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.
Employing a self-paced reading experiment, a read-aloud production task and a pen-and-paper questionnaire, we examined if Turkish (L2) and native (L1) speakers of English rely on similar or different mechanisms in comprehending and producing English subject–verb number agreement. The results showed that the syntactic distance of an attractor to the head noun affected the L1 speakers’ parsing decisions, while the L2 speakers were influenced by its linear proximity to the verb. The results also showed singular attraction in comprehension for both groups and (a tendency for) plural attraction in production. We argue that L1 and L2 speakers differ in the sources of attraction and in their cue weighting/encoding while processing and producing S-V agreement. Whereas syntactic proximity is more crucial in the L1 speakers’ agreement computation, L2 speakers weigh linear distance cue more heavily. We also argue that S-V agreement computation is governed through different mechanisms in comprehension and production.
This study investigates evidential meanings, referring to the information sources available to the speaker (i.e., direct witnessing, report, or inference), expressed through syntactic and lexical strategies in French. Across three experimental studies, we examined French subordinate structures, including complement, relative, pseudo-relative, and infinitive ECM clauses, that encompass perception or reporting verbs. We used witness rating, information source identification, and discourse completion tasks administered to a total of 221 French speakers. The results show that (i) infinitive ECM clauses are unambiguously associated with direct witnessing; (ii) pseudo-relative and relative clauses with voir are, though less strongly than infinitive, associated with direct witnessing; (iii) although still being sometimes used in reference to direct witnessing, complement clauses with voir are primarily suitable in inferential contexts based on resultant states; and finally (iv) complement clauses of dire are associated with reported sources. Our results show that indirect evidentiality is marked by complement clauses only, whereas direct evidentiality distributes over infinitive ECM, pseudo-relative and relative clauses with no significant difference between the two types of relatives. We conclude that indirect evidentiality in French is syntactically associated with one type of subordinate structure, whereas direct evidentiality is not.
This chapter focuses on topics in syntax. It first introduces a general but important topic—part of speech—and how linguists determine part of speech in general and for Chinese. It then delves deeper to examine syntactic features of Chinese nouns and noun phrases. Measure words and classifiers are distinguished; types of classifiers and dialectal variations in classifiers are discussed. In describing Chinese verbs and verb phrases, important notions such as verb arguments, syntactic and semantic roles, verbal complements and verbal aspects are introduced. Syntactic behaviors of Chinese adjectives and verbs are also compared. Finally, this chapter discusses the word order of Mandarin.
This chapter focuses on larger syntactic units, primarily sentences. It first discusses major sentence types in Mandarin (simple vs. complex sentences). Then it describes four types of sentences based on communicative functions, and the modal particles which are attached to different types of sentences. The chapter also describes the syntactic, semantic and discourse features of the bǎ and bèi constructions, and their socio-pragmatic functions.
Before we can talk about how we learn, use, and lose language, we need to define what it is, and what it isn’t. Over the centuries, many people have attempted to describe language. In this chapter was ask: what is language? This is a simple enough question although the answer is much more complicated, and intriguing, than it seems at first. The question of “what is language?” isn’t something we can just sum up in a single pithy sentence. Language is a system of communication, but it’s so much more than that. Language is multi-faceted. It involves signs and symbols, smaller and bigger segments, dialects and accents, and also writing and signing. This chapter serves as a primer to introduce us to the basic underlying principles of language sceince, so we can now talk the talk.
Heritage language speakers are second language (L2) speakers of a sociopolitically majority language. Their native heritage language is a minority language which typically develops under linguistic pressure from the majority L2 and eventually becomes secondary and weaker than the L2. In the past decade, research on heritage language speakers has investigated the degree of acquisition of different aspects of the heritage grammar and how the process and outcome of heritage language acquisition are similar to and different from adult L2 acquisition. Advances in the acquisition of heritage languages have contributed significantly to inform key questions in L2 acquisition. This chapter discusses the latest research on how L2 learners’ and heritage speakers’ exposure and use of the L2 and L1 affect the processing and acquisition the L2 and the heritage language and points to areas in need of further research.
A survey of phrase and sentence grammar, including discussion of the difference between grammaticality and acceptability, parts of speech-word classes, word order, case marking, verbal inflection, constituency, structural ambiguity, argument structure, anaphora, quantifiers, and negation.
Using 3,154 tokens from American English, we test whether optionality in verb–particle placement increases speech-planning cost, measured as pre-verbal silence. Tokens were coded for object properties, idiomaticity and verb frequency. We find that pre-verbal silence does not differ between split (pick the book up) and joined (pick up the book) orders. While idiomaticity favours the joined order, it does not raise planning cost. Verb frequency shortens pauses only in fast speech, suggesting predictability acts lexically, not structurally. Choice symmetry does not lengthen pauses. We therefore fail to reject the null hypothesis: the two orders are equally easy to plan. This null result, from tests designed to detect a theoretically predicted effect, aligns with other evidence that syntactic choice imposes no production cost. We conclude that variation in verb–particle constructions (VPCs) is cost-free; distributional differences reflect object properties and idiomaticity, not derivational markedness.
American English is not a simple thing to define. The United States is a big place, with many different regions. American English is certainly different from British English, and yet it is hard to set boundaries on the differences. American culture also plays a role in American English, and some say that politics does as well. In the end, the multitude of voices of Americans of whatever belief and whatever region come together to emerge as what people around the world recognize as American English.
This paper provides a novel description and syntactic analysis of different types of quantifiers in Chuj, an underdocumented Mayan language. We focus on a subset of expressions that quantify over entities, and that have been noted to appear obligatorily in sentence-initial position. We argue that three types of quantifiers should be distinguished: (i) Predicative A-quantifiers, which occur sentence-initially because Chuj is a predicate-initial language; (ii) Focus D-quantifiers, which occur sentence-initially because they are lexically specified for an [A$'$] feature; and (iii) Basic D-quantifiers, which, lacking an [A$'$] feature, have no effects on the syntactic position of their host arguments. We also sketch syntactic analyses of each type of quantifier.
Music rhythm and speech rhythm share acoustic, temporal and syntactic similarities, and neuroscience research has shown that similar areas and networks in the brain are recruited to process both types of signals. Rhythm is a core predictive element for both music and speech, allowing for facilitated processing of upcoming, predicted elements. The combined study of music and speech rhythm processing can be particularly insightful, considering the stronger regularity and predictability of musical rhythm. Although speech rhythm is less regular, it still contains regularities, notably at syllabic and prosodic levels. In this chapter, we outline different research lines investigating connections between music and speech rhythm processing, including the recently proposed processing rhythm in speech and music framework, as well as music rhythm interventions and stimulations that aim to improve speech signal processing both in the short term and the long term. Implications for developmental language disorders and future research perspectives are outlined.
On phrasal timescales, spontaneous conversational speech is not very rhythmic. Instead, periods of speech activity are intermittent: Words tend to come in short bursts and are often interrupted with hesitations. Nonetheless, it has been suggested that there is a production mechanism that generates phrasal rhythmicity in speech. This chapter examines the empirical evidence for such a mechanism and concludes that speakers do not directly control the timing of phrases. Instead, it is argued that temporal patterns associated with phrases are epiphenomena of processes involved in conceptual-syntactic organization. A model is presented in which coherency-monitoring systems govern the initiation and interruption of speech activity. Hesitations arise when conceptual or syntactic systems fail to achieve sufficiently ordered states. The model provides a mechanism to account for intermittency on phrasal timescales.
This paper examines a previously unnoticed ‘split’ construction in Greek, where a possessor that originates in a PP occurs together with the P separated from the possessum. I show a correlation between the availability of this split and the interpretation of a PP. This finding poses a challenge to PF-based accounts of splitting, particularly those that assume distributed deletion (e.g., Fanselow and Ćavar 2002; Fanselow and Féry 2006, Bondarenko and Davis 2023, Murphy and Wilson 2025 i.a.). Such accounts require additional mechanisms beyond those independently required by a syntactic account and fail to predict the distribution of split constructions. Instead, I propose a purely syntactic analysis that accounts for splits in Greek based on a correlation between the interpretation of a PP and its merge height (e.g., Cinque 1999, Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 2007, Schweikert 2005). These findings together with additional theoretical considerations will be shown to provide strong support for the elimination of distributed deletion as a mechanism in natural language.
Chapter 5 deals with Linear A syntax (word order) and orthography (spelling). The chapter begins by comparing several examples of the so-called “offering formula,” a standardized string of words—most likely a dedicatory sentence—found on many ritual vessels, but a sentence that differs in subtle ways from vessel to vessel. I use the differences between the various examples of the “offering formula” to discern which words are most likely to be the subject, verb, and object of the sentence. This exercise indicates a high likelihood that the Minoan language is a verb-initial language (i.e., one in which the verb ordinarily comes first in the sentence), which in turn enables us to draw additional important conclusions about the Minoan language based on the way in which most verb-initial languages behave. The chapter ends with some observations about the apparent way in which the Minoans spelled words in Linear A, leading to the interesting conclusion that the spelling-rules they used in Central and Eastern Crete most closely align with the spelling-rules used in Linear B and Cypriot Syllabic, respectively, a conclusion that is backed up by archaeological evidence.
This work aims to describe and analyze a relatively new, puzzling construction that has become very productive in informal registers of English. It is primarily used by younger generations, especially on the web and social-media platforms, but also in spoken language. It appears with the configuration negative marker + subject in the accusative case + gerund (e.g. Not me taking the train at 5 a.m.; meaning: it is ironic and unexpected that I took the train early at 5 a.m.). These constructions, which we dubbed not-ACC-ing constructions, are strictly root phenomena where negation does not reverse the polarity of the sentence. They convey a peculiar ironic, sarcastic, self-deprecating flavor. The existence of the not-ACC-ing construction raises the following questions, which we will address in this article: (i) How come negation does not have its prototypical function of reversing the polarity of the sentence? (ii) How come the subject is in the accusative case, despite not-ACC-ing constructions being invariably root? (iii) How is their peculiar interpretation obtained? We propose an analysis that captures all their structural and interpretive properties by combining some crucial ingredients of Lowe’s (2019) analysis of ACC-ing constructions and Greco’s (2020) analysis of Expletive Negation.
Although the unattested language of Proto-Indo-European has been studied for over 200 years, the greater part of this literature has focused on its phonology and morphology, with comparatively little known of its syntax. This book aims to redress the balance by reconstructing the syntax of relative clauses. It examines evidence from a wide range of archaic Indo-European languages, analysing them through the lens of generative linguistic theory. It also explains the methodological challenges of syntactic reconstruction and how they may be tackled. Ram-Prasad also alights on a wide range of points of comparative interest, including pronominal morphology, discourse movement and Wackernagel's Law. This book will appeal to classicists interested in understanding the Latin and Greek languages in their Indo-European context, as well as to trained comparative philologists and historical linguists with particular interests in syntax and reconstruction.
This chapter explores the role of linguistics in language teacher preparation. Against a profound demographic shift currently underway in the US, it provides a rationale for preparing ESL and bilingual teachers who are well-equipped to work with diverse students in K-12 contexts. Crucially, the chapter explores two key points: the value of linguistic analysis and an equity-based approach to language teaching. Linguistic analysis allows teachers to recognize patterns in the language of their students; in doing so, teachers can isolate recurring errors, recognize where their students are in the learning process, and better target their teaching to address the errors and move students forward. The chapter also shows how linguistics training helps teachers understand language variation, dialects, and the role of society, especially for languages with less social power and prestige. It argues that teachers’ awareness of harmful language ideologies helps combat societal inequities that use language as a proxy for discrimination and subjugation. The chapter ends with suggestions for further reading and discussion questions for teachers and teacher educators.
The functional-typological approach to language recognizes that language features are shaped by functional forces: the strengths and limitations of human cognition and perception in creative tension with communitive needs. The results of this tension are evident in the phonology as well as in the morphosyntax. A functional-typological understanding of language reveals what features are likely to be common to different languages, as well as what features are likely to co-occur in the same language. This predictive knowledge prepares the teacher for what she will encounter in students L1, and helps her prepare students for what they will encounter in L2. Awareness of typologically less common features in particular will help the teacher to know where special effort may be needed to help students meet the challenge. An understanding of functional forces such as iconicity, metaphorical extension and language change also allows the L2 teacher to explain how a particular feature is motivated and not merely arbitrary, helping the learner to see how those facts make sense and thereby making them easier to learn.
Drawing on their classroom experiences, five secondary school language educators present how training in linguistics has positively impacted their pedagogical practices and increased student engagement, enjoyment, and motivation. These teachers of French, German, Latin, and Spanish describe how they bring linguistics into the L2 classroom, giving concrete examples of how the metalinguistic and social awareness that comes with “doing linguistics” can help students learn new languages by drawing on their L1 strengths, as well as gain an appreciation of the beauty and complexity of language, contributing to a welcoming classroom for students of all language backgrounds. These examples, alongside the student feedback described in the chapter, demonstrate that training teachers in linguistics has the potential to keep students curious and motivated, improving both student retention and learning outcomes in secondary L2 classes.