To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article examines stative and passive constructions in Chichewa, finding that the syntax of the two constructions is best accommodated in a model that allows argument structure changing operations, such as stative, to be distinguished from operations, such as passive, that affect the mapping from argument structure to grammatical functions. The Chichewa facts recall observations made concerning the differences between English adjectival and verbal passives, first formalized in Wasow 1977, but provide more straightforward evidence for a distinction, due to the absence of surface homophony. The paper concludes by reconsidering English adjectival and verbal passive constructions, and showing them to be morphologically distinct.
We support the theory of level ordering by demonstrating, on the basis of productive morphology and phonology, that Turkish has four lexical levels. The evidence, however, motivates modifications in the way level ordering is implemented. The first is the principle of Level Economy, according to which a form is subject to the phonology only of those levels at which it is morphologically derived. The second is level prespecification, which exempts a root entirely from early lexical levels. Level Economy accounts for systematic exceptionality, while level prespecification accounts for idiosyncratic exceptionality, to the entire phonology of given levels. These mechanisms yield analyses of facts in Turkish that prove intractable in other theories. Both rely on a structural, rather than a temporal, approach to level ordering.
This chapter explores the structure–culture–agency interplay in the English language learning context of Cancun, Mexico. The body of empirical data is analysed through CR-grounded linguistic ethnography. Of specific interest are three Mexican students’ reflexive deliberations and strategies to position themselves in relation to the English language, its symbolic and economic value, and to broader structural and cultural forces, in the fulfilment of their goals. Analysis of the findings reveals the powerful influence of social class distribution partly based on ethnicity, and the role of language learner reflexivity in the adoption of diverse approaches to English language learning. The study of reflexivity in this chapter shows how agentive processes lead to different degrees of investment and successes, including resistance to and acceptance of the necessity for English in relation to Cancun’s social and economic context. Analysis also reveals English as the language of the dominant yet not fully accepted North American culture, and how it is seen a paramount tool in the fulfilment of personal and communal projects in the context of Cancun.
Strict head-final surface order derives from underlying left-headedness in , a Niger-Congo language of Nigeria. A word order anomaly in serial verb constructions (SVCs) strongly suggests this, and left-to-right asymmetric c-command among internal arguments of SVCs confirms it. The anomaly is universal among surface right-headed languages with SVCs, indicating that deep left-headedness is universal, as antisymmetry theory predicts (Kayne 1994). Assuming complements are in Specs, and that a light verb v selects every VP (Chomsky 1999), I derive VOVO from OVOV by two instances of V-to-v movement. I argue for a nonuniform approach to SVCs, involving relations of both raising (Campbell 1989) and control (Collins 1997). Other aspects of SVC word order are predictable from a universal thematic hierarchy nontheme > theme, and short scrambling (Takano 1998).