In this thesis, I conduct a detailed case study of expressive suffixes in Russian. I show that although the suffixes under investigation have the same function (“expressive”), they differ significantly in their formal properties. I identify two major semantic types of expressive suffixes: attitude and size suffixes. Attitude suffixes convey an attitude of the speaker toward the referent. Size suffixes both convey an attitude and refer to the size of the referent. I argue that the two different semantic types map onto different syntactic types. Attitude suffixes are syntactic heads, while size suffixes are syntactic modifiers. As heads, attitude suffixes determine the formal properties (syntactic category, grammatical gender and inflectional class) of the derived form. As modifiers, size suffixes do not determine the formal properties of the derived form. Attitude suffixes can attach both to category-free √Roots and to categories (n/a/v), while size suffixes can only attach to a noun category. I investigate the functional and formal properties of Russian expressive suffixes in a systematic way, which has not been done before. In doing so, I analyze how expressive suffixes pattern along several kinds of criteria (gender/class change, category change, subcategorization). An important byproduct of this analysis is that I show how grammatical gender of an expressive form can be predicted from its inflectional class (combined with animacy and natural gender of the base). One implication of this analysis is that I show that the formal properties of expressives are no different from those of non-expressives (descriptives), as both expressives and descriptives can attach as heads or modifiers either to √Roots or categories. Another implication is that the formal criteria which I develop for a small set of expressive suffixes in Russian can be extended to set up a cross-linguistic typology of expressives.

In this dissertation, I explore the formal mechanisms underlying restrictive modification by nominals (RMN). The central claim is that RMN is dependent on how definiteness is encoded in a given language. In Greek, RMN is exemplified by extra definite determiners followed by bare adjectives, as shown in (1) below. These may precede or follow the matrix nominal. Syntactically, I argue that the determiner and the adjective may form either a restrictive or non-restrictive nominal depending on their structural position. Focusing on restrictive nominals, I argue that they are adjuncts to nP, which raise to FocP when focused. These adjuncts are small nominals, consisting of acategorial roots and n. A look at the structure of the matrix noun reveals that adjectives adjoin to NumP, as they are always prenominal. A look at genitives also suggests that Greek nouns move as high as NumP. Central to this thesis is the question of what licenses RMN. Previous analyses have correlated it with rich morphology (Lekakou and Szendrői, 2007, 2008, 2010). For them, the determiner is the spell-out of inflection, but is otherwise a semantic expletive. To these claims, I counter-argue that RMN is best viewed as being dependent on how definiteness is encoded and that the definite determiner is simply underspecified for definiteness. Assuming that definiteness consists of two components, familiarity and uniqueness, and based on data from Standard English and Scottish English, I propose that definite determiners spelling out one component, familiarity, are predicted to exhibit RMN. Familiarity and uniqueness can thus be mapped into two syntactic projections, FamP and ιP, respectively. I then propose a syntactico-semantic mechanism that derives these constructions. Hence, this research offers a modern cross-linguistic account of RMN, while it also provides us with new insights about how definiteness can be encoded cross-linguistically.

In this dissertation, I explore the formal mechanisms underlying restrictive modification by nominals (RMN). The central claim is that RMN is dependent on how definiteness is encoded in a given language. In Greek, RMN is exemplified by extra definite determiners followed by bare adjectives, as shown in (1) below. These may precede or follow the matrix nominal. Syntactically, I argue that the determiner and the adjective may form either a restrictive or non-restrictive nominal depending on their structural position. Focusing on restrictive nominals, I argue that they are adjuncts to nP, which raise to FocP when focused. These adjuncts are small nominals, consisting of acategorial roots and n. A look at the structure of the matrix noun reveals that adjectives adjoin to NumP, as they are always prenominal. A look at genitives also suggests that Greek nouns move as high as NumP. Central to this thesis is the question of what licenses RMN. Previous analyses have correlated it with rich morphology (Lekakou and Szendrői, 2007, 2008, 2010). For them, the determiner is the spell-out of inflection, but is otherwise a semantic expletive. To these claims, I counter-argue that RMN is best viewed as being dependent on how definiteness is encoded and that the definite determiner is simply underspecified for definiteness. Assuming that definiteness consists of two components, familiarity and uniqueness, and based on data from Standard English and Scottish English, I propose that definite determiners spelling out one component, familiarity, are predicted to exhibit RMN. Familiarity and uniqueness can thus be mapped into two syntactic projections, FamP and ιP, respectively. I then propose a syntactico-semantic mechanism that derives these constructions. Hence, this research offers a modern cross-linguistic account of RMN, while it also provides us with new insights about how definiteness can be encoded cross-linguistically.

The degree to which the two language systems of bilinguals are separate or interact in some way is a question that has been addressed using several methods. In the domain of morphosyntax, results from cross-linguistic priming have shown that bilinguals’ hearing a particular sentence structure in one of their languages increases the likelihood that they will produce a similar structure in the other language. This supports a shared-syntax model of bilingual processing in which bilinguals store similar structures together. Priming from L1 to L2 and L2 to L1 appears to be equally strong (Loebell & Bock, 2003; Schoonbaert, Hartsuiker, & Pickering, 2007) but researchers have not examined in depth how language experience and proficiency variables affect priming. Priming research has also indicated that only those structures that share word order across languages are subject to priming (Bernolet, Hartsuiker, & Pickering, 2007; Loebell & Bock, 2003) but has not addressed whether the verb features such as tense are subject to priming. This study addressed two questions: 1) How do the language experience measures of age of acquisition, current language use, and language proficiency affect priming? and 2) Are tense markings (future and present tenses) subject to priming across languages? Sixty-eight Spanish-English bilingual adults completed a priming task from English to Spanish and from Spanish to English and measures of language experience and proficiency. Results indicate that although passive structures prime across languages, the variables of age of acquisition, current use, and proficiency do not affect priming. This finding provides support for the shared-syntax model as a representation of bilingual language in speakers with diverse levels of experience and proficiency. Results also indicate that tense does not prime across languages. This suggests that languages have separate stores for tense markings. / text

published_or_final_version / Chinese / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

Not available / text

This thesis examines the syntax of Focus constructions in Rausa within a Principles and ParameterslMinimalist framework. An analysis is presented to account for the properties of Focus-fronting constructions in Rausa as well as of 'copular' constructions which are also shown to have Focus properties. It is argued that the 'copula' found in both Focusfronting and 'copular' constructions in Rausa is not a verbal or inflectional element as argued by McConvell (1973) and Tuller (1986a) respectively, but instead the spellout of a functional category F(ocus) in the sense of Brody (1990). Chapter 1 presents an introduction to the main syntactic characteristics of Rausa, including word order, inflectional properties and case, and data surrounding Focus and related constructions. Chapter 2 presents a general introduction to the phenomenon of Focus, including typological and comparative discussion to show the various crosslinguistic syntactic manifestations of Focus. The theoretical framework is established and and pre-Minimalist literature surrounding Focus is reviewed. Chapter 3 presents the analysis, which argues for a Focus Phrase (FP) structure for Focus-fronting constructions in Rausa and discusses the advantages ofthis approach on the basis of empirical and theoretical considerations. In chapter 4 the analysis is extended to 'copular' constructions in Rausa; these apparently unrelated constructions are shown to have Focus properties and the FP analysis is argued to account for this fact in a straightforward and principled manner. Chapter 5 considers the FP analysis from a cross-linguistic perspective to see how it might account for Focus and copular constructions in a range of languages related to Rausa, and it is shown that although some languages present challenging cases for an FP analysis, there is considerable support for an approach of this nature.

No description available.

No description available.

This dissertation is a study of the syntactic structure of noun phrases. In particular, this study focuses on the Pronoun-Noun Construction (PNC) which is composed of a non-possessive pronoun and a common noun as in We Tucsonans love rain. The core theme of this thesis lies in the idea that the PNC forms a natural class with the Demonstrative-Noun Construction (DNC). Though this idea is not radical (Giusti 1997, 2002), neither this claim nor its consequences has been adequately recognized or explored. This study advances this idea by demonstrating the existence of syntactic and semantic parallels between the PNC and the DNC. This hypothesis leads to a unified analysis of the two constructions: the pronoun merges in the specifier of an extended nominal projection and moves to [Spec, DP], on analogy with previous analyses of the structure of the DNC (Giusti 1997, 2002; Panagiotidis 2000; Rosen 2003). This proposed analysis necessitates reconsideration of important theoretical issues in syntax. In particular, the current analysis of the PNC implies a novel view of the DP-internal locus of person, which demarcates pronominal DPs from non-pronominal DPs. That is, the source of the valued person feature is the pronoun embedded in the DP, rather than the D head of the DP. This view of the locus of person leads in turn to a proposal of the agreement between PNC subject and predicate in which DP-internal agreement feeds DP-external agreement. Third, the proposed analysis of agreement provides a straightforward account for the optionality of the pronoun in the PNC across languages, if coupled with a pro-drop theory in which an empty category is postulated (e.g., Rizzi 1986). I justify the particular choice of a pro-drop theory by showing that the competing head-movement-based approaches to pro-drop (e.g., Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 1998) not extendable to pro-drop in the PNC. Lastly, I show that the dislocation of demonstratives and pronouns to the left periphery of DP patterns with the wh-movement to the left periphery of CP in a given language. This constitutes a new piece of evidence for the parallelism between DP and CP. Evidence used in this thesis is primarily drawn from Modern Greek and English, with additional data from Chinese, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Modern Hebrew Hebrew, Russian, Spanish, and Turkish.