ISSN 1590-1807
snippetsjournal@gmail.com
1. Luka Crnic – Projection of supplements in alternatives
doi: 10.7358/snip-2012-026-crni
2. Michael Erlewine – Structurally distant haplology
doi: 10.7358/snip-2012-026-erle
3. Natalia Fitzgibbons – Pied-pipe your preposition and strand it too
doi: 10.7358/snip-2012-026-fitz
4. Michael Frazier and Masaya Yoshida – Remarks on gapping in ASL
doi: 10.7358/snip-2012-026-fraz
5. Sumiyo Nishiguchi – Shifty operators in Dhaasanac
doi: 10.7358/snip-2012-026-nish
6. Jacopo Romoli – Strong NPIs and Neg-raising desire predicates
doi: 10.7358/snip-2012-026-romo
7. Philippe Schlenker – Informativity-based maximality conditions
doi: 10.7358/snip-2012-026-schl
1. Matthew Barros – Sluiced fragment answers: another puzzle involving islands and ellipsis
2. Feng-shi Liu – Change of state and change of location verbs in Chinese
3. Joanna Nykiel – Sprouting tolerates preposition omission
4. Jacopo Romoli – Obligatory scalar implicatures and relevance
5. Uli Sauerland – Where does the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis apply?
6. Philippe Schlenker – Complement anaphora and structural iconicity in ASL
7. Daniel Siddiqi and Andrew Carnie – The English modal had
8. Benjamin Spector – Being simultaneously an NPI and a PPI
1. Theresa Biberauer and Johan Oosthuizen – More unbearably light elements? Silent verbs demanding overt complementizers in Afrikaans
2. Alex Drummond – The ban on rightward P-stranding is a global constraint
3. Giorgio Magri – The plurality inference of object mass nouns
4. Jacopo Romoli – Presupposition wipe-out can’t be all or nothing: a note on conflicting presuppositions
5. Philippe Schlenker – Generalized bishop sentences
6. Carson Schütze – There does not undergo predicate inversion
7. Michelle Sheehan – A note on case assignment to CP
8. Gary Thoms – P-stranding diagnoses A’-movement in tough constructions
9. Honglei Wang, David Potter and Masaya Yoshida – Cross-conjunct binding in nominal gapping
1. Jason Kandybowicz and Harold Torrence – How why is different: wh-in-situ in
Krachi
2. Hideki Kishimoto – Empty verb support as a morphological adjustment rule
3. Timothy Leffel – English proximal/distal non-deictic demonstratives align with
hearer-new/hearer-old information status
4. Joan Mascaró – The realization of features in asymmetric agreement in DPs
5. Philippe Schlenker – Singular pronouns with split antecedents
6. Daniel Siddiqi – The English intensifier ass
7. Christos Vlachos – Sluicing and relatives
1. Galia Hatav – States and embedded tense interpretation in non-SOT languages
A modification of the “Hey, Wait a Minute” test
Complementizer deletion in Kansai Japanese revisited:
a prosodic account
A phonological condition that targets
discontinuous syntactic units:
ma/mon suppletion in French.
atical subjects in John Updike’s Rabbit, Run
1. Teresa Biberauer and Roberta d’Alessandro On the role of gemination in passives: the case of
Abruzzese
2. Andrew Ryan Dowd More on instrumental denominal verbs
An argument for the existence of null DPs
Does English resumption really fail to repair island
violations?
5Yosuke Sato Evidence for the bimorphemic analysis of ‘everything’ from relative clauses
Yosuke Sato Nominative case without Tense in the Niigata dialect of Japanese
7. Christos Vlachos Merchant says that Max Elide works for instances of wh-movement followed by VP deletion but it’s not clear how or how it does
1. Bridget Copley and Heidi Harley Futurates, directors and have-causatives
2. Xuan Di Predicate types in relative clauses and complementizer deletion
Evidence for covert syntax in complement coercion
4. Nancy Hedberg and Richard C. DeArmond On complements and adjuncts
5. Ken Hiraiwa Kakarimusubi in Okinawan and its microparametric implications
Telicity inPersian complex predicates
7. Andrea Moro Rethinking symmetry: a note on labeling and the EPP
Here there is an ambiguity: two readings for the sequence
here/there-P in Italian
9. Emilio Servidio A puzzle on auxiliary omission and focalization in English: evidence for
cartographd
1. Maximiliano Guimarães A note on the strong generative capacity of standard Antisymmetry
2. Justin Kelly Yet as a negative perfect marker in English
The interaction of Right Node Raising and extraposition
4. Eric McCready Expressive content and logophoricity
5. Nagarajan Selvanathan and Chonghyuck Kim The anaphor agreement effect in Tamil
Proxy counterfactuals
7. Ed Zoerner A partial antecedent
1. Marco Nicolis On the case marking of PRO in Italian
2. Dorian Roehrs High floating quantifiers: syntactic or ‘delayed V2?
Case-stranding nominal ellipsis in Japanese: a preliminary sketch
4. Michael Wagner And, or and Ø
1. Elissa Flagg Questioning
innovative quotatives
2. Thomas Graf Agreement
with hybrid nouns in Icelandic
Are there really
two different classes of instrumental denominal verbs in English?
4. Mikko Kupula A visible
trace of movement?
5. Go Mizumoto On the
relationship between children's working memory capacity and their use of
contextual information in sentence comprehension
6. Eva Monrós A neglected
foundation for the distinction between inherent and structural case: ergative
as an inherent case
7. Yosuke Sato P-stranding
generalization and Bahasa Indonesia: a myth?
8. A
note on stress in intransitives in English
9. Hedde Zeijlstra Zero licensers
1. Emmanuel
Chemla French
both: a gap in the theory of antipresupposition
2.
Uli Sauerland German
plural negatives with Plural-Individual-Level Predicates
3.
Stephanie Solt Few
and fewer
4.
Rachel Szekely On the
non-unified interpretation of bare plurals in existential sentences
5.
Michiko Todokoro Buchanan Two types
of NPIs in Japanese
Case
marker drop beyond structure
2. Marie Labelle Biolinguistics,
the Minimalist Program, and psycholinguistic reality
3. Go Mizumoto Can
Japanese children postulate clause boundary by prosody?
4. Janneke ter Beek Particle
verbs trigger cluster formation
5. Susi Wurmbrand
1. Valentina Bianchi An asymmetry
between personal pronouns and other DPs
2. Amy Rose Deal Does English
have a genitive case?
3. Bernhard Schwarz Covert
reciprocity and Strawson-symmetry
4. Kazuko Yatsushiro and Uli Sauerland [Feminine]
in a high position
1. David Adger Focused
responses
2. Faye Chalcraft Right
Node Raising as ellipsis: evidence from (what the) British do.
3. Lawrence Y.-L. Cheung On certain
(non-)violations of Coordinate Structure Constraints
4. Feng-hsi Liu Event
measures in Chinese
5. Julia Staffel Binding
of reflexive pronouns in German
1. Gabi Danon Quantification
over partitions
2. Elissa Flagg Not just
constituent negation 3. Sky Sang-Geun Lee Japanese/Korean
possessive verbal nouns as inherently intensional 4. Linton Wang and Eric McCready The indefiniteness
effect
1. Boban Arsenijevic Negative
concord in Serbo-Croat APs
2. Simona Herdan Who knows
the only reading of only ?
3. Martha McGinnis Painting
the wall red for a few hours: a reply to Glasbey (2003)
4. Jon Sprouse What doesn't
because select?
5.
Linton Wang, Brian Reese and Eric McCready The projection
problem of nominal appositive
1. Relative head surgery
2. So-called epistemic should
3. Affirmation and weak islands
4. "A team", definitely
5. Indefinites in subject position are positive polarity items
6. Not so tough: a response to Harley
7.
A peculiar restriction on the long-distance "anaphor" zibun in
Japanese
8. Roberto
Zamparelli
Every two days
1. A simultaneous perception of things: SOT in Russian
2. *So weird a baffling construction
3. Complex NPs, subjacency, and extraposition
4. Affected object unergatives
5. On the thickness of plurals
6. Gapping of copular be and [Spec, CP]
1. Against heterogeneous origins for n't and not
2. VP ellipsis and the position of adverbs
3. No head raising in light verb constructions
4. A gap in the interpretation
of embedded tense in Japanese
5. Definite NPs and telicity in Chinese
1. 2 x Singular ± Plural
2. A subject must scope
3. Secondary predication in
control sentences
4. The present tense is vacuous
5. Temporal versus non-temporal "when"
1. R. Amritavalli and Partha
Protim Sarma –
A case distinction between
unaccusative and unergative subjects in Assamese
2. Paolo Acquaviva and Mark Volpe
– Open-class
roots in closed-class contexts: a question for lexical insertion
3. Andrew Kehler
–
Another problem for syntactic (and semantic) theories of VP-ellipsis
4. Winfried Lechner
– Negative
islands in comparatives
5. Sky Lee
–
Telicity and VN-LV vs. VN-Acc-LV
6. Hans-Christian Schmitz and
Bernhard Schröder –
On focus and VP-deletion
7. Ed Zoerner and Brian Agbayani
– A
pseudogapping asymmetry
1. Yves-Ferdinand Bouvier
–
Some audible effects of a silent operator
2. Dirk
Bury –
German V3 and the origin
of adverbs
3. Uli Sauerland
– Intermediate cumulation
4. Gwangrak
Son –
Reflexives: a category defective in c-commanding ability
5. Mark
Volpe –
The causative alternation and Japanese unaccusative
1. Tanmoy Bhattacharya
– The puzzle of
Bangla Comp-internal clauses
2. Yoon
Chung – Against
the two types of tough gaps: a response to Jacobson
3. Felicia
Lee – Wh-
and Focus are not the same projection
4. Christopher
Potts – (Only)
some crossover effects repaired
5. Susi
Wurmbrand – Back
to the future
1. Yves-Ferdinand Bouvier –
How to passivize French causatives
2. Dirk
Bury – Effects of self-attachment and the status of functional projections
3. Heidi
Harley – Tough-movement is even tougher than we thought
4. Kerstin
Hoge – On subject-adverbial effects
5. Yoshi
Okamoto – Split antecedents à la movement
6. Henri
Presque – On predicting the future
1. David Gil – Rau Indonesian:
a VO language with internally-headed relative clauses
2. Ray Jackendoff
– Curiouser and curiouser
3. Pauline
Jacobson – Extraction out of tough
4. Winfried
Lechner – Bivalent coordination in German
5. Jeffrey
Lidz – A three-legged chicken
6. Ian Roberts
– Auxiliary reduction and negation reduction – a rough sketch
7. Uli Sauerland
– «How many» questions and pair-list situation
EDITORIAL
STATEMENT
1. Purpose
The aim of Snippets is to publish specific remarks that motivate research or that make theoretical points germane to current work. The ideal contribution is the ideal footnote: a side remark that taken on its own is not worth lengthy development but that needs to be said. One encounters many short comments of this kind in the literature of the seventies. We feel that there no longer is a forum for them. We want Snippets to help fill that gap.
2. Content
We will publish notes that contribute to the study of syntax and semantics in generative grammar. The notes are to be brief, self-contained and explicit. They may do any of the following things:
- point out an empirical phenomenon that goes against accepted generalizations or that shows that some aspect of a theory is problematic;
- point out unnoticed minimal pairs that fall outside the scope of any existing theory;
- point out an empirical phenomenon that confirms the predictions of a theory in an area where the theory has not been tested;
- explicitly describe technical inconsistencies in a theory or in a set of frequently adopted assumptions;
- explicitly describe unnoticed assumptions that underlie a theory or assumptions that a theory needs to be supplemented with in order to make desired predictions;
- call attention to little-known or forgotten literature in which issues of immediate relevance are discussed.
We also encourage submissions that connect psycholinguistic data to theoretical issues. A proposal for a pilot experiment in language acquisition or language processing could make for an excellent snippet.The earliest Linguistic Inquiry squibs exemplify the kind of note we would like to publish. Some of them posed unobserved puzzles. For instance, a squib by Postal and Ross in LI 1:1 ("A Problem of Adverb Preposing") noted that whether or not we can construe a sentence-initial temporal adverb with an embedded verb depends on the tense of the matrix verb. A squib by Perlmutter and Ross in LI 1:3 ("Relative Clauses with Split Antecedents"), challenging the prevailing analyses of coordination and extraposition, noted that conjoined clauses neither of which contain a plural noun phrase can appear next to an "extraposed" relative that can only describe groups. Other squibs drew attention to particular theoretical assumptions. For instance, a squib by Bresnan in LI 1:2 ("A Grammatical Fiction") outlined an alternative account of the derivation of sentences containing believe and force, and asked whether there were principled reasons for dismissing any of the underlying assumptions (among them that semantic interpretation is sensitive to details of a syntactic derivation). A squib by Zwicky in LI 1:2 ("Class Complements in Phonology") asked to what extent phonological rules refer to complements of classes. None of these squibs was more than a couple of paragraphs; all of them limited themselves to a precise question or observation.
3.
Submission details
Snippets is an electronic journal. We will solicit submissions twice a year. The submissions that we accept will be posted on the journal website approximately 3 months after each deadline, and all accepted submissions will remain permanently on the website. Snippets is intended as a service to the linguistics community. Consequently, authors are advised that, when they submit to Snippets, we understand them as allowing their submission to be reproduced if published. At the same time, the rights for the notes themselves will remain with the authors. As a result, citation of Snippets material will have to indicate the author's name and the specific source of the material. We will accept electronic submissions at the address snippetsjournal@gmail.com. Electronic submissions may take the form of (a) the text of an e-mail message, or (b) an attached file. The attached file should be a simple text file, a Word file (Mac or Windows), or a Rich Text Format (RTF) file. All submissions must state the name and affiliation of the author(s), and a (postal or electronic) return address. Submissions are to be a maximum of 500 words (including examples), with an additional half page allowed for diagrams, tables and references. Given that we envision the submissions themselves as footnotes, the submissions may not contain footnotes of their own. The ideal submission is one paragraph; a submission of five lines is perfectly acceptable. We will not consider abstracts.
4.
Editorial policy
Submissions will be reviewed by our editorial board, and review will be name-blind both ways. While we guarantee a response within 3 months of the submission deadline, we will only provide a yes/no response to the submitter. We will not request revisions (barring exceptional cases). We allow resubmission (once) of the same piece.
The works included in Snippets are the property of their authors and are used by permission. Readers must apply the same principles of fair use to the works in this electronic archive that they would to a printed archive. These works may be read online, downloaded and printed for personal use, copied and freely distributed, or the URL of Snippets included in another electronic document. Any reference to material included in Snippets must cite the author and the source. The texts may not be published commercially (in print or electronic form), edited, or otherwise altered without the permission of the author.
LINKS
The
Linguist List
visitors since 22nd June 2001