An underspecification approach to Hausa resumption

Berthold Crysmann
{"title":"An underspecification approach to Hausa resumption","authors":"Berthold Crysmann","doi":"10.21248/hpsg.2016.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nWithin recent work on the treatment of resumption\nin HPSG, there is growing consensus that resumptive unbounded\ndependency constructions (=UDCs) should be modelled on a par with\ngap-type UDCs (Alotaibi and Borsley, 2013; Borsley, 2010; Crysmann,\n2012b; Taghvaipour, 2005), using a single feature for both types of\ndependencies, rather than separate features, as proposed by Vaillette\n(2001a,b). Yet, authors disagree as to where exactly in the grammar\nthe resumptive function of pronominals should be established: while\nCrysmann (2012b, 2015) advances an ambiguity approach that has\npronominal synsem objects being ambiguous between a resumptive and an\nordinary pronoun use, Borsley (2010); Alotaibi and Borsley (2013), by\ncontrast, treat all pronominals, resumptive or not, as ordinary\npronouns and effect their resumptive use by means of tailoring the\namalgamation principle to potentially include pronominal\nindices. While their decision provides a straightforward account of\nMcCloskey’s generalisation that resumptives always look like the\nordinary pronouns of the language, it fails to capture the difference\nin semantics between ordinary pronominal and resumptive uses. In this\npaper, I shall reexamine the evidence from Hausa and propose to\nsynthesise the approaches put forth by Alotaibi and Borsley (2013) and\nCrysmann (2012b), and propose that the potential for pronominal and\nresumptive function (including their difference w.r.t. semantics and\nnon-local features) is captured by means of underspecification, yet\nthe decision as to canonical vs. non-canonical use is made at the\nlevel of the governing head (Borsley, 2010; Alotaibi and Borsley,\n2013). I shall argue that this division of labour is sufficient to\nderive the correct gap-like semantics for resumptives, maintains\nstandard deterministic amalgamation, and, finally, provides an answer\nto McCloskey’s generalisation.","PeriodicalId":388937,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2016.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Within recent work on the treatment of resumption in HPSG, there is growing consensus that resumptive unbounded dependency constructions (=UDCs) should be modelled on a par with gap-type UDCs (Alotaibi and Borsley, 2013; Borsley, 2010; Crysmann, 2012b; Taghvaipour, 2005), using a single feature for both types of dependencies, rather than separate features, as proposed by Vaillette (2001a,b). Yet, authors disagree as to where exactly in the grammar the resumptive function of pronominals should be established: while Crysmann (2012b, 2015) advances an ambiguity approach that has pronominal synsem objects being ambiguous between a resumptive and an ordinary pronoun use, Borsley (2010); Alotaibi and Borsley (2013), by contrast, treat all pronominals, resumptive or not, as ordinary pronouns and effect their resumptive use by means of tailoring the amalgamation principle to potentially include pronominal indices. While their decision provides a straightforward account of McCloskey’s generalisation that resumptives always look like the ordinary pronouns of the language, it fails to capture the difference in semantics between ordinary pronominal and resumptive uses. In this paper, I shall reexamine the evidence from Hausa and propose to synthesise the approaches put forth by Alotaibi and Borsley (2013) and Crysmann (2012b), and propose that the potential for pronominal and resumptive function (including their difference w.r.t. semantics and non-local features) is captured by means of underspecification, yet the decision as to canonical vs. non-canonical use is made at the level of the governing head (Borsley, 2010; Alotaibi and Borsley, 2013). I shall argue that this division of labour is sufficient to derive the correct gap-like semantics for resumptives, maintains standard deterministic amalgamation, and, finally, provides an answer to McCloskey’s generalisation.
对豪萨族恢复的不充分说明
在最近关于HPSG恢复治疗的工作中,越来越多的人认为恢复无界依赖结构(=UDCs)应该与间隙型UDCs一样建模(Alotaibi和Borsley, 2013;Borsley, 2010;Crysmann, 2012 b;Taghvaipour, 2005),对两种类型的依赖使用单个特征,而不是像Vaillette(2001a,b)所建议的那样使用单独的特征。然而,对于代词的还原功能应该在语法的哪个位置建立,作者们意见不一:而ecrysmann (2012b, 2015)提出了一种歧义方法,即代词系统对象在还原代词和非寻常代词使用之间是模糊的;Borsley (2010);相比之下,Alotaibi和Borsley(2013)将所有代词,无论是否恢复代词,都视为普通代词,并通过调整合并原则以潜在地包括代词索引来影响其恢复使用。虽然他们的决定为mccloskey的概括提供了一个直接的解释,即恢复代词总是看起来像语言中的普通代词,但它没有捕捉到普通代词和恢复代词使用之间的语义差异。在本文中,我将重新审视来自Hausa的证据,并建议综合Alotaibi和Borsley(2013)以及crysmann (2012b)提出的方法,并提出代词的假设功能(包括它们的w.r.t.语义和非局部特征的差异)的潜力是通过不规范的方式捕获的,但关于规范与非规范使用的决定是在管理负责人的层面上做出的(Borsley, 2010;Alotaibi and Borsley,2013)。我认为,这种分工足以为恢复词推导出正确的类间隙语义,维持标准的确定性合并,并最终为McCloskey的概括提供答案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信