Abstract
The chapter introduces the main goals this book sets out to achieve, the decompositional methodology and conception of microsemantics, recognising that compositional analysis cannot stop at word boundary. Languages mark meanings, which have identical inferences, using identical particles and these particles thus creep up in a wide array of expressions. Due to their multi-tasking capacity to express seemingly disparate meanings, I dub them Superparticles. These particles are perfect windows into the interlock of several grammatical modules. With a firm footing in the module where grammatical bones are built and assembled (narrow morphosyntax), superparticles acquire varied interpretation (in the conceptual-intentional module; semantics) depending on the structure they feature in.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
From Slade (2011) it would seem that at least one IE language (Sinhala) did develop (and retain) κ-particles (more than one realisation of, in fact). In this context, as a reviewer points out, this does raise interesting questions about the role of Dravidian contact, though the pieces in Sinhala κ-marked expressions are all apparently Indo-Aryan. I refer the reader to Slade (2011) for an extensive discussion of the facts.
References
Arregi, K., and A. Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. New York: Springer.
Cable, S. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement and Pied-Piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chierchia, G. 2013. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice and Intervention. Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fauconnier, G. 1975. Polarity and the scale principle. Chicago Linguistic Society 11:188–199.
Gast, V. 2013. From æghwæer to either: The distribution of a negative polarity item in historical perspective. In Beyond ‘Any’ and ‘Ever’: New Explorations in Negative Polarity Sensitivity, ed. E. Csipak, R. Eckardt, M. Liu, and M. Sailer, 79–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gil, D. 2011. Conjunctions and universal quantifiers, Chap. 56. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, ed. M.S. Dryer, M. Haspelmath. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library.
Hagstrom, P. 1998. Decomposing questions. PhD thesis, MIT.
Halle. M., and A. Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. K. Hale, and S.J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hauser, M.D., N. Chomsky, and W.T. Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298(5598):1569–1579.
Higginbotham, J. 1991. Either/or. In Proceedings of NELS, ed. T. Sherer, vol. 21, 143–157. Amherst: GLSA.
Kayne, R. 2005. Movement and Silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kratzer, A., J. Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate phrases: The view from Japanese. In The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Y. Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Ladusaw, W.A. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin.
Leu, T. 2009. The internal syntax of jeder ‘every’. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook, ed. J.V. Craenenbroeck, vol. 9, 153–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lühr, R. 1979. Das Wort ‘und’ im Westgermanischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 38:117–54.
Marantz, A. 2011. Locality domains for contextual allosemy, paper presented at the Columbia Lingusitic Society.
Marantz, A. 2012. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In: Distributed Morphology Today, ed. O. Matushansky, and A. Marantz, 95–115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McMichael, A. 2006. The A’s and BE’s of English prepositions. In Syntax and Semantics of Prepositions, ed. P. Saint-Dizier, 42–56. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mitrović, M., and U. Sauerland. 2014. Decomposing coordination. In Proceedings of NELS 44, ed. J. Iyer, and L. Kusmer, vol. 2, 39–52.
Nishigauchi, T. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Shimoyama, J. 2006. Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14:139–173
Shimoyama, J. 2007. Indeterminate noun phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14(2):139–173.
Slade, B.M. 2011. Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Starke, M. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36(1):1–6.
Szabolcsi, A. 2010. Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szabolcsi, A. 2015. What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 38:159–204.
Yatsushiro, K. 2002. The distribution of mo and ka and its implications. In Proceedings of FAJL 3 MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 41, 181–198.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mitrović, M. (2021). Introduction. In: Superparticles. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 98. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-2050-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-2050-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-024-2049-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-024-2050-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)