was secure.
Although the alarm was not on?

(4) COURIC:
I remember seeing her in that gown...
Ms-RORECH: Yes.
COURIC:... and thinking how beautiful she looked in it.
Ms-RORECH: Yes, she looked radiant.
COURIC:
Although she looked beautiful in just about everything.
Ms-RORECH: Yes, she did.

(COCA)(COCA)(5) MORALES:
So enjoy being a newlywed.
Ms-EDELMAN: Thank you.
MORALES:
Although with two teenage daughters, it's not really being a newlywed.
(COCA)(6) JEFFREY TOOBIN: (…) With Lewinsky, the smart strategy seems to be, keep the grandjury testimony short, because you can't be cross- examined aboutsomething you didn't say.
KEVIN NEWMAN: Although as Jackie just said, you know, that may not be possible,
because the grand jury seems to be pretty active.
(COCA)
Based on the findings, I argue that turn-initial (al)though which introduces an independent
clause can be analyzed as a discourse marker (Schiffrin 1987) rather than a subordinating
conjunction, and that the use of independent (al)though can be considered as a counterexample toone of the hypotheses of unidirectionality in the process of grammaticalization, i.e., a cline of clausecombining (parataxis ＞ hypotaxis ＞ subordination) (Hopper and Traugott 1993). I will also
argue that independent although is more grammaticalized than independent though based on theirfrequency.
References
Biber, Douglas et al. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Person Education,
Harlow, Essex.
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott (1993) Grammaticalization, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
König, Ekkehard (1994) “Concessive Clauses,” The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed.
by Ronald E. Asher, 679-681, Oxford Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Mizuno, Yuko (2018) “A Corpus-Based Analysis of Independent Although Clauses in Spoken
English Discourse,” Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan 13,
215-222.
Mizuno, Yuko (2020) “Eigo no Hanashikotoba ni okeru Though Setsu no Dokuritsu Yoho – Corpus
o Mochiita Bunseki (A Corpus-Based Analysis of Independent Though Clauses in Spoken
English Discourse),” Proceedings of the 64th Conference of the English Literary Society ofJapan, Hokkaido Branch.
Schiffrin, Deborah (1987) Discourse Markers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Language teachers’ and learners’ transition to emergency remote instruction
Michał B. Paradowski*, Magdalena Jelińska* & Andrzej Jarynowski†*Institute of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw (応用言語学研究所 ワルシャワ大学)†

Interdisciplinary Research Institute in Wrocław

We present the findings of a global longitudinal study (involving over 6,000 participants from 118 countries)
investigating how language teachers and learners as well as instructors and majors in linguistics, modern
languages, language pedagogy and related fields have been handling the 2020 transition to emergency remote
instruction. The data were collected with the help of an online questionnaire active from late April throughSeptember 2020, using a snowball sampling technique.
We begin by revealing easily interpretable clusters of naturally correlating variables (Fig. 1). Crucially, thegiant component of the four highly interconnected clusters associated with i) self-regulation/leadershiporganisation potential, ii) engagement/openness, iii) positive orientation and iv) social skills/contacts (lefthand-side of the graph) has a predominantly positive valence, while the three peripheral clusters related to v)
family relationships, vi) future expectations and vii) remote instruction-related experiences and perspectives
on students’ coping (right hand-side) are mainly negative. We also identify clusters of better- and worsecoping teachers and learners, as well as the following meaningful distinguishing features: preparedness leveland support received, effectiveness and engagement in using new technologies, perception of students’ coping,logistic problems, and general positive orientation in the case of the educators, and motivation, engagementin the learning process, difficulties with staying focused, concern regarding the assessment of in-class activity,
the teachers’ ability to meet individual/special needs, initial confidence in the ability to learn remotely, general
attitudes towards distance teaching, and interaction with the teacher and classmates in the learners’ population.
All the survey respondents answered questions about the languages they speak and—where relevant—teach/study and their CEFR-aligned level of competence in each. The second half of the talk will be devoted
to a discussion of how and why the number of languages spoken as well as the proficiency level taught
moderates participants’ coping behaviour and attitudes to this novel situation – a factor never before exploredin the literature.
References: https://schoolclosure.ils.uw.edu.pl/publications/What Does Azeri Suggest for Refining Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensing?
Xiao-Shi Qiu (Gifu University) and Hideki Maki (Gifu University)
1. Introduction
This paper investigates the distribution of genitive subject in Azeri, one of the Turkic
languages spoken in the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iran, and examines what the examples
from Azeri suggest for refining conditions on genitive subject licensing in Altaic languages.
We owe all examples used in this paper to Khalida Alizada, a native speaker of the language
from Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan.
One of the distinctive properties of Altaic languages including Azeri is the fact that they
exhibit the nominative/genitive alternation. In most cases, genitive subject is allowed in relative
clauses, which have an overt head nominal. In some cases, however, it is allowed in a clausewith no overt head nominal, such a clause followed by the word that corresponds to until in
English. Interestingly enough, unlike other Altaic languages, Azeri disallows genitive subject
in an ‘until’ clause. Close examination of the ‘until’ structure in Azeri reveals that conditions
on genitive subject licensing so far proposed need to be revised. In this sense, Azeri examples
make a crucial contribution to refining conditions on genitive subject licensing in Altaic
languages.
2. Background
First, based on the distribution of genitive subject mainly in Mongolian and Japanese,
Maki et al. (2016) propose (1).
(1)
Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensinga.
A genitive subject must be c-commanded by a nominal element in a local
domain.
b.
A genitive subject must be in a local relationship with the adnominal formof a predicate.
(1a) corresponds to Miyagawa’s (1993, 2011) D-licensing approach, and (1b) to Watanabe’s(1996)/Hiraiwa’s (2001) adnominal form-licensing approach. Maki et al. (2016) claim thatgenitive subject in Altaic languages must satisfy both to be licensed, which is evidenced by theexamples in (2) and (3).
(2)Öčügedür Ulaɣan-ø/*-u
ene nom-i
qudaldun-abu-ɣsan-siu.
yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Gen this book-Acc buy-take-Past.Adn-Prt‘Ulagan bought this book yesterday.’(3)
Ene nom-iöčügedür Ulaɣan-ø/-ut qudaldun-abu-ɣsan-siu.
this book-Acc yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Gen buy-take-Past.Adn-Prt‘This book, Ulagan bought t yesterday.’(3) shows that the object is moved to the sentence-initial position by scrambling, and thesentence is grammatical with genitive subject. Note that in (3), the genitive subject is ccommanded by the scrambled object and is in a local relationship with the adnominal form of
the predicate.
Second, as Hiraiwa (2001) points out, genitive subject can appear without a nominal headin Japanese, as shown below.
(4)John-wa[ame-ga/-no
yam-u made] ofisu-ni i-ta.
John-Top [rain-Nom/-Gen stop-Pres until] office-at be-Past‘John was at his office until it stopped raining.’(5)[Sengetsu ikkai John-ga/-nosoko-ni it-ta(k)kiri] daremo[last.month once John-Nom/-Gen there-to go-Past since]anybodyitte inai.
go not.Pres‘Nobody went there since John went once last month.’

3. Data
Let us now examine Azeri counterparts of (4) and (5).
(6)
Leyla-ø[yağış-ø/*-ın
dayan-an-aqәdәr] ofis-dә
idi.
Leyla-Nom [rain-Nom/-Gen stop-PS-Dat until] office-Loc be-Past.3.SG‘Leyla was at the office until it stopped raining.’(7)[Eldar-ø/-ın
keçәn aybir dәfә get-diyi-ndәn bәri], heç kim[Eldar-Nom/-Gen lastmonth one timego-PN-Ablsince] no who
ora
get-mә-yib.
there go-Neg-CVB‘Nobody went there since Eldar went there once last month.’ (CVB=converb)
Genitive subject is disallowed within the qәdәr ‘until’ clause, while it is allowed within the bәri
‘since’ clause.
4. Discussion
Let us consider what the above facts suggest. Our research shows that the distribution ofgenitive subject in Azeri is fundamentally identical to that in Japanese, except the ‘until’
example in (6). Therefore, genitive subject is allowed in the complement clause to a noun in
Azeri, as shown in (8).
(8)
Eldar-ø/-ın
gül-düyü fakt-ø
bir problem=dir.
Eldar-Nom/-Gen laugh-PN fact-Nom one problem=be.Pres.3.SG‘The fact that Eldar laughed is a problem.’
The crucial difference between the grammatical examples in (7) and (8) and the ungrammaticalexample in (6) is the fact that the adnominal forms of the predicates are different. In (7) and (8),the predicates are in the non-subject past participle form indicated as PN, and in (6), thepredicate is in the subject participle form indicated as PS. If Harada (2002), who argues basedon Konoshima (1973), is correct in assuming that made ‘until’ and kiri ‘since’ have a nominal
origin, and this is true to their Azeri counterparts as well, the examples with genitive subject in(4)–(8) all satisfy the two conditions in (1). The fact that only (6) with genitive subject isungrammatical suggests then that Azeri has a language specific property in which the predicate
must be in the PS form in the qәdәr ‘until’ clause, which does not contribute to genitive subject
licensing, and consequently, the condition in (1b) should be refined as (9).
(9)
A genitive subject must be in a local relationship with the non-subject adnominal
form of a predicate.
References
Harada, Naomi (2002) Licensing PF-Visible Formal Features: A Linear Algorithm and CaseRelated Phenomena in PF, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) “On Nominative-Genitive Conversion,” MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 39: A Few from Building E39, ed. by Elena Guerzoni and Ora Matushansky,
66–125, Cambridge, MA.
Konoshima, Masatoshi (1973) Kokgo Zyosi no Kenkyuu (A Study of Japanese Particles), Ohfuu
Publishers, Tokyo.
Maki, Hideki, Lina Bao, Wurigumula Bao and Megumi Hasebe (2016) “Scrambling andGenitive Subjects in Mongolian,” English Linguistics 33, 1–35.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1993) “Case-Checking and Minimal Link Condition,” MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 19: Papers on Case and Agreement II, ed. by Colin Phillips, 213–
254, Cambridge, MA.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2011) “Genitive Subjects in Altaic and Specification of Phase,” Lingua
121, 1265–1282.
Watanabe, Akira (1996) “Nominative-Genitive Conversion and Agreement in Japanese: A
Cross-Linguistic Perspective,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5, 373–410.

A Movement Analysis for Split Control
Yuya Sakumoto (Kyushu University)
The aim of this presentation is to propose a novel movement analysis for split control (SC)that has been regarded as a strong counterexample to the Movement Theory of Control (MTC),
in Hornstein (1999).
It has been assumed before the Minimalist Program, for example under the Government
and Binding approach, that raising and control constructions should be analyzed differently, as
illustrated in (1a) and (1b) respectively.
(1) a. Johni seemed [ti to win].
b. Johni tried [PROi to win].
With the influential proposal made by Hornstein (1999), obligatory control can be derived
through movement, assuming that movement into theta-positions is allowed in principle within
the Minimalist Framework. Hornstein argues that obligatory control cannot have split
antecedents in MTC by providing the evidence in (2)(2)*Johni told Maryj PROi+j to wash themselves/each other.
(Hornstein (1999: 73))
Landau (2000), however, claims that split antecedents are in fact allowed not only in nonobligatory control but also in limited obligatory control types as in (3), contrary to Hornstein’s(1999) argument.
(3)
Johni asked Maryj [whether PROi+j to get themselves a new car].
(Landau (2000: 53))
SC is problematic for MTC (Landau (2000, 2003, 2007, 2013)): if obligatory control isderived by movement, how can split antecedents be derived? Although Fujii (2006, 2010) puts
forth an ingenious movement analysis for SC in Japanese, to the best of our knowledge, nostudy has systematically focused on the structure of SC in English under MTC. Fujii (2006,2010) suggests that SC has the structure as shown in (4).
(4)
MoodP
NP+NP

Mood’

Mood
TP
Fujii (2006, 2010) claims that two coordinated NPs are allowed to arise in the same
specifier of Mood in the case of SC as in (4). The derivation proposed by Fujii (2006, 2010) is
as follows:(5)[vP α [VP α+β V [CP C [MoodP α+β Mood …

However, it is not plausible to assume the structure of (4) for SC since as Landau (2013)
points out, the assumption that conjunction is broken up in the syntax is quite dubious.

We propose an alternative analysis for SC as in (6). We demonstrate that the labelingalgorithm and Free Merge, which are proposed by Chomsky (2013, 2015), shed new light on
the problem of SC. A novel derivation for (6) is as follows:(6) a. John asked Mary [whether to get themselves a new car].
(= (3))
b. {β=<φ, φ> John T {v*P asked {α=<φ, φ> Mary {whether to {John {Mary {v*P get…}}}}}}We claim that under Free Merge nothing prevents the derivation in which two externalarguments are generated from one v*P, as illustrated in (6b): John and Mary both gain a thetarole from get. Hornstein (1999) demonstrates that theta-criterion is no longer necessary by
virtue of eliminating D-structure. Furthermore, Saito (2017) analyzes argument doubling inJapanese, originally observed in Kuroda (1988), as evidence that one verb assigns the sametheta-role to two distinct DPs as in (7), thereby concluding that theta-criterion should be
dispensed with.
(7) [CP Masao-ga Hanako-ni(hoho-ni)kisusi-ta no]-wa
hoho-nida
Masao-Nom Hanako-Dat cheek-Dat kiss-Past Comp-Top cheek-Dat is‘It is on the cheek that Masao kissed Hanako.’(cf. Kuroda (1988: 26))
Thus, the derivation of (6b) is theoretically possible within the current framework insofar as thelabeling algorithm is conducted successfully: John and Mary are moved into the matrix clauseand get successfully labeled as <φ, φ> as in (6b). Then, a question arises: why is SC impossible
for all finite clauses? Let us consider (8a) and its derivation in (8b).
(8) a. *John Mary played baseball.
b. *{β=?? John {α= <φ, φ> Mary T {John {Mary {v*P played baseball}}}}}As seen in (8b), β is not labeled, causing the derivation to crash since each syntactic object isneeded to be labeled for the interpretation; thus, SC can only appear in nonfinite clauses.
Therefore, the proposed movement analysis allows us to account for SC without recourse to
stipulated assumptions, which leads to theoretically desirable consequences.
Selected References
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49. / Chomsky, Noam (2015)“Problems of Projection: Extensions,” Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of
Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona Matteini, 3-16, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam. / Fujii, Tomohiro (2006) Some Theoretical Issues in Japanese Control,
Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. / Hornstein, Norbert (1999) “Movement andControl,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96. / Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not,”
Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1-47. / Landau, Idan (2000) Elements of Control: Structure andMeaning in Infinitival Constructions, Kluwer, Dordrecht. / Landau, Idan (2013) Control in
Generative Grammar: A Research Companion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. / Saito,
Mamoru (2017) “Labeling and Argument Doubling in Japanese,” Tsing Hua Journal of ChineseStudies 47, 383-405.

Not-exactly: a challenge for the QUD-based approach to imprecisionCharlie Siu (Philosophy Department (Zhuhai), Sun Yat-sen University)
Consider:(1) Peter isn't exactly 1.8m.
(2) Peter isn't 1.8m.
If a speaker utters (1), the hearer can infer that Peter is close to (exactly) 1.8m, but the hearer can't
so infer if the speaker utters (2) instead --- for what (2) conveys to be true, Peter can be 1.81m,
1.9m, or even 2m. Let us call the inference from (1) that Peter is close to 1.8m a just-miss inference.
These inferences are of interest because they bear on the choice between the interval-based
approach to numerical imprecision (Krifka 2007; Sauerland and Stateva 2011) and the more recent
approach that is based on the notion of question under discussion (QUD) (Klecha 2018; Hoek
2018). I argue that while the interval-based approach can straightforwardly account for thoseinferences as implicatures, they at least demand modifications to all extant accounts of the QUDbased approach.
According to the interval-based approach, simple un-negated sentences such as (3) can be literally
true because the numerical expression “1.8m” denotes an interval of height(s) and (3) says thatPeter’s height falls into one such interval.
(3) Peter is 1.8 m.
But according to the QUD-based approach, (3) is always literally false because it says that Peter’sheight is exactly 1.8m (to the dot); the reason why (3) typically conveys a true content is that the
QUD (e.g. How tall is Peter to the nearest 0.1m?) --- represented as a set of sets of worlds (cells)
each of which is a complete answer to the question (Roberts 2012) --- coarsens the overly precise
literal content into a less precise, but true and relevant content. Coarsening is achieved by mapping
the literal content of (3) to the union of the cells that have a non-empty intersection with the literalcontent of (3).
So far so good for the QUD-based approach. However, if (3) says that Peter’s height is exactly
1.8m, then it is just as strong (informative) as “Peter is exactly 1.8 m”, which means that (1) is justas strong as (2). If so, it is not clear how the just-miss inference of (1) can be accounted for.
I argue that the interval-based approach has an advantage over the QUD-based approach here
because it can easily explain the just-miss inference of (1) as a scalar implicature. Here’s the
explanation in two parts.
What's old (Sauerland and Stateva 2011): Every numeral denotes an interval centered at thatnumeral's point-denotation, and the widths of those intervals vary with the contextual parameter
gran (for granularity). So, relative to a context, (3) (hereafter (¬2)) says that Peter's height lies
within the interval corresponding to that context's granularity. Call that interval I. `Exactly'
substitutes a finer granularity --- which need not be the absolute finest one because `exactly’ isvague (Lasersohn 1999) --- for the granularity at which the numeral it modifies is interpreted.
So`Peter is exactly 1.8m' (hereafter (¬1)) --- if uttered in the same context in which (¬2) is uttered--- places Peter's height within an interval that is narrower than I. So (¬1) is stronger than (¬2),
which means that (1) is weaker than (2).

What's new: Assume that the speaker is cooperative and well-informed about Peter's height. Why dothey utter the more verbose and the less informative (1) instead of (2)? It is because they believethat what (2) says is not true (since it is too strong). I argue that the negation of what (2) says, when
added to what (1) says, explains the just-miss inference. To see this, we can think of what (1) says
as the complement (N) of a narrower interval (N) centered at the point-denotation of “1.8m”, andwhat (2) says as the complement (W) of a wider interval (W) centered at the point-denotation of“1.8m”. So the negation of (2) can be thought of as W, the wider interval centered at the pointdenotation of “1.8m”. To obtain the total information content of (1), we intersect the interval
associated with (1), i.e. N, with the interval associated with the negation of (2), i.e. W. The
resulting interval is just like the one associated with (2), i.e. W, except that it does not cover N (thenarrower interval centered at the point-denotation of “1.8m”). This interval captures the content of
the just-miss inference because it says that Peter’s height, while being not close to the pointdenotation of “1.8m”, falls within the wider interval denoted by “1.8m”.
To strengthen the case that just-miss inferences are scalar implicatures, we can observe that theyhold when `not-exactly’ appears in upward-entailing environments, but disappear when `notexactly’ appears in downward-entailing environments. Consider:(4) Some/ many bars aren’t exactly 10m. +> (implies) Some/ many bars are close to 10m.
(5) Every handmade chair that is advertised to be 50cm wide isn’t exactly 50cm wide. +> Somechair that is advertised to be 50cm wide is close to 50cm wide.
(6) Every chair that isn’t exactly 50cm wide has to be remade.
!+> It isn’t the case that every chair that isn’t 50cm wide has to be remade. (i.e. some chair that isn’t
50cm wide doesn’t have to be remade.)(7) If this chair isn’t exactly 50cm wide, it has to be remade.
!+> It isn’t the case that if this chair isn’t 50cm wide, it has to be remade. (i.e. if the chair isn’t
50cm wide, it doesn’t have to be remade.)
References
Hoek, D. (2018). Conversational exculpature. Philosophical Review, 127(2), 151-196.
Klecha, P. (2018). On unidirectionality in precisification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 41(1), 87-124.
Krifka, M. (2007). Approximate interpretation of number words. (url:
https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/handle/18452/10160)
Lasersohn, P. (1999). Pragmatic halos. Language, 522-551.
Roberts, C. "Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics." Semantics
and Pragmatics 5 (2012), 1-69.
Sauerland, U., & Stateva, P. (2011). Two types of vagueness. In Vagueness and language use (pp.
121-145). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

On the location of nominative objects: focus movement-based approach
Mina Sugimura
Yoichi Miyamoto
Ritsumeikan University
Osaka University
Basis Kasai (2018) argues that the nominative object (NO) scrambles out of VP to vP edge to get Nom
Case from v in sentences like (1a, b), where the stative -e ‘can’ and deki ‘can’ are restructuring predicates.1(1) a. [TP Taro-wa1 [T’ [vP t1 [v’ hon-ga2 [v’ [NP [VP t2 kau] koto-ga] [v’ deki v]]]]-ru]]Taro-top
book-nombuy nmlz-nom can
pres2b. [TP Taro-wa1 [T’ [vP t1 [v’ hon-ga2 [v’ [VP t2 ka] [v’ e v]]]]-ru]]Taro-top
book-nombuy can pres‘Taro can buy a book’
The verb ik ‘go’ in Japanese is also known to be a restructuring predicate, and can license an NO when thepotential -e and a purpose clause headed by -ni (niP), which we take to be VP, is adjacent to ik, as shownin (2a) (Miyagawa, 1987). In (2b), since this adjacency is not respected, the object fails to obtain NOM.
(2) a. Taro-wa Kobe-ni [niP/VP hon-ga/okai-ni] ik-e-ru(/ ik-ukoto-ga deki-ru).
Taro-top Kobe-to
book-nom/acc buy-ni go-can-pres (/ go-pres nmlz-nom can-pres)b. Taro-wa [niP/VP hon-*ga/okai-ni] Kobe-ni ik-e-ru.
Taro-top
book-nom/acc buy-ni Kobe-to go-can-pres‘Taro can go to Kobe to buy a book.’
Notice, however, under Kasai’s proposal, nothing prohibits the object from raising to vP and getting NOMmarked, as shown in (3); consequently, (2b) with the NO, is incorrectly predicted to be grammatical.
(3) [TP Taro-top1 [T' [vP t1 [v’ book-nom2 [v' [VP t2 buy-NI Kobe-to go] can]]] pres]]
Puzzle Significantly, in contrast to (2b) with the NO, we find (4) acceptable, although the adjacency
condition is not met:(4) hon-ga1 Taroo-wa [niP e1 kai-ni] Kobe-ni ik-e-ru-yo.
book-nom Taro-top
buy-ni Kobe-to go-can-present-C
lit. ‘A/The book, Taro can go to Kobe to buy.’
The grammaticality of this example appears to indicate that the NO is a major subject or a proleptic object(cf. Takano, 2003). However, this is untenable, as highlighted by Kasai (2018). Consider (5a, b):(5) a. Hanako1-wa [zibunzisin1/2-no hon-ga[Taro2-ga kai-ni Kobe-ni ik-e-ru]-to] omottei-ru.
Hanko-top self-gen
book-nom Taro-nom buy-ni Kobe-to go-can-pres-C think-pres‘Hanako thinks that Taro can go to Kobe to buy self’s book.’
1
2

Kasai (2018) assumes that a phrase selected by deki or -e involves a bare VP complement (Wurmbrand 2001).
top = topic, pres = present, nom = nominative, acc= accusative, nmlz = nominalizer

b. *Hanako1-wa [[Taro2-ga [ zibunzisin1/2-no hon-ga kai-ni] Kobe-ni ik-e-ru]-to]omottei-ru.
Hanko-top Taro-nom self-gen
book-nom buy-ni Kobe-to go-can-pres-C think-pres
In (5a), both Hanako and Taro can be antecedents for zibunzisin ‘self’, which strongly suggests that the
NO was originally in the canonical object position to be bound by Taro and moves afterwards. Accordingly,
we need to conclude that movement is involved in (5a), and thus also in (4). Crucially, (5b) shows that the
NO cannot remain in its original position. What remains unclear is what forces the movement in point.
Proposal We propose that the NO in (5a), which cannot get NOM-marked in its canonical object position
due to its non-restructuring context, undergoes focus movement (cf. Kuno 2002) to the embedded
CP/Foc(us)P, with the option of moving further to the matrix CP, as shown in (6).
(6) [CP/FocP[TP Hanako1-wa [T' [VP [VP [CP/FocP[TP Taro2-ga [T' [vP t2 [v’ [VP [niP/VP zibunzisin1/2-no hon-ga kai-ni] [VP Kobe-ni ik]]-e]]-ru]]-to] omot-te] -i] ru]] C/Foc].
We claim that in (4), since the object has undergone focus movement, it gets NOM-marked, parallel to afocused phrase in Kumamoto dialect (e.g. Kato, 2007; Fukuda, 2008; and, Nishioka 2010) with the stative
predicate -rare raised to Foc (i.e. *Hanako-wa (Hanako-Top) hon-ga (book-Nom) ka-u (buy-Pres)‘Hanako buys a book’) (see Tada (1992)). Given this licensing requirement, assuming that FocP is alsoavailable in the vP-domain (e.g. Belletti 2004), we predict that (2b) with the NO becomes acceptable when
the NO is stressed. This expectation is fulfilled, as shown in (7). Note that that the contrast between (2b)with the NO and (7) proves difficult to explain without stipulations under Kasai’s Case-oriented approach.
(7) (?) Taro-wa (Tyomusukii-no) hon-ga
kai-ni Kobe-ni ik-e-ru.
Taro-top Chomsky-gen book-nom buy-ni Kobe-to go-can-present‘It is (Chomsky’s) book that Taro can go to Kobe to buy.’(Bold-faced = Stressed)
Implication Interestingly, the bold-faced disjunctive NO exhibits scope interaction with -e ‘can’, whereas
the bold-faced NO with -dake ‘only’ necessarily takes scope over the modal in point.
(8) Hanako-wa Taro-ga [sushi-ka soba-ga/ sushi-dake-ga [tabe-ni Kobe-ni ik-e-ru]]-to omottei-ru.
Hanako-top Taro-nom sushi-or soba-nom/ sushi-only-nom eat-ni Kobe-to go-can-pres-C think-pres‘Hanako thinks that Taro can go to Kobe to eat sushi or soba/ only sushi.’
Note that the availability of reconstruction in (8) with disjunction further supports the current proposal,
and may be surprising to Shibata (2015) who argues for an exhaustivity operator (= covert only) -based
approach to disjunction in Japanese (see Tamura, Miyamoto and Sauerland 2019).
Selected References Miyagawa, S. 1987. Restructuring in Japanese. In Issues in Japanese linguistics.
Kasai, H. 2018. Case valuation after scrambling: Nominative objects in Japanese. Glossa 3(1): 127. 1–29.
Kato, S. 2007. Scrambling and the EPP in Japanese. FAJL 4, 113-124. Shibata, Y. 2015. Exploring syntax
from the interfaces. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.

Monadic Concepts for Maximalizing Relative Constructions
as Generalized Quantification
Norio Suzuki Kobe Shinwa Women’s University (former professor)
This paper gives a description of the relations creating a ‘generalized quantification overdegrees’ configuration between the relative clause and matrix clause in Maximalizing Relative(or amount relative) constructions MRs (in English; Cinque/C 2020, Grosu & Landman/GL
1998, 2017). I emphasize the differential interpretation of the ‘relative head’ in the two clausal
positions. The semantic interpretation of the examples is couched in Hornstein & Pietroski’s/
HP’s (2009) Minimal Semantic Instructions framework featuring monadic concepts MCs(Pietroski/P 2011, 2012, 2018). As for the basic syntactic structure of ‘raising restrictive
relative clauses,’ I follow a ‘single, double-Headed, universal structure of C (2020).
MR Examples & Some Assumptions Some MR features are: MRs are restricted to relativesof the ‘raising’ restrictive type, their complementizers limited to that, Ø, & only definite anduniversal determiners allowed to modify an external head in the matrix clause (C 2020, GL
2017). See some MR examples (1a, 2a) with the MC containing representations a la HP (2009)
in (1b, 2b). For (1a), ‘MAXΔ’ (with MAXΔ(e×d) as the relevant MC) serves as ‘head’ of the
MR taking two arguments, with ‘SUE-LIKES-ACTOR’ as the internal argument IArg of MAX
Δ creating a singleton set of the ‘maximalized degree’ for ACTOR and ‘JACK-MET-ACTOR’
as its external argument EArg allowing of two possibilities: the ‘maximalized individual’
members corresponding to the IArg singleton set and the ‘non-specified,’ infinite set ofindividual members:(1) a. Jack met every actor Sue likes.
b. MAXΔ(e×d)/EVERY(Q) ˄Ǝ[INTERNAL((e×)d /Q, x)˄[MAX(e×)d: SUE-LIKES- ⊔ ACTOR(x)]˄Ǝ[EXTERNAL(e (×d)/Q, x) ˄[MAXe (×d)-d SUE/MAXe (×d)-∞:
JACK-MET- ⊔ ACTOR(x)]](MAXΔ for singleton predicates obtained via maximalization, e×d for individual-degreepairs, d for degree predicates, Q for quantifiers, ⊔ for sums, e for individual predicates,(e×)d for degrees (initially paired with individuals))(2) a.

Did you drink the champagne that was served last night at the party?
(C 2020: “… the more natural interpretation is that we drank some of thechampagne that was served at the party…”)
b. MAXΔ(e×d)/THE(pdc)/Force(PQ) ˄Ǝ[INTERNAL((e×)d, x)˄[MAX(e×)d: CHAMPAGNE(x)-WAS-SERVED …]]
˄Ǝ[EXTERNAL(e (×d)/pdc/PQ, x) ˄[MAXe (×d)-d SERVED-LESS/MAXe (×d)-∞:YOU-DRINK-CHAMPAGNE(x)]](pdc for presuppositional definiteness check (GL 2017), with pdc checked at the matrix CP1

level and constituting a ‘reprojection’ of Uriagereka & Hornstein 2002; PQ for polar
questions, applying at the matrix CP-level and creating a ‘reprojection’)In (2), the polar question Force may create ‘doubt’ about the total amount of the served wine
you drank, leading to the ‘implicature-like’ conjecture (with ‘MAXe (×d)-∞’) that you may
have drunk less than the total amount of the served wine at the party. But it seems possible
enough to create a situation where ‘you drank something else’ on top of ‘ some of thechampagne that was served at the party,’ maintaining the semantic condition (with ‘MAXe (×d)-∞’ in place) of ‘EArg set ⊇ IArg set’ for ‘generalized quantification’ purposes.
More on MRs MRs/amount relatives, involving an operation of (degree) maximalization at
the CP-level, produce an interpretation of the relative clause as a singleton predicate, restricting
the set of degrees to the singleton set containing the maximal degree (if there is one) (GL 1998,2017). (E.g., ’books that there were _ on the table’ denotes {<4, BOOKS, a ⊔ b ⊔ c ⊔ d>}with the singleton set containing the cardinality ‘4’ of the sum of the books on the table, thesortal predicate BOOKS, and the sum of the books on the table ‘a, b, c, and d.’) The semantics
allows a predicate interpretation for the gap derived from a variable over individual-degreepairs, and the grammar treats this variable on a par with degree variables (GL 2017). Certain
aspects of the interpretation of the external noun may well be contributed both inside andoutside the relative (GL 2017). Following Kayne (1994), in “books that there were _ on thetable,” the syntactic movement operation for the degree phrase ‘d-many-books’ is assumed tobe: [… bookse (×d)3 … [d-many-(books3)(e×)d 2 [that … (d-many-bookse×d 2) …]]] (GL1998). The MC MAX Δ(e × d) applies (in (1b)) to some ordered pairs iff they meet three
conditions: each of their ‘internal participants IPs’ is one of their ‘external participants EPs’;
their IPs are the actors Sue likes; and their EPs are the actors Jack met. The concept MAX:Φ(_) applies to some things iff they are (all and only) the things to which Φ(_) applies (P 2018).
In (1b with MAXe (×d)-d SUE), a ‘contextual definition’ (HP 2009) of the MC MAXΔ(e×d) is
given for both IPs and EPs as they are (all and only) the things to which either ‘(e×)d-PRED(_)’
or ‘e(×d)-PRED(_)’ applies (‘(e×)d-PRED’ for predicates of degrees (initially paired withindividuals)). I.e., EArg creates a set of individuals (‘actors Jack met’) of the same number asthat of a set of degrees that IArg creates (‘actors Sue likes’). In (1b with MAXe (×d)-∞), theEArg does not specify a set (HP 2009).
References

Cinque. 2020. The syntax of relative clauses: A unified analysis./ Grosu & Landman.

1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. NLS 6. / Grosu & Landman. 2017. Amount relatives. In The
Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax./ Hornstein & Pietroski. 2009. Basic operations: Minimal
syntax-semantics. CatJL 8./ Kayne. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax./ Pietroski. 2011. Minimal
semantic instructions. In The OxfHB of linguistic minimalism./ 2012. Language and conceptual
reanalysis. In Towards a biolinguistic understanding of grammar./ 2018. Conjoining meanings./
Uriagereka & Hornstein. 2002. Labels and projections: A note on the syntax of quantifiers. In
Derivations.
2Ethical dative in forming the get-passive
Junichi Toyota
Osaka City University
This paper analyses the origin of the get-passive and lends support to the reflexivecausative origin hypothesis (e.g. Givón and Yang 1994, Toyota 2008), but revises theearlier research by considering the ethical dative as a key element for the emergence ofthe get-passive instead of the reflexive pronoun. Among the Indo-European languages,
the beneficiary or adversative reading is sometimes overtly expressed by adding an extra
argument, commonly in the dative or instrumental case. This use of the dative is known
as the ethical dative. For instance, nam, the dative form of mi ‘we’ in (1b), is simply added
to a neutral clause (1a) and the pronoun in the dative case denotes a recipient of adversity.
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995: 291) claim that the Indo-European languages have abeneficiary which is always co-referential to the subject, and the object-oriented
beneficiary never existed. Note that a self-beneficiary is a part of numerous characteristics
found in the middle voice, e.g. Vedic Sanskrit yájati (active) ‘s/he performs a sacrifice’(said of a priest); yájate (middle) ‘s/he performs a sacrifice’ (said of a person for whose
benefit the sacrifice is made-), and the middle voice and ethical dative denote a similar
meaning in Indo-European languages.

(1)

Serbiana. Beba plače
noćibaby cry.3SG at night‘The baby cries at night.’
b. Beba nam
plače
noći
baby
us.DAT cry.3PL at night‘The baby cries at night to our detriment.’

The ethical dative may not be a common topic in English linguistics because
examples have been rare throughout its history. Visser (1963-73: 633-635) says that it canbe still found in ME, as exemplified in (2), but its occurrences were marginal and rare.
However, the paucity of this construction proves to be extremely useful in solving themystery of the origin of the get-passive.

(2)

Middle English
Envye … bynymeth hym the love of alle goodnesse.
‘Envy takes away the love of all goodness from him to his detriment. (c1386
Chaucer, C.T. I 676)

As argued in Toyota (2020), the origin of the get-passive is heavily influenced bycontact with Old Norse, and what has to be noticed is the fact that Old Norse had the
productive ethical dative, as exemplified in (3). Since this structure was practically nonexistent in earlier English, contacts with Old Norse made speakers of older English noticethe construction existed, and the ethical dative could have been replicated. Data fromearlier English also suggests a beneficiary or adversary was normally expressed by adative, a reflexive pronoun or later a nominal proceeded by to or for (OED get v. I 18a,18b). A construction with a dative beneficiary started to appear around 1300, as in (4).
Earlier instances of reflexive pronouns are scarce, and the ethical dative seems to be a

better candidate for the origin of the get-passive. In addition, get itself was not an AngloSaxon verb, but a loan from Old Norse. Influence from Old Norse cannot be
underestimated, and it is argued here that the ethical dative also made it possible to use
get in a ditransitive clause (i.e. (4)).

(3)

Old Norse
Geirr fann af skynsemi sinni athonum eyddusk skot-in
Geirr felt of reason
histhat him.DAT eroded shots.NOM-DEF‘Geir sensed that his shots were being wasted (to his detriment).’ (EB 222)

(4)

Old English
Ay
was he bone, To gete [Cott. Fete] his fadir
venisunalways was he ready to get
his father.DAT venison‘He was always ready to get his father venison.’ (a1300 Cursor M. 3502 (Cott.))

The causative can be a source of the passive voice typologically, but what is uniqueto this origin is that the passive can denote adversity, e.g. the Turkic languages and someof the Austronesian languages. The adversative reading can also be detectable in someinstances of the get-passive, but not in the be-passive (cf. Toyota 2008: 164-72). This is aclear sign that the get-passive is not derived from the get cum adjectival complement
clause as previously often argued, and that the causative or other sources are involved in
the origin of the get-passive. However, contrary to previous arguments, the causative cum
ethical dative is a better candidate for the origin of the get-passive. The ethical dative may
take the form of a reflexive when a subject referent and a dative NP are co-referential, butwhat should be noted here is that it is not a simple co-reference, but rather a sense ofadversity/beneficiary should be present at the initial onset of the development. The
involvement of the ethical dative indicates that contact with Old Norse was indispensable,
and that influence from Old Norse is indeed deeply rooted in the English language, evenmore so than previously assumed.
References
Bauer, B. L. M. (1998). ‘Impersonal verbs in Italic: their development from an IndoEuropean perspective.’ Journal of Indo-European Studies 26, 91-120.
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Vjačeslav V. Ivanov (1995): Indo-European and IndoEuropeans: a recpnstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and protoculture (part 1): text. (English version by Johanna Nichols). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Givón, T. and Lynne Yang (1994): ‘The rise of the English get-passive’. In Fox, Barbara
and Paul J. Hopper (eds.): Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
119-149.
OED = Simpson, J. A. and E.S.C. Weiner (1989): The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Toyota, J. (2008). Diachronic Change in the English Passive. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Toyota, J. (2020). ‘The origin of the get-passive revisited.’ JELS: Papers from the 37th
Conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan 37, 134-138.
Visser, F. Th. (1963-73): An Historical Syntax of the English Language. (4 vols.) Leiden:
E. J. Brill.

An Investigation of Second Language Perception of English Word-Boundary by Mandarin
Learners of English
Chiu-Ching Tseng
George Mason University, U.S.A.
Previous studies on word-boundary perception in English have reported a preference for a
prevocalic glottal stop cue (e.g., ‘seen [ʔ]ice’ vs. ‘see nice’) over word-initial aspiration (e.g.,‘keeps [tʰ]alking’ vs. ‘keep s[t]alking’) both by native English speakers (Nakatani & Dukes, 1977)
and by learners of English from various L1 backgrounds (Spanish: Altenberg, 2005; Japanese: Ito &Strange, 2009; French: Shoemaker, 2014). Therefore, it has been proposed that the glottal stop is
the preferred word-boundary cue universally. This study investigates the same issue with Mandarin
L2 English learners, whose native language inventory contains highly aspirated stops (Cho &Ladefoged, 1999), but not the glottal stops (Duanmu, 2007). The question is whether their
sensitivity to stop aspiration would cause them to prefer it in L2 word-boundary segmentation.
38 Mandarin L2 English learners, sub-grouped into three proficiency levels based on theirlength of residence in the U.S., and 28 monolingual native English speakers participated in thisstudy. The participants were tested with stimuli containing pitch-manipulated English pseudo-words
with either an aspirated stop or a glottal stop marking the word-boundary.
The results showed that Mandarin speakers identified word-boundaries more accurately
when the stimuli had glottal stops than when they had aspirated stops, despite their native language
lacking a phonemic glottal stop (p = 0.0038). This outcome suggests that perceptual sensitivity to a
specific acoustic cue in learners’ L1 does not help them use the cue readily in L2 word-boundary
perception. The overall between-group comparison showed no significant difference in accuracy
between native English speakers and Mandarin L2 English learners (75.46% vs. 72.75%, p =0.9366, also see Figure 1 & Table 1 below). In other words, when the effects of lexical knowledge
and potential pitch cue for word-boundaries were controlled, the English group and the L2 groupperformed similarly, although the English group still performed significantly faster than the L2
group concerning the response time (p = 0.0020).
The analysis of the linear mixed-effects model on the length of the residence revealed nosignificant difference between beginners (less than 12 months), intermediates (between 13 and 24
years), and the advanced learners (24+ months); although the advanced learners were marginallybetter than beginners (p = 0.0749). In other words, even with the limited exposure to English, thebeginners (LOR = 2.57 months) were still able to perform at somewhat high accuracy (70.60%)
with the preference of the glottal stop cues over stop aspiration. Other than Mandarin, future studies
should look at a language with an inventory that does not feature glottal stop but stop aspiration tobroaden our understanding of the topic.
In keeping with results found from previous studies, the current results suggest that glottal
stop may indeed be a universally unmarked acoustic cue for the task of word-boundary
segmentation. The outcome proposes that perceptually in the L2 word-boundary segmentation task,
L1-transfer seems to play a lesser role regardless of their English proficiency.
The overall result suggests that with other things being equal, a language instructor shouldreflect the importance of L2 learners’ phonetics information and consider the possibility of thelanguage learners’ universal knowledge and capability of word-boundary perception to enhancetheir L2 comprehensibility.
100.00%AmericanMandarin
91.52%

80.00%
60.00%

73.16%

76.49%

94.08%

77.27%

68.13%

40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
aspiration

glottal stop

double cues

Figure 1. Group comparison of overall response accuracy % by categories
Table 1. results of previous studies and present study concerning response accuracy
L2 speakers
AmericanStimuli
Pitch-controlled
76.0%
97.0%
Altenberg (2005)
Real wordNo
asp < gl ≈ dc
asp ≈ gl ≈ dc
Ito & Strange
74.6%
96.8%
Real wordNo(2009)
asp < gl ≈ dc
asp ≈ gl ≈ dc
Shoemaker
74.6%--Real wordNo
(2014)
asp < gl < dc--Alammar
66.0%
80.0%
Non-wordNo(2015)
asp < glasp < gl72.75%
75.46%
Present study
Non-wordYes
asp < gl < dc
asp ≈ gl < dc---: not tested, <, "worse than", = "equal to", and , ≈ "approximately equal to"L2 language
SpanishJapanese
FrenchArabicChineseMandarin

Selected References
Alammar, A. (2015) Second Language Perception of Word Segmentation, Proceedings of LSUGA’s
Second Interdisciplinary Conference in Linguistics. 1-13.

Altenberg, E. P. (2005). The perception of word boundaries in a second language. Second
Language Research, 21(4), 325-358.
Cho, T., & Ladefoged, P. (1999). Variation and universals in VOT: evidence from 18
languages. Journal of phonetics, 27(2), 207-229.
Duanmu, S. (2007). The phonology of standard Chinese. Oxford University Press.
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1964). A Cross-Language Study of Voicing in Initial Stops:
Acoustical Measurements. WORD, 20(3), 384–422.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1964.11659830
Ito, K., & Strange, W. (2009). Perception of allophonic cues to English word boundaries byJapanese second language learners of English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica, 125(4), 2348-2360.Nakatani, L. H., & Dukes, K. D. (1977). Locus of segmental
cues for word juncture. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62(3), 714-719.
Shoemaker, E. (2014). The exploitation of subphonemic acoustic detail in L2 speechsegmentation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(4), 709-731.

A comparative analysis of frequency lists of derived words across specialist varieties ofwritten English
Piotr TWARDZISZ, University of Warsaw, Poland
Abstract
The goal of this study is to establish a lexical repository consisting of morphologicallycomplex (derived/ affixed) words characteristic of academic (research) texts in the area of thehumanities and social sciences. Complex words are lexical items which consist of a wordformation base and an affix, or a few affixes. As for derived nouns, which are the mostfrequent category of words in academic texts, these are: -ation, -ment, -al, -ance/-ence(Nomina Actionis), -ness, -ity, -ancy/-ency, -acy, -ism (Nomina Essendi), and a few othernominal categories. Moreover, there are also derived adjectives and verbs, appropriately
categorized by various authors (Adams 2001; Bauer 2003; Katamba 2005; Biermeier 2008).
Recent morphological accounts (Bauer et al. 2013) include several other affixes designating
spatial, temporal or abstract relations (e.g., down-, hyper-, intra-, multi-, pre-, sub-, underetc.). The overall number of affixes initially involved in this study is approx. 90. Further,more fine-tuned, analyses involve smaller numbers of preselected prefixes and suffixes.
The data are obtained from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). In
COCA’s academic genre (ACAD), there are ten sub-divisions, abbreviated as follows:
education, history, geog/soc-sci, law/pol-sci, humanities, phil/rel, business, sci/tech, medicine
and misc. For the purpose of this study, we select three out of these ten and conduct individual
searches there. The search sub-strings are sequences of characters, preceded or followed by *,according to affixes under consideration, e.g. *ation, *ment, pre*, un* etc. Given numerous
search sub-strings and three discipline-based sub-corpora, the analyses result in high numbersof discipline-based wordlists. In this study, only a sample of the final results will be reported.
Only affixed formations with lexicalized word-formation bases are retained. The items
retained after manual cleaning of the raw-data lists enter frequency morphologically-complex
wordlists (M-CWLs) for each discipline studied. Needless to say, COCA’s ten discipline-like
sub-divisions may be viewed as somewhat problematic for analyses whose goal is to retrieve
vocabulary lists characteristic of these disciplines.
Each M-CWL is a raw-frequency list, with items arranged from the one with the highest
number of tokens to the one with the lowest. Frequencies on different M-CWLs vary between
these lists. It is necessary to take into consideration normalized frequencies (nf), which arecomparable across different lists. Cutting-off points for high- and low-frequency items are
established on the basis of the overall numbers of word types for each affix in each subcorpus. Quantitative similarities and differences regarding individual affixed words in
different lists are identified. Objective criteria are tested for recognizing certain word types ascharacteristic of the stable lexical core.
Numerous studies have shown that textual features such as grammatical constructions, lexicalbundles (Hyland 2008: 7), or phraseology (Vincent 2013: 44), vary systematically acrossdisciplines (Cunningham 2017: 72). Individual disciplines frequently develop their own
patterns of discourse which tend to depart from those found in general English (Montero-Fleta
2011: 4). As for vocabulary in academic discourse, the existence of some lexical core,common to a wide range of disciplines, has also been questioned by some scholars. The
behaviour of individual lexical items has been claimed to vary across disciplines as for theirrange, meanings, collocations they enter or frequencies that they show (Hyland & Tse 2007:

235). This research signifies as much individuation in morphological styles as possible.
Although generalizations are necessary, it is important to arrive at them on the basis ofindividual texts from different genres.
In the course of our analysis, we establish a certain amount of stability across disciplines
involving affixed words. It seems inevitable that certain “cores” of complex words are usedby individual authors for all kinds of purposes in specialist writing across disciplines (cf.
Brezina & Gablasova 2015: 17). We indicate candidate affixes which constitute the core of
lexical complexity of academic texts in the humanities and social sciences. Some highfrequency, but also – unpredictably – some low-frequency, affixed words appear to becommon to more varieties, that is belong to the stable core of written English. We also
identify affixation areas which are characteristic of only certain fields within the humanities
and social sciences. Our preliminary results are not conclusive, but rather indicative of certain
tendencies signalled in this study.
Our findings have the potential of informing both theoretical and applied morphology. The
former receives systematic data showing more detailed tendencies in morphologicalproductivity. The latter is informed about morphological (ir)regularities applicable toacademic writing across disciplines.
References
Adams, V. 2001. Complex Words in English. London: Longman.
Bauer, L. 2003. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. & I. Plag. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology.
Oxford: OUP.
Biermeier, Th. 2008. Word-Formation in New Englishes: A Corpus-based Analysis. Berlin:
Lit Verlag Dr. W. Hopf.
Brezina, V. & D. Gablasova. 2015. Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the New
General Service List. Applied Linguistics 36 (1): 1–22.
Cunningham, K. J. 2017. A phraseological exploration of recent mathematics research articles
through key phrase frames. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 25: 71–83.
Hyland, K. 2008. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English forSpecific Purposes 27: 4–21.
Hyland, K. & P. Tse. 2007. Is there an “Academic vocabulary”? TESOL Quarterly 41 (2):
235–53.
Katamba, F. 2005. English Words: Structure, History, Usage (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Montero-Fleta, B. 2011. Suffixes in word-formation processes in scientific English. LSP,
Professional Communication, Knowledge Management and Cognition 2 (2): 4–14.
Vincent, B. 2013. Investigating academic phraseology through combinations of very frequentwords: A methodological exploration. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12: 44–56.