Coyote Papers is a publication of the Linguistics Circle, the Graduate Student Organization of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona.

ISSN: 2770-1662 (Online)
ISSN: 0894-4539 (Print)

For more information, visit the Coyote Papers website.


Contact Coyote Papers at coyotepapers@email.arizona.edu.

Recent Submissions

  • Reconstruction and Linearity in Long-Distance Cleft Constructions

    Tanaka, Hidekazu; Kizu, Mika; University of British Columbia; McGill University; University of Durham (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 2000)
    This paper is concerned with cleft constructions and reconstruction effects in English and Japanese. Japanese cleft constructions involve two different syntactic dependencies, movement and deletion. This assumption explains facts that have not been reported in the literature. The reflexive pronoun in (la) and the reciprocal pronoun in (lb) in the focus phrase can be bound either by the higher subject or by the lower subject in the presupposition. In clear contrast, the lower subject in Japanese cleft constructions cannot bind anaphors in the focus phrase. In (2), only the higher subject can bind the anaphors in the focus phrase. What explains the contrast between (1) and (2)? We argue that an operator in Japanese moves from the position adjoined to the lower clause (tk in (3)), not from the thematic gap position (ek). It is shown that the dependency (ii) in (3) stems from movement, and (i) from deletion. Since Opk (or the focus phrase associated with it) reconstructs only to the position of tk, the anaphor can only be bound by the higher subject, Sallyi-Nom.
  • Yes-no Ii questions in Russian: Interaction of syntax and phonology?

    Rudnitskaya, E.; The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 2000)
    In this paper, I look at yes-no questions in Russian with the question clitic Ii. I address the question of interaction of syntax and phonology in the derivation of these questions. I show that the phonological operation Prosodic Inversion is involved is required for the derivation of Ii questions. That is, syntactic movement alone cannot derive 1 W li questions. My derivation of li questions involves two steps: the syntactic step of the focused phrase preposing and the phonological step of Prosodic Inversion. It also accounts for the fact that the host of li must be the focus of the question. Li is both a focus particle and a question particle, and, as such, it has strong [+FOC] and [+Q] features. Li is base-generated in Foe. Li's [+FOC] feature attracts the focused phrase preposing to SpecFocP. Then li moves to C and gets inverted with the first PWd of SpecFocP.
  • The Effect of Focus on Argument Structure: Depictives vs Resultatives

    Noh, Bokyung; The University of Texas at Austin (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 2000)
    A variety of linguistic evidences have been to support the assumption that depictives and resultatives are different in their thematic structures with a main predicate, despite they appear identical on the surface. Both depictives and resultative contain a subject NP, a verb, an object NP, and an adjective following the object NP, as shown in (1)-(2). However, the thematic relation between the verbs and the adjectives are different. In depictives, the adjective characterizes the object NP in relation to the action or process described by the verb. Thus, (la) means: 'I ate the beef and at the time I ate it, it was raw.' The NP is characterized at the time of the action of the verb. In the resultatives, the final adjective characterizes the state of the object NP, a state which results from the action or process described by the verb. Thus, (2a) means: I caused the window to be clean by wiping it; the adjective describes the final state of the NP. (1) a. I ate the beef raw. b. I ate the food cold (depictives) (2) a. I wiped the window clean. b. I kicked the door open. (resultatives) Recently it has been proposed that the argument structure is reflected by sentence accentuation (Schmerling 1976, Gusenhoven 1983, Selkirk 1984). The main claim in the focus theory (e.g., accent percolation theory) is that in a focus constituent consisting of a head and an argument, the accent is realized on the argument, everything else being equal (Gussenhoven 1983, Selkirk 1984). Uhmann (1991) proposes that if focus is assigned to a constituent, all the phonological phrases of that constituent bear an accent. She also points out that a head and an argument form a single phonological phrase, whereas a head and an adjunct form a separate phonological phrase, Following Uhmann (1991), I assume that a pitch accent is the evidence for phonological units and manifests focused words or constituents. The accentual differences between head-argument and head-adjunct are clearly shown by Gussenhoven (1992) as follows: when a head-argument structure is in focus, as in (3), the accent falls on the argument, tent, while when a head-adjunct structure is in focus, as in (4), an accent is realized on the head smoked and the adjunct tent, which are in separate phonological phrases. Likewise, both gerookt 'smoked', and tent 'tent' are accented in Dutch. The phonological phrase is represented by parenthesis, the focus structure is by bracket and the accented words are capitalized. (3) a. John [ ( stayed in the TENT) l b. John [ ( in the TENT gebleven)] F (4) a. John [(SMOKED)(in the TENT)] F b. John [(heeft in the TENT) (gerookt)]F (Gussenhoven 1992: 94) Does the distinction between an argument and an adjunct exist? My goal in this paper is to investigate the issue of how the theory of focus applies to the different types of secondary constructions, namely depictive and resultative constructions. The experiments are conducted to examine the statuses of resultative and depictive constituents in terms of their focus marking.
  • Locative inversion and optional features

    Kim, Jeong-Seok; Korea University (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 2000)
    Some locative PPs in English can be optionally fronted in a certain environment, as the following examples show: 1 ( 1) a. John rolled down the hill b. Down the hill rolled JOHN Note that in (lb) the logical subject and the verb are inverted. Example (lb) is called a locative inversion construction. One of the controversial issues in locative inversion is the location of the inverted PP in (1 b) (see, for example, Stowell 1981, Coopmans 1989, Hoekstra and Mulder 1990, Bresnan 1994, Watanabe 1994, Collins 1997, and Jang 1997). Recently, this construction has been given more attention by Collins (1997) with respect to global vs. local economy. In this paper, I explore the locative inversion construction in English within a minimalist framework (cf. Chomsky 1995). In section 2, I review CoUins' (1997) analysis of locative inversion, while section 3 provides an alternative analysis. Lastly, in section 4, I discuss its theoretical implications on the economy of grammar.
  • A Dual Function of tokoro in the CENP Construction

    Hosoi, Hironobu; McGill University (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 2000)
    In this paper, I will discuss the semantics of the Japanese so-called "Counter-Equi NP" (henceforth, CENP) Construction, given in (I). (1) CENP Construction Keisatsu-wa [ doroboo-ga nige-ru ]-tokoro-o tsukamae-ta. police-TOP burglar-NOM escape-PRES-occasion-ACC arrest-PAST 'The police arrested a burglar on the occasion during which he/she was escaping.' The CENP construction is similar to the so-called "internally headed relative clause" (henceforth, IHRC) construction, given in (2), in that, in the CENP construction, an NP within the embedded tokoro-clause is interpreted as an argument of the matrix verb. (2) IHRC Construction Keisatsu-wa [ doroboo-ga nige-ru ]-no-o tsukamae-ta. police-TOP burglar-NOM escape- PRES-NO-ACC arrest-PAST 'The police arrested a burglar on the occasion during which he/she was escaping.' In both (1) and (2), the embedded subject doroboo 'burglar' is interpreted as an object of the matrix verb tsukamaer 'arrest'. In this paper, I argue that the noun tokoro semantically has a dual function. To be more specific, it is a generalized quantifier over an entity and at the same time an event when it combines with the tokoro-clause, adopting Srivastav's (1991) generalized quantifier approach to Hindi correlatives.
  • Bare-Consonant Reduplication in Yokuts: Minimal Reduplication by Compression

    Hendricks, Sean; University of Arizona (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 2000)
    In Y okuts, a Penutian language, there is a pattern of reduplication in which the reduplicant surfaces as a copy of the first consonant and the last consonant of the root. This type of reduplication falls under the category of bare-consonant reduplication (Sloan 1988, Hendricks 1999), which is characterized as being a single consonant C, or a string of two consonants CC. Such examples of reduplication are incompatible with analyses in which the shape of the reduplicant is defined by a prosodic template constraint. In this paper, I present data illustrating this pattern of reduplication in Y okuts and show how this data cannot be accounted for in Optimality Theory by a prosodic template. Also, I will provide an analysis without a template constraint, consistent with current accounts of reduplication (McCarthy & Prince 1994, 1997; Gafos 1997; Walker 1998; Nelson, to appear; Urbanczyk, to appear). This analysis is based on a compression model (Hendricks 1999), where the shape of the reduplicant is determined by constraints that determine morpheme ordering.
  • What Does Diachrony Say About English Tough-Constructions?

    Goh, Gwang-Yoon; The Ohio State University (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 2000)
    Introduction (1) English tough-constructions (TCs, e.g., Bill is easy to please, Mary is hard to work with) have caused considerable controversy about their correct analysis and this controversy can be roughly described by two main types of analyses. The first type, which can be called "strong connectivity" analysis, assumes syntactic connectivity between the tough-subject (i.e., the subject of the main clause in a tough-sentence) and the gap in the infinitival phrase/clause. Thus, studies along this line argue that the tough-subject is not the true subject of the tough-adjective but is generated as the object of a verb or preposition in the infinitival phrase/clause and moved to the subject position (Postal 1971, Postal & Ross 1971, Berman 1973, Postal 1974, Comrie & Matthews 1990, etc.)(2). This position is supported by the well-known fact that typical toughadjectives such as easy, hard, and difficult generally have no or little semantic effect on their subjects. On the other hand, the second type, which can be called "weak connectivity" analysis, argues that there is no syntactic connectivity between the tough-subject and the gap and that toughadjectives subcategorize for an infinitival phrase with a gap. Thus, early transformational studies such as Ross (1967: 231), Akmajian (1972), and Lasnik & Fiengo (1974) say that the object of the complement of a tough-adjective has been deleted. Government-Binding (GB) theory, for example, Chomsky (1977: 102-110, 1981: 308-314), proposes the movement of an empty operator that binds the trace in the object position and is coindexed with the subject. Furthermore, although no movement of an empty operator is posited, the analysis of HeadDriven Phrase Structure Grammar is similar to that of GB theory in that it does not assume syntactic connectivity. Thus, Pollard & Sag (1994) analyze TCs as a lexical fact about some special predicates and assume that such predicates as easy, difficult, take, and cost subcategorize for infinitive complements containing an accusative NP gap which is coindexed with the subject. Even though the second type of approach has long been more favored by current syntactic frameworks, it is not clear whether there is sufficient empirical evidence to support this more dominant, second type of analysis ( cf. Jones 1983 )(3). Since synchronic linguistics doesn't seem to be able to resolve this controversy one way or the other, what then does the diachrony of the relevant parts of English grammar say about the analysis of TCs? Does diachrony argue for any particular position?
  • A Correspondence Theory of Morpheme Order

    de Lacy, Paul; University of Massachusetts, Amherst (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 2000)
    The aim of this paper is to explain how the grammar distinguishes prefixes from suffixes. More generally, a theory that accounts for the variation in direction of attachment in both affixes and bound roots is presented, set within Optimality Theory. The core of the proposal is that direction of attachment is a property of morphemes; specifically, direction of attachment is indicated in the phonological string of an morpheme by an empty position. More formally, I propose that phonological strings can be partial functions from positions to phonological features; 'empty positions' are just those positions which do not map onto phonological features. The formalism behind this proposal is presented in section 2. The empirical implications of this approach are examined in section 3. Two phenomena are shown to follow straightforwardly from the present approach: (I) the implicational relationship between prefixes and suffixes (if a language has prefixes it also has suffixes, but not vice-versa - Hawkins & Gilligan 1988), and (2) the Affix Ordering generalization (that class I affixes must appear closer to the root than class II affixes - Siegel 1974). The typology of morpheme types produced by this theory is also discussed.
  • Size Restrictors and Prosodic Structure in the Acquisition of Stress

    Curtin, Suzanne; University of Southern California (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 2000)
    This paper examines the stages of development in the acquisition of Dutch main stress by children. In the early stages of prosodic development, there are strong restrictions on word size. These restrictions can be explained by the high ranking of alignment constraints (McCarthy & Prince 1993) over faithfulness (McCarthy & Prince 1995). Moreover, the truncation and early prominence patterns are due to adherence to Strict Layering (Selkirk 1984) which emerges from the constraint ranking. The subsequent violation of Strict Layering (Weak Layering, Ito & Mester 1992) at later stages arises from constraint re-ranking. This analysis provides a unified account of child language and adult grammar. The development of the child's grammar moves from unmarked to marked structure (Demuth 1997) building on the units of the Prosodic Hierarchy (Selkirk 1980). Working within the Optimality Framework (Prince & Smolensky 1993), using well-attested constraints, the relationships between stages of acquisition are explained through constraint re-ranking. The paper is organized as follows. First I provide a general overview of the stages of stress acquisition. I then discuss on each stage individually focussing first on the size restrictions found in the early stages of development before turning to stages 3 and 4.
  • The behavior of velar nasal and syllabification in Korean

    Chung, Chin Wan; Lim, Byung-jin; Indiana University (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 2000)
    Across languages including Korean, a string C1V1C2V2C3 is generally syllabified as C1 V 1 .C2 V 2C3 but not as C1 V 1 C2.V 2C3. This is largely due to the fact that languages prefer a syllable with an onset, which is explained by Ito (1986) as a Universal Core Syllable Condition or by Prince and Smolenky (1993) as an optimality-theoretic constraint 'Onset'. In Korean, a C1V1C2V2C3 string is generally syllabified as C1V1.C2V2C3. However, when the velar nasal lr.JI is C2, it is not syllabified as the onset of the second syllable but rather as the coda of the preceding syllable. The main purpose of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, we investigate the behavior of the velar nasal with respect to syllabification in syllable coda position. On the other hand, we also investigate the variation among speakers regarding strategies to avoid an onsetless syllable over a morpheme boundary in which the second morpheme begins with the glide /y/ in Korean, as well as the variation between Seoul dialect (SD) and Kyungsang dialect (KD) with respect to ways to deal with the velar nasal in the syllable coda position. We provide an analysis within Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993), particularly the more enhanced version called Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1995). This paper tries to shed more light on various cases of syllabification in Korean. The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we present the data. In section 3, we propose optimality-theoretic constraints and their interaction and provide an analysis based on the constraints and their ranking. Finally, we sum up the paper in section 4.
  • Towards a Universal Account of Possessor Raising

    Castillo, Juan Carlos; University of Maryland (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 2000)
    This paper explores the nature of possessive relations in Universal Grammar, and their involvement in a syntactic process known as Possessor Raising or, as it is usually called in the Relational Grammar (RG) tradition, Possessor Ascension. Possessor Raising can be defined as the transformation that takes the D-structure possessor of a direct object in the sentence and assigns to it a surface grammatical relation (GR) to the verb of the sentence.
  • Diminutive Bare-Consonant Reduplication in Stl'atl'imcets

    Bird, Sonya; University of Arizona (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona), 2000)
    Stl'atl'imcets, otherwise known as Lillooet, is a Salish language spoken in British Columbia, Canada. Stl' atl' imcets exhibits 4 different patterns of reduplication, plus combinations 1• In this paper I explore one of these patterns: the diminutive bare-consonant reduplication. The goal is threefold: 1) propose and Optimality Theory (OT) account of the diminutive bare-consonant reduplication in Stl'atl'imcets, 2) discuss the role of prosodic templates in reduplication, and 3) explore the use of morphologically defined constraints. The organization of the paper is as follows: first I present the basic facts of reduplication and account for them using the interaction between two constraints, REALIZEMORPHEME and CONTIGUITY. I show that together, these constraints avoid having to posit prosodic templates associated with the reduplicant and the base. Not only is it unnecessary to refer to prosodic templates, but doing so in fact achieves the wrong results. Second, I discuss cases where reduplication requires vowel epenthesis and propose that CONTIGUITY is morphologically defined, such that schwa-epenthesis does not violate it. Third, I look at reduplication involving consonant clusters, and show that the reduplicant must align to a stressed mora, rather than a stressed syllable. Finally, I conclude by discussing the implications of the proposed account, with respect to the need for prosodic templates (or lack thereof) and for morphologically defined constraints.