||Head mvt, conflation & compounding|
and denominal verbs
||Theta theory and minimalism|
verbs of motion
and double objects
||R. Folli||2003||Italian causatives|
and the EPP
|2003||Persian complex predicates|
||M. Amarillas||2003||Yaqui reduplication|
||R. Folli||2002||Flavors of v, verbs of consumption|
||E. Ritter||1998-2003||Pronominal feature geometry|
||R. Noyer||2000||Encyclopedia, l- vs f- morphemes|
||Thesis -- vP
||R. Noyer||1999||Distributed Morphology|
geometry and markedness
shift and nominalizations
'Want' and 'Have'
Harley, H. (2003) “"Wanting, having and getting: A note on Fodor and
Lepore 1998", To appear in Linguistic
A revised version of the paper of the same name below. The scope is now restricted to just the point about Fodor & Lepore’s analysis of want, with considerably more background discussion, and the broader proposal that want is a raising (semi)modal that always embeds PHAVE, even with infinitival complements, is reduced to a footnote, awaiting proper exposition in a larger paper. I’ve left the older version up, below, though, so really interested people can get the general idea.
Harley, Heidi (2002) "Wanting, having and getting: A note on Fodor and Lepore 1998", ms. University of Arizona.
This paper examines the 'covert have' semantics for "want NP" proposed in Fodor and Lepore 1998, revisits some evidence for such an approach first adduced in the 1970s and earlier, and introduces some new evidence based on the syntactic and semantic behavior of the verbs "want", "have" and "get". The conclusion is that Fodor and Lepore can't get away with proposing that the English verb "have" is introduced in the semantic component by a rule of construal attached to "want"; rather, a covert prepositional element HAVE must be present as the complement to "want" in the syntax which entails a certain set of syntactic and semantic consequences conditioned by the nature of the complement. Finally, the syntactic treatment is compared to that of Larson, DenDikken and Ludlow (to appear), and some arguments which unfavorably compare their account to the analysis presented here are given.
English Morphology textbook
Harley, H. (2003) “A Linguistic Introduction to English Words,” Textbook under (endless) development, under contract with Blackwell.
Most of this is now fit for public consumption; I’ll repost as it's revised. It’s intended for a linguistically naive audience, and introduces the IPA and other intro-ling material as needed. It covers/will attempt to cover just about all the aspects of words that are of significant linguistic interest: their phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics, psychological representation, history, and use; even a chapter on dictionaries and orthography, if all goes as planned. It’s material that I use in teaching an upper-division crosslisted English/Linguistics course with no prerequiste. You’re welcome to examine and use these chapters until Blackwell has the final manuscript in hand; if you do use them, please let me know. Comments and suggestions very welcome, especially problem sets suitable for each chapter.
Harley, H. (2003) “Why is it the CIA but not *the NASA? Acronyms, abbreviations and definite descriptions.” ms, University of Arizona.
A somewhat silly little paper reporting on an observation about a difference between initialisms and acronyms in English syntax: when they’re derived from definite descriptions, acronyms become proper names, but initialisms don’t (it’s ‘NASA’, not ‘the NASA’, and it’s ‘the F-B-I’, not ‘F-B-I’). I’m most pleased with the observation that a large class of exceptions to this rule (university and television station initialisms, which don’t retain the determiner) fall under the more general rules about when you can have a bare N in English: “I’m going to school”; “I’m watching television”. LOTS of data.
Denominal verbs and aktionsart
Harley, H. (2003) ‘How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs,
Incorporation, and the ontology of verb roots in English,’ Paper
version of a 2001 talk at the Ben-Gurion University workshop on 'The
syntax of aspect'. It will appear in a 2005 OUP volume of the same name
edited by Tova Rapoport and Nomi Shir.
Harley, H. (1999) "Denominal verbs and aktionsart," in L. Pylkanen and A. van Hout, eds., Proceedings of the 2nd Penn/MIT Rountable on Event Structure, MITWPL: Cambridge
Abstract: A paper examining denominal verbs in English, proposing an interaction between the boundedness of the nominal root and the Aktionsart of the verb derived from it. Ultimately the paper argues for a restricted catalogue of possible root types, formed by the intersection of the semantic features [±bounded] and [±eventive]. (For most recent version, see “HarleyDenominalVerbs2003.pdf” above).
Harley, Heidi and Maria Amarillas (to appear) Reduplication multiplication: Meaning x form. In Luis M. Barragan and Jason Haugen, eds, Studies in Uto-Aztecan Linguistics, MITELF 5, Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 101-140
This paper first catalogues the different forms and meanings that reduplicative morphology exhibits in Hiaki, and demonstrates that there is no one-to-one relationship between the form a particular reduplicant takes and the meaning it conveys. Then the meanings of reduplication in Hiaki are considered in more detail. A sketch of reduplication's essentially pluralizing semantics is presented which predicts varying meaning possibilities depending on the interaction of reduplicaction with the semantics of the verb to which it applies. Finally, the morphological implications of reduplication within compounds is considered.
Conflation and 'phonological' head-movement
The written-up paper version of my NELS talk. I had room to include
everything except the discussion of the Canonical Use Constraint; to
get the gist of that see the handout from the NELS talk below.
Hopefully there will be a bigger, more complete paper version of this
written up soon that will do justice to the overly short discussion in
The handout from my NELS 34 talk, in November 2003 at SUNY Stony
Brook. The most explicit working-out of the Conflation-as-Head-Movement
idea, again with the application to compounding and this time extended
to deal with both re-affixation
and the Canonical Use Constraint on denominal verb formation of
Harley, Heidi (2002). "Why one head is better than two: Head movement and compounding as consequences of Merge in Bare Phrase Structure," A paper presented in the Arizona Linguistics Colloquium Series, Nov. 15, 2002.
This is another text-heavy handout for a talk outlining in some detail the story of head-movement in GB&beyond, and explaining why Bare Phrase Structure entails that head-movement must be a PF phenomenon. As in the 2002 Minimalist Theta Theory handout from the Maryland Mayfest (see below), the mechanism of label-copying proposed in Hale 2001, 2002 for conflation is extended to apply to head-movement in general, and it is shown how the Head Movement Constraint falls out from the mechanism proposed by Hale. Finally, this mechanism is exploited to treat synthetic compounding in English in the syntax, and Roeper and Siegel's 1978 First Sister Condition and Selkirk's 1982 First Order Projection Condition are shown to be derivable from the conflation mechanism as well.
Flavors of v, verbs of consumption
Folli, Raffaella and Heidi Harley (2002) Consuming results in Italian and English: flavors of v. A paper presented at the NSF Workshop on Aspect at the University of Iowa, May. 24, 2002. To appear in a Kluwer volume edited by Paula Kempchinsky and Roumyana Slabakova.
This paper points out a new paradigm of alternations with consumption verbs that is ultimately tied to the animacy or intentionality of the subject. When the subject of a verb of consumption is necessarily non-intentional -- when it's a Cause, rather than an Agent -- the verb must appear in a resultative frame. We attribute this effect to the selectional properties of vCAUS, which differ from that of vDO.
Theta-theory and minimalism
Harley, H. (2002) A minimal(ish) linking theory. Handout for a talk presented at the Maryland Minimalist Mayfest, May 16, 2002.
This is a text-heavy handout for a talk in which I present some of the fundamental motivation for a Hale and Keyser-style approach to argument structure, extend H&K's conflation proposal to English verbal compounds and head movement, and show why three reasons for not analysing "kill" as "cause to die" aren't reasons for not analysing "kill" as "make dead".
Pronominal feature geometry
Harley, H and Elizabeth Ritter (to appear) A feature-geometric analysis of person and number. To appear in Language, 78.3
This is an updated version of the GLOW Harley and Ritter 1998 ms.,
and including additional evidence, including a typology of
systems and a survey of the acquisition literature. See below as well
for papers treating specific subparts of this paper at greater length
(the CLA paper treats acquisition, and the Marburg paper treats 'syou',
Hanson, R., H. Harley and E. Ritter (2000), "Underspecification and Universal Defaults for Person and Number Features," in Proceedings of the 2000 Meeting of the Canadian Lingusitics Association, University of Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.
Harley, H. and E. Ritter (forthcoming), "Structuring the bundle: A universal morphsyntactic feature geometry," to appear in H. Simon and H. Weise, eds., Elsevier Press.
Harley, H. (2001), "WCO, ACD and QR of DPs". Accepted for publication, Linguistic Inquiry
A new piece of evidence arising from the interaction of ACD and WCO that ACD repairing-movement is A-bar movement at LF, not case-checking movement.
Irish, PRO and the EPP
Harley, H. (2000), "PRO, the EPP and Irish," Ms., University of Arizona
Abstract: A paper arguing that PRO receives abstract/structural case just like overt DPs, and that the feature which controls the distribution of PRO in finite/non-finite clauses is the EPP, rather than Case. Data from Irish, Icelandic and English.
and Double Objects
Harley, H. (2002) "Possession and the double object construction,"
to appear in the second volume of the Yearbook of Linguistic Variation,
by Pierre Pica and Johan Rooryck. (See below for earlier WCCFL version)
Abstract: This paper argues that double-object verbs decompose into
an external-argument-selecting CAUSE predicate (vCAUSE) and
prepositional element, PHAVE. Two primary types of argument
presented. First, a consideration of the well-known Oerhle’s
effects in English motivate such a decomposition, in combination with a
consideration of idioms in ditransitive structures. These facts
strongly against a Transform approach to the dative alternation, like
that of ,
and point towards an Alternative Projection approach, similar in many
that of . Second, the PHAVE prepositional element is
the prepositional component of verbal have,
treated in the literature by . Languages without PHAVE do
possessors to c-command possessees, and show no evidence of a
construction, in which Goals c-command Themes. On the current account,
two facts receive the same explanation: PHAVE does not form
the inventory of morphosyntactic primitives of these languages.
Harley, H. (1996) "If You Have, You Can Give", in Proceedings of WCCFL XV, CSLI, Stanford, CA.
Abstract: This paper argues that the possibility of double-object
constructions in a language is dependent upon the presence of an
morpheme; if a language does not have HAVE, there can be no double-object
construction. A more elaborated
presentation of this thesis is found in the ms. above, "Possession and
double object construction." (Also see my thesis).
Harley, H. (2000) "Tough-movement is even tougher than we thought," Snippets 2
Abstract: A short argument based on proper binding condition effects
tough-constructions don't involve any movement (as if another one was
needed). Note that post-hoc, I found out that the argument had been
independently made much earlier by (I think!) Michiya Kawai, in his
1992 UConn dissertation. (If it wasn't Michiya Kawai, I really
apologize -- I deleted our correspondence about it and so may be
misremembering! Please write to correct me if so!) In any case, if
anyone wants to cite this argument, the earlier source should have
priority, of course...
Encyclopedia, l- vs. f-morphemes
Harley, H. and Rolf Noyer (2000) "Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon", in Bert Peeters, ed., The Lexicon/Encyclopaedia Interface, 349-374, Amsterdam:Elsevier Press.
Abstract: An exploration of how syntactic and semantic selectional
restrictions can be handled in a Late Lexical Insertion framework like
Harley, H. and Rolf Noyer (1999) "State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology", Glot International 4.4, 3-9
Abstract: An overview of the positions of Distributed Morphology, treating lexical insertion, word-internal structure, the theoretical status of paradigms and Encyclopedic knowledge, morphological processes, etc.
Particle Shift and nominalizations
Harley, H. and R. Noyer (1998) "Mixed nominalizations, object shift and short verb movement in English," in Proceedings of NELS 28, University of Massachusetts at Amherst:GLSA
Abstract: This paper argues that particle shift in English is
overt movement of the object to a vP-internal case-marking position,
argument rests crucially on comparing the behavior of the objects of
verbs in true nominalization constructions in -ing with those same objects in gerundive
with -ing; in the
AgrO superstructure is lacking, resulting in the failure of particle
while the latter includes the AgrO projection and hence permits
(Causative) Have and logophors
Harley, H. (1998) "You're having me on: Aspects of have", in J. Guéron and A. Zribi- Hertz, eds., La grammaire de la possession, pp. 195-226. Paris: Université Paris X - Nanterre.
Abstract: A survey and treatment of different types of clausal complements to have, arguing that the status of the whole have construction with respect to eventiveness depends upon the status of its complement. Hence, eventive nominal complements to have produce eventive readings (have a party), as do eventive clausal complements (have someone go to the store), but stative clausal complements (have Sue in a tizzy) produce a stative reading. Complements headed by the passive participle are ambiguous.
Harley, H. (1997) "Logophors, variable binding and the interpretation of have," Lingua 102, 75-84
Abstract: A treatment of the causative and experiencer readings of the verb have in English that draws heavily on evidence from logophoric reflexives and Reinhart and Reuland's Reflexivity theory of binding.
Harley, H. (1996) "Sase bizarre: the Japanese causative and structural case," In P. Koskinen, (ed.) Proceedings of the 1995 Canadian Linguistics Society meeting, University of Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics
Abstract: A unified treatment of the Japanese causative morpheme sase, arguing that in each of its three
environments (lexical, direct, and indirect) it is simply the default
realization of a syntactic vCAUSE head. Differences in
interpretation arise from context. (Note that this analysis, which is
the one that appears in my thesis, supersedes the one in the MITWPL
Harley H. (1995) "Abstracting away from abstract case". In Proceedings of NELS 25, Graduate Linguistics Students' Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Abstract: The framework for case assignment assumed in two
manuscripts above, "PRO, the EPP and
Irish", and "On obligatory obligation". This paper argues that
structural cases are assigned based on a
prinicple rather than tied to particular syntactic positions. It is
the syntactic properties of nominative objects in Icelandic demonstrate
there is no necessary connection between structural nominative case and
Tense. (Also see my thesis)
Feature geometry and markedness
Harley, H. "Hug A Tree: Deriving the Morphosyntactic Feature Hierarchy," in MITWPL 21, Papers on Phonology and Morphology.
Thesis: vP and Case
Harley H. (1995) Subjects, Events and Licensing, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Abstract: While the notion of "subject" as a primitive of grammar is in some way encoded in most modern syntactic theories, the cluster of syntactic properties attributed to subjects is not a homogenous one. This thesis aims to precisely characterize certain of these properties, partially through an investigation of constructions where they fail to converge.
Two of these properties are of particular interest. First, the structural properties associated with "external arguments" are examined, that is, the question of where thematic subjects (as opposed to clausal subjects) are base-generated. Drawing on evidence from Japanese lexical causatives, a "split-VP" structure is argued for, in which external arguments (Agents, Causers) are generated in the specifier of a projection which marks the introduction of an event argument (hence termed EventP). Below EventP are case-checking positions for underlying objects and indirect objects (internal arguments) as well as the projection in which internal arguments are base-generated ("BaseP"). "Verbs" on this approach consist of a "Base" head in combination with an "Event" head, and the decomposition of verbal meaning into "primitives" such as CAUSE, HAVE or BE is assumed. In support, a correlation is drawn between the existence of the predicate "have" in a language and the possibility of a double object/double complement alternation, adducing evidence from Irish, Tagalog and Diné, as well as Japanese, Georgian and English.
Secondly, the question of morphological nominative case is considered. Nominative marking on an NP is typically taken to be an indicator of subjecthood, nonetheless, there are constructions in which a nominative-marked argument appears to be in object position. Such nominative objects in Icelandic are examined in detail, and a mechanism for assigning morphological case is proposed which modifies standard assumptions about the strict connection of morphological case with structural position. Given such modification, the question of NP-licensing is re-examined, with an eye to dispensing with abstract case entirely; the apparent effects of abstract case assignment (and, incidentally, Buzio’s Generalization) are seen to be the result of the interaction of the mechanism governing morphological case assignment with the Extended Projection Principle.