{"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.