In Northern Iroquoian languages, a nominalizer (nlzr) is typically required to transform a verb into a noun, either for noun incorporation or to create a full DP. In some cases, the nominalizer is required only for noun incorporation and not for the formation of a DP. Interestingly, the converse is never found. That is, there are no lexical roots that require the nominalizer for the formation of a DP, but not for noun incorporation. With this asymmetry in mind, we examine the categorial properties of roots in Northern Iroquoian. We discuss three common theories of the categorization of roots: (i) the traditional theory, in which all roots are specified as nouns or verbs (or adjectives for languages that have this category), (ii) the Bare Root Hypothesis, in which all roots are acategorial, and (iii), the Roots as Nouns Hypothesis, in which all roots are nouns. We show that the Northern Iroquoian facts are not amenable to any of these theories. We propose instead that some roots in Northern Iroquoian are categorially specified (some as nouns, some as verbs), while others are truly bare.

Resumptive pronouns are produced in English in unguarded speech in restrictive relative clauses and appositive relative clauses. However, numerous studies have found that resumptive pronouns in restrictive relative clauses are not acceptable. To our knowledge, no studies have examined the acceptability of resumptive pronouns in appositive relative clauses, despite hints in the literature that they may be more acceptable in appositive than in restrictive relative clauses. This article fills that gap. We found that resumptive pronouns were rated as more natural in appositive relative clauses than in restrictive relative clauses. These findings may be due to which currently undergoing a reanalysis from a relative pronoun to a solely connective word, as has been suggested in the literature. A small-scale corpus search also reveals that appositive relative clauses with resumptive pronouns are increasing in American English.

This paper documents the existence of swiping – that is, inversion of a wh-phrase and its associated preposition under sluicing – in a non-Germanic language. We discuss swiping in a variety of Ontario French (Lafontaine French, LFF), which shares some of the characteristics of its extensively-studied English counterpart (Ross 1969, Merchant 2002, among others). We offer a preliminary description of swiping in LFF and consider some implications of these novel facts for the theory of swiping and sluicing. We suggest that LFF swiping supports an analysis in terms of non-constituent deletion, as originally suggested by Ross (1969) in his seminal work on sluicing.

This article aims to test whether the Theta System of Reinhart (1996, 2000, 2001, 2002) can account for the puzzles associated with psychological verbs in Polish. The first puzzle, called argument linking, relates to the mapping of the Experiencer onto a subject or an object position. The second puzzle, referred to as case linking, concerns the fact that Experiencers may be marked for different cases in the same sentence position. The analysis of Object Experiencer (OE)/Subject Experiencer (SE) alternations in Polish carried out in this article demonstrates that the predictions of the Theta System about Experiencer argument linking are borne out by the Polish data. SE alternants of eventive OE verbs in Polish show unergative properties, which directly follows from the mechanisms of the Theta System. However, the Theta System faces problems when confronted with dyadic OE verbs with dative Experiencers. The model predicts that dative Experiencers are merged internally, as a part of an unaccusative structure. This prediction is untenable for Polish, because dative Experiencers of dyadic predicates show some characteristics of external arguments, and hence must merge externally. Consequently, the conclusion drawn is that the Theta System can provide solutions to some, but not all, of the argument and case-linking puzzles associated with Polish Experiencers.

Nissenbaum (2000) and Heck and Himmelreich (2017) (henceforth HH) are two prominent works that are noteworthy for focusing on the interaction of multiple movement dependencies (MMDs) and parasitic gaps (PGs). However, these two works consider disjoint and contrasting types of data paradigms. In this squib, I take both types of paradigms into consideration. In doing so, there are three inter-related questions that arise for our understanding of PGs (and in particular for PGs that involve certain MMDs). The first question asks what the correct descriptive generalizations about PG paradigms are. Going beyond such a generalization, we can also ask how to properly account for the data (and whether a unified analysis is possible). Finally, and more specifically, we can ask how to account for the compositional semantics of PGs, especially those involving MMDs.

Bilingual Compound Verbs (BCVs) in Spanish-English bilingual speech, as in (1), are made up of the Spanish do-verb (hacer) and an English-origin component which together form a complex predicate.