Cognitive Science Program

Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax (1995)

Steven Franks
Oxford University Press on Demand.

Abstract

Focusing on issues of case theory and comparative grammar, this study treats selected problems in the syntax of the Slavic languages from the perspective of Government-Binding theory. Steven Franks seeks to develop parametric solutions to related constructions among the various Slavic languages. A model of case based loosely on Jakobson's feature system is adapted to a variety of comparative problems in Slavic, including across-the-board constructions, quantification, secondary predication, null subject phenomena, and voice. Solutions considered make use of recent approaches to phrase structure, including the VP-internal subject hypothesis and the DP hypothesis. The book will serve admirably as an introduction to GB theory for Slavic linguists as well as to the range of problems posed by Slavic for general syntacticians.

A handbook of Slavic clitics (2000)
Steven Franks and Tracy Holloway King
Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax.

Abstract

Clitics are grammatical elements that are treated as independent words in syntax but form a phonological unit with the word that precedes or follows it. This volume brings together the facts about clitics in the Slavic languages, where they have become a focal points of recent research. The authors draw relevant generalizations across the Slavic languages and highlight the importance of these phenomena for linguistic theory.

Clitics in slavic (1998)
Steven Franks

Abstract

The topic of Slavic clitics is a traditional one which has inspired considerable interest and excitement over the past few decades. 1 As has been evident since the earliest work on clitics in the transformational-generative paradigm, such as Perlmutter (1971) or Kayne (1975), these little words can pose an especially large problem for strictly modular theories of grammar. The reason is that they seem to have special properties at multiple levels of representation—the by no means exhaustive list in Sadock (1991: 52) includes phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and the lexicon (although this last is technically speaking simply the repository of all idiosyncratic information from the first four categories). This suggests that any definition of “clitic” may have to encompass more than one subsystem of the grammar, a situation which has never been countenanced in Chomskyan models, including the most recent “Minimalist” program of Chomsky (1995). 2 For this reason, linguists of all ilks have been attracted to the study of Slavic clitics, seeing in them grist for their own mills. Phonologists and syntacticians alike have each been arguing for the primacy of phonological and syntactic processes at work in putting clitics in the right place. Morphologists as well have gotten into the act, claiming that morphological mechanisms provide the best way for us to understand why clitics behave as they do. The debate typically centers around the issue of whether special clitic positioning in Slavic can be handled exclusively through the exploitation of familiar syntactic categories and movement mechanisms or whether some special postsyntactic* This publication …

Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic (1994)
Steven Franks
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 12 (4), 597-674

Abstract

Numeral phrases in Russian display many unusual morphosyntactic properties, e.g., (i) the numeral sometimes assigns genitive (GEN-Q) to the following noun and sometimes agrees with it and (ii) the numeral phrase sometimes induces subject-verb agreement and sometimes does not. In this paper existing analyses of these properties are parametrized to accommodate related phenomena in other Slavic languages. First, Babby's (1987) proposal that GEN-Q is structural in Russian is shown not to extend to Serbo-Croatian, where it must be analyzed as inherent. Second, Pesetsky's (1982) idea that Russian numeral phrases may be either QPs or NPs also does not extend to Serbo-Croatian, where these are only NPs. This set of assumptions explains a range of seemingly unrelated facts about the behavior of numeral phrases in the two languages. Pesetsky's analysis is recast in terms of more recent …

On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics (1994)
Steven Franks and Ljiljana Progovac
Indiana Linguistic Studies, 7 69-78

Abstract

In this paper we argue that Serbo-Croatian (SC) clitic placement is achieved exclusively through the operation of syntactic movement rules, and that no appeal to phonological movement processes is necessary. Our claims are in the spirit of the analysis put forward in several recent works by Cavar and Wilder (1994, to appear; Wilder and Cavar to appear), many of whose conclusions independently coincide with our own. We demonstrate that any approach to Serbo-Croatian clitics that invokes specifically phonological processes to position clitics—such as the Prosodic Inversion (PI) account proposed in Halpern 1992 and more recently extended by Percus (1993) and Schutze (1994)—is both empirically inadequate and misses important syntactic generalizations. Our basic analysis of the familiar" clitic second" phenomenon can be expressed as follows:(1) a. Clitics in Serbo-Croatian right-adjoin to C; that is, the second position is C. b. The movement of clitics to C is syntactic head movement. c." First position" elements that support clitics move to or are generated in either: i. specifier position of CP (for XP) or ii. head position of CP (for X). d. V is the only head that can move to C to support clitics.In section 2 we summarize some of the evidence in favor of (1), drawing on Progovac (to appear) and referring the reader to Cavar and Wilder's work for further support. Section 3 addresses the problematic" split PP" construction, typically cited by proponents of PI as the chief stumbling block for purely syntactic accounts. Section 4 introduces further facts which show that clitic placement is sensitive to subtle syntactic criteria and which defy a phonological …

Across‐the‐board movement and LF (2000)
Željko Bošović and Steven Franks
Syntax, 3 (2), 107-128

Abstract

This paper investigates the status of across‐the‐board (ATB) dependencies in Logical Form (LF), taking the standard ATB movement analysis as the point of departure. It is argued that, although both overt and covert wh‐movement are subject to the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC), only overt ATB movement can save possible CSC violations. This observation implies that there are no LF ATB dependencies at all—an unexpected result under the ATB movement analysis of the ATB construction. The conclusion is further supported by facts of Quantifier Raising and scope, as well as head movement. The paper then examines other approaches to the ATB construction, and argues that the null‐operator analysis is able to capture the lack of LF ATB dependencies in a more principled way than alternative analyses. The paper also provides evidence for the existence of QR and LF wh‐movement in English and …

Clitics at the interface (2000)
Steven Franks
Clitic phenomena in European languages, ed. F. Beukema & M. den Dikken, 1-46

Abstract

Surveying the contributions in this volume, with a special emphasis on problems in South Slavic special clitic placement, this paper addresses the interaction of syntax with morphology and phonology, and proposes a variety of carefully detailed specific solutions. Clitics are treated as functional heads, consisting exclusively of formal features, these being pied-piped along with the verb’s formal features under feature-checking verb movement. The paper proposes an interface approach, having principles of Optimality Theory mediate the mapping between components, and supporting a division of labour between OT and rule-based systems.* I have been investigating Slavic clitics since 1994, and my thinking about them has evolved considerably over the years. I took a strictly syntactic approach in Franks and Progovac (1994) and tried to adhere to it also in Franks (1997). More recently I have come to the perspective adumbrated in the present paper, that an Optimality Theoretic approach can be exploited to resolve syntactically licit constructions in ways more acceptable to the phonology and morphology. Other works which express this perspective within a larger context, although at earlier stages of conceptualization, are Franks (1998) and Franks and King (in press). The specific mechanisms proposed here for implementing the second position phenomenon, however, are not described elsewhere, although they have been partially reported in a series of recent talks. My approach has been largely inspired by Progovac (1998), has profited from numerous discussions with Ljiljana Progovac, and was in one instantiation presented as Franks and …

Secondary predication in Russian and proper government of PRO (1992)
Steven Franks and Norbert Hornstein
Springer, Dordrecht. Jan-50

Abstract

PRO raises three basic questions for the theory of grammar: <ol class="gsh_l"> <li> (1)(a) Where can PRO appear? </li> <li> (b) How is PRO interpreted? </li> <li> (c) How is PRO to be distinguished from the other empty categories (ec) viz. NP-t(race) and WH-t(race). </li> </ol>

Asymmetries in the scope of Russian negation (1995)
Sue Brown and Steven Franks
Journal of Slavic linguistics, 239-287

Abstract

Russian ni-phrase Negative Polarity Items and the Genitive of Negation are not coextensive: the former must be in the scope of negation while the latter is restricted to direct objects, but does not show the scope requirement. These distributional asymmetries can be understood in terms of a functional category NegP analysis of sentential negation, where the negation operator resides in [Spec, NegP] and ne is its head. Several phenomena, including Negative Polarity Items, Relativized Minimality, and partitive genitives, are sensitive to the operator. Genitive of Negation, on the other hand, only requires there to be a NegP and for this reason can even occur in pleonastic contexts. Pleonastic negation, which we analyze as NegP with no negation operator, is canonically selected by certain verbs and adverbials, but is also syntactically forced in Yes/No questions with V-to-C raising.

On parallelism in across-the-board dependencies (1993)
Steven Franks
Linguistic Inquiry, 24 (3), 509-529

Abstract

The syncretic form of the relative pronoun ktorego in (2) is able to satisfy the case requirements of the verb in both conjuncts, serving as accusative with respect to lubi and genitive with respect to nienawidzi. Similarly,(3) is acceptable because the feminine singular relative pronoun ktorej is ambiguously genitive or dative.(3) dziewczyna, ktorej Janek nigdy przedtem nie widzial ea girl who (GEN-DAT) Janek (NoM) never before not saw and dsisiaj po2yczyl pieniedzy e, today lent money'the girl who Janek never saw before and today lent money to'In (3) the negated verb nie widzial'not saw'requires its object to be in the genitive, whereas the indirect object of pozyczyl'lent'must be in the dative. 2 From these facts I conclude, along with Dyla, that it is a form's actual instantiation, rather than its morphological case per se, that is relevant in licensing ATB dependencies. It is thus necessary somehow to distinguish an item's" …

Functional categories in the nominal domain (2004)
Steven Franks and Asya Pereltsvaig
Proceedings of FASL, 12 109-128

Abstract

A central debate in the study of phrase structure concerns the nature of functional projections which dominate lexical ones. At one extreme is the position, advocated by Cinque (1999, 2002), that grammars employ a universal set of functional categories and that their number and relative order is the same across languages, regardless of properties of the lexical head. At the other extreme is the weaker position, adopted among others by Grimshaw (1994) and Bošković (1997), that only independently motivated phrase structure is projected, with considerable disagreement about what constitutes appropriate “motivation”. While the literature is overwhelmingly concerned with resolving this issue with respect to clausal structure (ie, the extended projection of the verb), here we consider nominal structure and argue for the weaker position. We conclude that not all potential functional categories of the extended projection of the noun are realized in all structures.

Case and word order in Lithuanian (2006)
Steven Franks and James E Lavine
Journal of Linguistics, 42 (2), 239-288

Abstract

This paper examines the unusual case and word order behavior of objects of infinitives in Lithuanian. In addition to lexically determined case idiosyncrasy, Lithuanian exhibits syntactically determined case idiosyncrasy: with infinitives in three distinct constructions, case possibilities other than accusative obtain. These cases (dative, genitive, and nominative) depend on the general clause structure rather than on the particular infinitive. Moreover, unlike ordinary direct objects, these objects appear in a position preceding rather than following the verb. It is argued that they move to this position in order potentially to be accessible for Case assignment by some higher Case-assigning head. In this way we unify the two superficially unrelated properties of non-canonical word order and Case. This movement, however, is not feature-driven in the sense of standard minimalist Case-licensing mechanisms. We characterize it …

Bulgarian clitics as Kº heads (2005)
Steven Franks and Catherine Rudin
Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, 13 104-116

Abstract

In this paper we sketch an analysis of Bulgarian (Bg) pronominal clitics as heads of K (ase) P, one of whose merits is that it provides an explanation for the obligatoriness of Clitic Doubling (CD) in certain constructions. The paper starts with a sketch of the proposal, followed in Section 2 by a summary of the facts of CD in Bg. Section 3 raises some questions which any analysis of Bg clitics must confront: Are clitics arguments? Are they in specifier or head positions? How is their linear order achieved? What accounts for CD? Section 4 presents our analysis. We start from Bošković’s (2002) answers to some of these questions, which we adopt in part; we develop an account whereby the clitic and its associate (the doubling DP) are merged as a unit; and we argue that realization of the clitic head results from movement of the associate DP out of its containing KP, accounting in this way for CD. 1 In the final part, we discuss various consequences of the proposed system, including how the analysis derives the correct clitic order.Our analysis allows some latitude in the maximal functional projection dominating nominal expressions. These may have features for case and referentiality, but whether such features are realized on KP or DP is a matter of morphology. Pronominal clitics in Slavic instantiate K0 and in Romance they instantiate D0. 2 The

An argument for multiple spell-out (2001)
Steven Franks and Željko Bošković
Linguistic inquiry, 32 (1), 174-183

Abstract

The authors wish to thank Samuel Epstein and an anonymous Linguistic Inquiry reviewer for helpful comments. The material in this squib was presented in various forums, with much useful feedback. We are grateful to the participants of Formal Approaches to South Slavic and Balkan Linguistics 3, which took place in September 1999 in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, and to IREX for providing us with travel support to attend this meeting. Versions of this squib were also presented at colloquia at Cornell University, Northwestern University, and the University of Paris VIII, as well as at our home institutions of Indiana University and the University of Connecticut. We thank all the audiences for their questions and suggestions.

The syntax of adverbial participles in Russian revisited (1998)
Leonard Babby and Steven Franks
The Slavic and East European Journal, 42 (3), 483-516

Abstract

1.0 Introduction We were motivated to return to the morphosyntax of adverbial participles in Russian at this time for two reasons. First, new Russian data have come to light whose diagnostic potential was not recognized in earlier work (see section 4.2). Second, Williams' 1994 theory of theta roles, predication, and binding enables us to propose an analysis of the syntax of adverbial participles that is truly" minimal" since it makes it possible to replace empirically unmotivated underlying syntactic structures with simpler, more explanatory ones. We argue that the combination of Williams' theory of vertical binding and the data involving the case agreement of contrastive sam and odin in adverbial participle phrases makes an important contribu-tion to our understanding of the structures and rules involved in the deriva-tion and control of nonfinite verbal categories. However, we do not claim to have accounted for all the …