The function of -é is similar to that of English one-pronominalization, though there are important differences.The suffix -é presents two conundrums.Firstly, it is in complementary distribution not only with the noun and the possessedness marker (which is the exponent of the Poss head), but also with all phrasal modifiers in the lower part of the xNP such as adjectives, numerals, demonstratives and relative clauses (29).(28) János John három/barna three/brown cipő-je shoe-poss 'John's three/brown shoes' (29) (*három/*piros) *three/*red János-é John-é (*három/*piros) *three/*red Intended: 'John's red ones/three ones'At the same time, it happily co-occurs with the plural marker (30), which is situated midway in the functional sequence between adjectives on the one hand and relative clauses, demonstratives and relative clauses on the other.Therefore the elements it is in complementary distribution with do not appear to form a constituent (31).(30) János-é-i John-é-pl 'John's ones' (31) [ DemP demonstrative [ N umP numeral [ N um ′ plural [ AP adjective [ P ossP [ P oss ′ possessedness marker [ nP noun ]]]]]]]Secondly, -é is obligatorily copied onto the possessor's own demonstrative modifier (if it has one).(32) ez-é this-é a thegyerek-é child-é 'this child's one' (NOT: 'the child's this one') This combination of properties makes -é a rather unique suffix, which has no direct counterpart in well-known European languages.-É therefore presents a threefold challenge: one must find its syntactic category in a way that i) naturally fits into the universal functional sequence, ii) allows a coherent story about what sort of elements are copied onto the demonstrative, and iii) provides a natural account of its complementarity with all elements in the lower xNP except for the plural.Previous analyses (Bartos, 1999(Bartos, , 2001a) ) explain different subsets of its properties, but fall short of capturing the totality of facts involved.The syntax of -é will be a major concern of mine in Chapter 8. 14CHAPTER 2. THE FUNCTIONAL SEQUENCE MEETS THE LEXICALIZATION PROBLEM adverbs hosted in their specifiers.2 (1) Mood speech act frankly, honestly, sincerely Mood evaluative fortunately, luckily, oddly, regrettably Mood evidential allegedly, reportedly, obviously, evidently Mod epistemic probably, likely, supposedly, presumably T(Past) once T(Future) then Mood irrealis perhaps Mod aleth necess (not) necessarily Mod aleth possib possibly Asp habitual usually, generally, regularly, customarily Asp delayed finally Asp predispositional Asp repetitive(I) again Asp frequentative(I) often, repeatedly, X times, twice, frequently Mod volition intentionally Asp celerative(I) quickly, rapidly T(Anterior) already Asp terminative no longer Asp continuative still Asp perfect always Asp retrospective just, recently, lately Asp proximative soon, immediately Asp durative briefly Asp progressive characteristically Asp prospective almost, immediately, nearly, imminently Asp inceptive Mod obligation Mod ability Asp frustrative/success Mod permission Asp conative Asp Sg.completive(I) completely Asp Pl.completive Voice well, manner adverbs Asp celerative(II) quickly, rapidly , fast, early Asp inceptive(II) Asp repetitive(II) again Asp frequentative(II)often, repeatedly, X times, twice, frequently Asp Sg.completive (II) completelyThe adverbs in bold can appear in two different places in the hierarchy of adverbs, which gives rise to the impression that their position is not fixed.Again, often, quickly, rapidly and completely thus pose a potential problem to the idea of a universal, rigid functional hierarchy.So do many more adverbs that can appear in two (or more) positions in the clause, such as cleverly, stupidly, tactfully, agressively, rudely, graciously and so on.The standard example to illustrate the problem involves cleverly.It is well-known that the different positions correspond to different interpretations.3 (2) a. John has cleverly answered their questions.b.John cleverly has answered their questions.2 (1) combines the hierarchy in Cinque (1999, p. 106., ex.92) with the refinements presented in Cinque (2006f).3 The polysemy of these adverbs has an extensive literature.I refer the reader to McConnell-Ginet (1982);Geuder (2000); Ernst (2002);Wyner (2009) and Piñón (2010) for examples and discussion.What is important for our purposes is that in a cartographic view, all these adverbs are capable of occurring in different functional projections.8 Depending on the language, light verbs can form complex predicates with verbs, nouns, adjectives and adpositions.Here I will restrict my attention to light verb -verb complex predicates, as only these are relevant to the discussion.9 In the languages that have them, noun classifiers occur in the nominal phrase independently of any other constituents either inside or outside of the DP; that is, noun classifiers are classifiers that are not in need of any licensor element.This contrasts with numeral classifiers, for instance, the occurrence of which is typically licensed by numerals or quantifiers.Noun classifiers scope over the noun phrase, they do not trigger agreement and their choice is determined by semantics/lexical selection.The meaning relation between the classifier and the noun is often generic-specific, which is why in Australianist linguistics they are referred to as generic classifiers or generics (Aikhenvald, 2000).9 Borer (2005) argues that the English plural functions as a classifier.If this is on the right track for the Jacaltec and Akatek Mayan plurals as well, then (33) and ( 34), too, contain three classifiers.10 For further examples, see Aikhenvald (2000) and Grinevald (2004).11 Modulo n, which Borer does not discuss but probably assumes tacitly.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 129 citations exist upstream.