Temporal existential constructions in Romance

2001 ◽  
pp. 307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma Rigau
Keyword(s):  
Existential Constructions

scholarly journals Breton a-marking of (internal) verbal arguments: A result of language contact?

Linguistics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 745-766
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Stark ◽  
Paul Widmer
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Object Position ◽  
Relative Chronology ◽  
Celtic Languages ◽  
Potential Case ◽  
Existential Constructions ◽  
History Of ◽  
Internal Change ◽  
Pronominal System ◽  
Verbal Arguments

AbstractWe discuss a potential case of borrowing in this paper: Breton a- ‘of’, ‘from’ marking of (internal) verbal arguments, unique in Insular Celtic languages, and reminiscent of Gallo-Romance de/du- (and en-) arguments. Looking at potential Gallo-Romance parallels of three Middle Breton constructions analyzed in some detail (a with indefinite mass nominals in direct object position, a-marking of internal arguments under the scope of negation, a [allomorphs an(ez)-/ahan-] with personal pronouns for internal arguments, subjects (mainly of predicative constructions) and as expletive subjects of existential constructions), we demonstrate that even if there are some semantic parallels and one strong structural overlap (a and de under the scope of negation), the amount of divergences in morphology, syntax and semantics and the only partially fitting relative chronology of the different constructions do not allow to conclude with certainty that language-contact is an explanation of the Breton facts, which might have come into being also because of internal change (bound to restructuring of the pronominal system in Breton). More research is necessary to complete our knowledge of a-marking in Middle Breton and Modern Breton varieties and on the precise history of French en, in order to decide for one or the other explanation.

scholarly journals I Do Not Exist. Problems for Dynamic Semantics

2018 ◽  
pp. 393-414
Author(s):  
Eduardo García Ramírez
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Recent Proposal ◽  
Static Semantics ◽  
What Is Said ◽  
Existential Constructions ◽  
The Common

According to dynamic semantics, what is said by an utterance of a sentence is determined by how the common ground is affected by the acceptance of such utterance. It has been claimed that dynamic semantics offers an account of what is said by an utterance in a context that excels that of traditional static semantics. Assertions of negative existential constructions, of the form ‘X does not exist’, are a case in point. These assertions traditionally pose a problem for philosophers of language. A recent proposal, owed to Clapp (2008), argues that static semantics is unable to solve the problem and offers a dynamic semantics account that promises to succeed. In this paper I want to challenge this account and, more generally, the scope of the dynamic semantics framework. I will offer a counterexample, inspired by “answering machine” uses of indexical and demonstrative expressions, to show how dynamic semantics fails.  I conclude by considering the merits of both static and dynamic accounts.

scholarly journals Modal Existential Constructions in Modern Standard Arabic

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Ahmad Hamad Khatatneh
Keyword(s):  
Modern Standard Arabic ◽  
Standard Arabic ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Existential Constructions ◽  
Universal Properties ◽  
The One ◽  
Modern Standard

Modal existential wh-constructions can be associated with three different types of structures, namely, wh-constructions, existential constructions, and modal constructions, but also have their own unique features. Idiosyncratic though it may look, the structure is characterized cross-linguistically by several shared properties. In this paper, we aim to examine in detail the properties of these constructions in Modern Standard Arabic. We show that MECs in Modern Standard Arabic share the defining and universal properties found in MECs cross-linguistically. Furthermore, we find that MSA’s MECs differ in three tendencies, namely; the relative nature of the wh-word in MSA, syntactic transparency and sluicing confirming the assumption that a relativization strategy, as opposed to the interrogative strategy found in plenty of other languages, is the one available for MECs in Modern Standard Arabic. We argue that these differences are also related to the [Spec, FP] position occupied by the wh-word.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document