Subject relative (SR) clauses have a reliable processing advantage in VO languages like English in which relative clauses (RCs) follow the head noun. The question is whether this is also routinely true in OV languages like Japanese and Korean, in which RCs precede the head noun. We conducted an event-related brain potential (ERP) study of Korean RCs to test whether the SR advantage manifests in brain responses, and to tease apart the typological factors that might contribute to these responses. Our results suggest that brain responses to RCs are remarkably similar in VO and OV languages. Our results also suggest that the marking of the right edge of the RC in Chinese (Yang et al. 2010) and Korean and the absence of such marking in Japanese (Ueno & Garnsey 2008) affect the response to the following head noun. The consistent SR advantage found in ERP studies lends further support to a universal subject preference in the processing of relative clauses.

This article reports on an experiment with miniature artificial languages that provides support for a synthesis of ideas from usage-based phonology (Bybee 1985, 2001, Nesset 2008) and harmonic grammar (Legendre et al. 1990, Smolensky & Legendre 2006). All miniature artificial languages presented to subjects feature velar palatalization (k → t∫) before a plural suffix, -i. I show that (i) examples of -i simply attaching to a [t∫]-final stem help palatalization (supporting t → t∫i over t → ti and p → t∫i over p → pi), a finding that provides specific support for product-oriented schemas like ‘plurals should end in [t∫i]’; (ii) learners tend to perseverate on the form they know, leveling stem changes, which provides support for paradigm-uniformity constraints in favor of retaining gestures composing the known form, for example, ‘keep labiality’; and (iii) the same plural schema helps untrained singular-plural mappings more than it helps trained ones. This result is accounted for by proposing that schemas and paradigm-uniformity constraints clamor for candidate plural forms that obey them. Given that competition is between candidate outputs, the same schema provides more help to candidates that violate strong paradigm-uniformity constraints and are therefore weak relative to competitor candidates. A computational model of schema extraction is proposed.

This article presents novel data from Uzbek, an under-investigated Turkic language, in support of two claims. The first claim is that, despite superficial appearances, Uzbek sluicing-like constructions are not instantiations of genuine sluicing at all. Instead, they are derived from two possible sources—copular clauses and clefts—by reduction strategies that are shown to be independently available in Uzbek (subject drop and copula drop). This result supports a prediction of Merchant's (2001) theory of sluicing: languages with no left-peripheral WH-movement or focus-movement strategy should not exhibit genuine sluicing. The second claim is that Uzbek cleft structures (which may give rise to the sluicing-like construction under reduction) can be subdivided into two types, corresponding to two prominent lines of analysis in preexisting explorations of clefts (descending from Jespersen 1927 and Jespersen 1937). The results support Pinkham and Hankamer's (1975) claim that both analyses may be applicable to subtly distinct structures within one language.

This article investigates the nature of predication of so-called subject-oriented adverbs in English. It is noted that there are both conceptual and empirical issues to be addressed. On the conceptual side, there is no consensus in previous studies on what exactly the notion of subject is for these adverbs and why these adverbs have an orientation to the subject. On the empirical side, there are circumstances in which some of the adverbs seem to be construed with the object argument of the verb. This article focuses on these problems through an examination of the adverbs occurring in locative, passive, unaccusative, and resultative constructions. It is argued that when these adverbs seem to be associated with the object, they are predicated of a phonetically empty pronoun that occurs as the subject of a small clause, controlled by the object. Moreover, it is indicated that subject-oriented adverbs occurring in different positions across different constructions are all parasitically predicated of DPs that are introduced by a functional head in primary predication. Given the proposal made in recent studies that predication relationships between lexical categories and their external arguments in general are mediated by a functional head, it is claimed that subject-oriented adverbs also need to be supported by such a head to be associated with DPs. Thus, it is concluded that the notion of subject for these adverbs and their orientation are derived from the general theory of predication.

There has been a recent spate of work on recursion as a central design feature of language. This short report points out that there is little evidence that unlimited recursion, understood as center-embedding, is typical of natural language syntax. Nevertheless, embedded pragmatic construals seem available in every language. Further, much deeper center-embedding can be found in dialogue or conversation structure than can be found in syntax. Existing accounts for the ‘performance’ limitations on center-embedding are thus thrown into doubt. Dialogue materials suggest that center-embedding is perhaps a core part of the human interaction system, and is for some reason much more highly restricted in syntax than in other aspects of cognition.

Kin-enriched morphosyntax has emerged many times in distantly related Australian languages. An examination of language use in conversation reveals that this emergence can be explained in terms of convergent evolutionary pressures. All Australian Aboriginal societies have classificatory kinship, and all have taboos limiting the use of personal names. A conversational preference for avoiding restricted names (Levinson 2007) and preferences for achieving recognition and being succinct (Sacks & Schegloff 1979, Schegloff 1996) provide selection principles that assist speakers in choosing the most suitable expressions for the given occasions of reference. Because kin-based expressions are not names, but are nevertheless useful for securing recipients’ recognition of referents, they are regularly selected when names are unsuitable. Through repeated selection in conversation, the same preferences ultimately drive the diachronic development of kin-based morphosyntax. The Murrinh-Patha case study in this article presents the development of kin-based morphology through reanalysis. It then draws on fragments of face-to-face conversation exemplifying how conversational pressures bias the selection of kin-based structures. Finally, the micro- and macrocausal domains are linked through an ‘invisible hand’ explanation (Keller 1994).

We offer experimental data from Colloquial German that involve imperative morphology in speech reports and in the scope of WH-elements. We confirm two independent restrictions on these phenomena, whose statistical significance provides evidence for the existence of embedded imperatives in Colloquial German in general.

This discussion note compares several current linguistic theories: at the extreme ends of the current views are minimalist theories, which restrict themselves to the binary branching operations Move and Merge, and simpler syntax, which assumes flat structures and a surface-oriented mapping between syntactic structures and grammatical functions.

I show that purely surface-oriented theories have problems in accounting for the relatedness of syntactic and morphological structures and for the iteration of valence-changing processes, and I argue for a lexical analysis, as can be found in current minimalist theories, head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG), and categorial grammar. I furthermore show that the Chomskyan view on label computation is problematic for several reasons and should be given up in favor of explicit accounts like the one used in HPSG. I discuss problems for the analysis of complements and specifiers in minimalist theories with special focus on Stabler's minimalist grammars. I argue that once all problems are fixed, the resulting combinatorial rules are rather similar to what HPSG does.

As various proponents of more surface-oriented theories like construction grammar, simpler syntax, and HPSG have pointed out, two types of binary branching, headed rules are not sufficient to account for the entirety of language, which leads to the conclusion that both research directions are right to a certain extent: there is need for (constraint-based versions of) Move and Merge and there is need for special phrasal constructions.