Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T10:32:51.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

(Dis)harmony, the Head-Proximate Filter, and linkers1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2012

JOY PHILIP*
Affiliation:
University College London
*
Author's address:Linguistics, University College London, Chandler House, 2 Wakefield Street, London WC1N 1PF, UKj.philip@ucl.ac.uk

Abstract

This paper presents a notion of harmonic word order that leads to a new generalisation over the presence or absence of disharmony cross-linguistically: for linkers – syntactically independent, semantically vacuous heads marking a relationship – disharmony is ungrammatical, while for any other head disharmony is simply dispreferred. Harmony is defined here by the interaction of three independently motivated word order constraints operating over the base-generated structure: linear proximity between a superordinate lexical head and the head of its dependent, uniformity in direction of headedness, and the preference for clausal dependents to follow their head. It is proposed that disharmony occurs where either a lexical head or a head bearing syntactic features encoding semantics has an ordering rule of its own. These proposals are shown to be empirically superior to the Final-Over-Final Constraint (Holmberg 2000, Biberauer, Holmberg & Roberts 2007 and subsequent work), in terms of both what is permitted and what is disallowed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

My thanks to Ad Neeleman for detailed discussions and feedback. This paper has also benefited from comments from three anonymous JL referees and the editor, Caroline Heycock. My thanks are further due to participants at presentations given at UCL, Newcastle University and the LAGB Annual Meeting 2010. Many thanks to Dennis Philip, Daniel Philipose and Leelamma Philipose for Malayalam judgments, to Misako Tanaka and Reiko Vermeulen for Japanese judgments, to Aïcha Mahamat, Hadja Habi Sali and Hamza Tidjani for Lagwan data and judgments, and to Ali Mirshahi for Persian judgments. This research is supported by the AHRC. Any errors are of course my own.

References

REFERENCES

Abels, Klaus & Neeleman, Ad. 2009. Universal 20 without the LCA. In Brucart, Jose M., Gavarró, Anna & Solà, Jaume (eds.), Merging features: Computation, interpretation and acquisition, 6079. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abels, Klaus & Neeleman, Ad. 2012. Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax 15.3, 2574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aboukar, Ousmane Kirna. 2003. Essai de la description de la morphologie nominale de lagwan: dialecte kotoko. MA dissertation, Université de N'Djaména.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2002. Syntactic atomicity. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6.2, 93128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2011. Neg-to-Q: The historical development of one clause-final particle. The Linguistic Review 28.4, 411447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alrenga, Peter. 2005. A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection. Syntax 8.3, 175207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, Joseph & Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 2003. Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar: The diversity of wh-constructions (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 40). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Laura. 2010. Sentential word order and the syntax of question particles. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 16, 2343. http://www.ncl.ac.uk/linguistics/assets/documents/BAILEY.pdf (accessed 3 August 2010).Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate & Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Semantic structures: A study in the relation between semantics and syntax. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality and logical form. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1999. Final complementizers in hybrid languages. Journal of Linguistics 35.2, 233271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2001. Two grammars in one: Sentential complements and complementizers in Bengali and other South-Asian languages. The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics: Tokyo Symposium on South Asian Languages – Contact, Convergence and Typology, 1136. New Delhi: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bencini, Giulia. 2003. Toward a diachronic typology of yes/no question constructions with particles. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 39, 604621.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian. 2007. Disharmonic word-order systems and the Final-over-Final-Constraint (FOFC). Incontro di Grammatica Generativa (IGG) 33, 86105.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian. 2010. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Ms., University of Cambridge, Stellenbosch University & Newcastle University. http://research.ncl.ac.uk/linearization/BHR_2010.pdf (accessed 27 September 2010).Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Newton, Glenda & Sheehan, Michelle. 2009. Limiting synchronic and diachronic variation and change: The Final-over-Final Constraint. Language and Linguistics 10.4, 701743.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Sheehan, Michelle. 2010. Disharmony, antisymmetry, and the Final-over-Final Constraint. Ms., University of Cambridge, Stellenbosch University & Newcastle University. http://research.ncl.ac.uk/linearization/Biberauer_Sheehan_WSB_2010.pdf (accessed 23 April 2010).Google Scholar
Blackings, Mairi & Fabb, Niger. 2003. A grammar of Ma'di. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce D. & Gair, James W.. 2000. Dhivehi (Maldivian). Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Carlson, Robert. 1991. Grammaticalization of postpositions and word order in senufo languages. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2: Focus on types of grammatical markers, 201223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36.1, 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. A note on verb/object order and head/relative clause order. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 49104. http://lear.unive.it/bitstream/10278/197/1/2005–2s-Cinque.pdf (accessed 3 November 2009).Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2009. The fundamental left-right asymmetry of natural languages. In Scalise et al. (eds.), 165184.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2008. Prenominal relative clauses in verb-object languages. Language and Linguistics 9.4, 723733.Google Scholar
Cyffer, Norbert. 1998. A sketch of Kanuri. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2007. Syntactic change in Akkadian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Di, Sciullo, Maria, Anna & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den & Singhapreecha, Pornsiri. 2004. Complex noun phrases and linkers. Syntax 7.1, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1969. Relative clauses and possessive phrases in two Australian languages. Language 45.1, 3544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1980. The positional tendencies of sentential noun phrases in Universal Grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25, 123195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1988. Universals of negative position. In Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A. & Wirth, Jessica R. (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 93124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68.1, 81138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Word order. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1: Clause structure, 2nd edn., 61131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2008a. Order of object and verb. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.), Chapter 83. http://2008.wals.info/feature/description/83 (accessed 27 July 2011).Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2008b. Position of polar question particles. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.), Chapter 92. http://2008.wals.info/feature/description/92 (accessed 27 July 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2008c. Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of adposition and noun phrase. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.), Chapter 95. http://2008.wals.info/feature/95 (accessed 27 July 2011).Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2008d. Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of relative clause and noun. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.), Chapter 96. http://2008.wals.info/feature/96 (accessed 27 July 2011).Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2008e. Word order in Tibeto-Burman languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31.1, 184.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2009a. The Branching Direction Theory of word order correlations revisited. In Scalise et al. (eds.), 185207.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2009b. Verb-object-negative order in central Africa. In Cyffer, Norbert, Ebermann, Erwin & Ziegelmeyer, Georg (eds.), Negation patterns in West African languages and beyond, 307362. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escribano, José Luis González. 2004. Head-final effects and the nature of modification. Journal of Linguistics 40.1, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2010. Accusative relative pronoun in the Czech relative clauses with absolutive relativizer co. Korpus, gramatika, axiologie 1.1, 1629.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of language, 73113. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Ms., Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford, CA: Centre for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2006. Structural isoglosses between Khoekhoe and Tuu: The Cape as a linguistic area. In Matras, Yaron, McMahon, April & Vincent, Nigel (eds.), Linguistic areas: Convergence in historical and typological perspective, 99134. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard (eds.). 2008. World atlas of language structures online. http://2008.wals.info/ (accessed 27 July 2011).Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 21.2, 223261.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2010. Disharmonic word orders from a processing typology perspective. Ms., University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Deriving OV order in Finnish. In Svenonius, Peter (ed.), The derivation of VO and OV, 123152. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2001. Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax 4.2, 6393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2008. Question particles and disjunction. Ms., EFL University, Hyderabad. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000644 (accessed 3 June 2010).Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: Høst.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation: A study of verbal inflection. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2001. Persian complex DPs: How mysterious are they? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46.1–2, 6396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1972. Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1992. Italian negative imperatives and clitic-climbing. In Tasmowsky, Liliane & Zribi-Hertz, Anne (eds.), Hommages à Nicolas Ruwet, 300312. Gent: Communication and Cognition.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don't exist. In Keyser, Samuel J. (ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages, 5364. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bh. & Gwynn, J. P. L.. 1985. A grammar of modern Telugu. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kutsch Lojenga, Constance. 1994. Ngiti: A Central Sudanic language of Zaire. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 2009. Chinese as a reverse ezafe language. Yuyanxue Luncong 39, 3085. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 2000. Some aspects of Pazeh syntax. Grammatical analysis: Morphology, syntax, and semantics. Studies in honor of Stanley Starosta (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication 29), 89108. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Li, Paul Jen-kuei & Tsuchida, Shigeru. 2001. Pazih dictionary. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office).Google Scholar
Limburg, Machiel J. 1985. On the notion “relator” and the expression of the genitive relation. In Bolkestein, A. Machtelt, Groot, Casper de & MacKenzie, J. Lachlan (eds.), Predicates and terms in Functional Grammar, 147163. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzon, Gabriella. 2004. A history of English negation. Harlow: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2006. Why no(t)? Style 40.1–2, 2023.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1991. Functional categories and parametric variation. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Owens, Jonathan. 1985. A grammar of Harar Oromo (Northeastern Ethiopia). Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1961. Relative clauses in Tigre. Word 17.1, 2333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patz, Elisabeth. 2002. A grammar of the Kuku Yalanji language of North Queensland (Pacific Linguistics 527). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Paul, Waltraud. 2007. The insubordinate subordinator de in Mandarin Chinese. Ms, CRLAO, Paris. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001010 (accessed 22 February 2010).Google Scholar
Paul, Waltraud. To appear. Why particles are not particular: Sentence-final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP. Studia Linguistica.Google Scholar
Payne, John R. 1985. Negation. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1: Clause structure, 197242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Philip, Joy. 2012. Subordinating and coordinating linkers. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Popjes, Jack & Popjes, Jo. 1986. Canela-Krahô. In Derbyshire, Desmond C. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 1, 128199. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Raz, Shlomo. 1983. Tigre grammar and texts. Malibu: Undena Publications.Google Scholar
Reesink, Ger P. 2002. Clause-final negation: Structure and interpretation. Functions of Language 9.2, 239268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 1984. The Principle of Head Proximity. MA dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 1986. Word order universals revisited: The Principle of Head Proximity. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 1, 95125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rood, David. 1973. Aspects of subordination in Lakhota and Wichita. In Corum, Claudia W., Cedric Smith-Stark, Thomas & Weiser, Ann (eds.), You take the high node and I'll take the low node (Chicago Linguistic Society/CLS 9), 7178.Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward J. 2002. The structure of modifiers. Ms., University of Utah. http://www.hum.utah.edu/linguistics/Faculty/rubin.htm (accessed 11 January 2008).Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio, Magni, Elisabetta & Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.). 2009. Universals of language today. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2008. FOFC and phasal complements of V. Handout from FOFC seminar series, Cambridge, 15 February 2008. http://research.ncl.ac.uk/linearization/MS_FOFC_and_phases_Cambridge.pdf (accessed 17 September 2009).Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2011. Explaining the Final-over-Final Constraint: Formal and functional approaches. Ms., University of Durham. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001263 (accessed 20 May 2011).Google Scholar
Shimizu, Kiyoshi. 1983. The Zing dialect of Mumuye. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Simpson, Andrew. 2001. Definiteness agreement and the Chinese DP. Language and Linguistics 2.1, 125156.Google Scholar
Simpson, Andrew. 2002. On the status of ‘modifying’ DE and the structure of the Chinese DP. In Tang, Sze-Wing & Liu, Chen-Sheng (eds.), On the formal way to Chinese languages. Stanford, CA: Centre for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Simpson, Andrew & Bhattacharya, Tanmoy. 2003. Obligatory overt wh-movement in a wh-in-situ language. Linguistic Inquiry 34.1, 127142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2002. The syntax of relativization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. [LOT Dissertation Series 53, Utrecht.]Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2005. The fall and rise of universals on relativization. Journal of Universal Language 6.1, 125157. http://www.unish.org/unish/DOWN/PDF/Mark_De_Vries.pdf (accessed 18 August 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, R. C. 1969. Bagirmi grammar. Khartoum: University of Khartoum.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1982. Another argument that passive is transformational. Linguistic Inquiry 13.1, 160163.Google Scholar
Xu, Lin & Yansun, Zhao. 1984. Baiyu Jianzhi. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Syntactic properties of sentential negation: A comparative study of Romance languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1994. Speculations on negative imperatives. Rivista di Linguistica 6.1, 6789.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1996. On the relevance of tense for sentential negation. In Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax, 181207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997. Negation and clausal structure: A comparative study of Romance languages. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. [LOT Dissertation Series 101, Utrecht.]Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2006. Complementizer agreement and dependency marking typology. Leiden Working Papers in Linguistics 3.2, 5372. http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/pdf/lucl/lwpl/3.2/zwart.pdf (accessed 4 December 2006).Google Scholar