Selection; Syntax; Lexicon; Interfaces; Clausal complements; Nominal complements; Semantics
Shim Ji Young, Ihsane Tabea (2017), A New Outlook of Complementizers, in Languages
, 2, 1-18.
Parafita Couto M. Carmen, Shi Ji Young, Ihsane Tabea (ed.) (2017), Clausal and Nominal Complements in Monolingual and Bilingual Grammars
, MDPI, Basel.
Shim Ji Young, Ihsane Tabea (2017), English Overt and Null Complementizers, in Studies in Generative Grammar
, 27.3, 515-534.
Shim Ji Young, Ihsane Tabea, Parafita Couto M. Carmen (2017), Introducing the Special Issue: Clausal and Nominal Complements in Monolingual and Bilingual Grammars, in Languages
, 2, 1.
PallottinoMargherita (2017), On the Category of Tunisian Object Marking FI
, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Shim Ji Young, Ihsane Tabea (2015), Facts: The interplay between the Matrix Predicate and its Clausal Complement., in Newcastle and Northumbria Working Papers in Linguistics
, 21(1), 130-144.
Pallottino Margherita, “feš taqra?” What are you reading? Prepositional objects in Tunisian Arabic, in Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics
, 8(2), 286-312.
The aim of the project is to examine nominal (say [a word]) and clausal complements (say [that John is happy]) in order to determine (i) their structure (syntax), (ii) the meaningful link between these constituents and their structural environment (semantics) and (iii) what is encoded in the lexical items involved (lexicon). The proposed research will be realised in the framework of Generative Grammar (Chomsky 1957, 1965, 1981, 1995). It focuses on selection, a question debated in the literature for nearly half a century (c.f. e.g. Chomsky 1965, Pesetsky 1982, Grimshaw 1979). However, the strength and originality of the project is that it tackles this phenomenon from three perspectives, an interface approach which will allow us to identify what sentential and nominal complements have in common and what differentiates them. What we will explore is the claim that selection is semantically determined (Rochette 1988) and that it is lexical semantics which determines the complement which is available. This means that selection has to be closely related to the interpretation of the matrix predicate and to the characteristics of the matrix clause in general (sometimes tense, presence of negation…). For example, the factive reading of clausal complements (i.e. the assertion of the truth of the selected clause) cannot always be attributed to the complementiser or/and the matrix predicate only. Other clausal elements might be involved. This is the case of Greek.Another line of analysis we will develop concerns elements like that in English. What we will do is determine whether the examples below can be unified at least to some extent.(1)a. I like [that].b.I like [the things that you do].c.I like [that you are doing this].What we will investigate is whether that-complement clauses can be assimilated to relative clauses associated with a null head. More generally, the form and the structure of complements, the role of complementisers and determiners will be studied. Indeed, determiners have been claimed to ‘close off’ nominal arguments (Higginbotham (1985) and so have complementisers for the clause (Chierchia 1995). More generally, what we will explore is the suggestion that the ‘smaller’ the argument (syntax), the closer it is semantically to the predicate selecting it (Ihsane 2008). The planned research will contribute to the understanding of selection, of both nominal and clausal complements, as we will address important semantic issues (what is the meaningful link between these complements and their structural environment?), as well as questions related to the lexicon (what is encoded in the lexical items involved?). It will thus allow us to reach a global understanding of the mechanisms involved in selection.