Explore the vast range of titles available.

It is a standard view that concessive clauses (concessives) cross-linguistically cannot be used in the scope of focus particles such as only, even, just, unlike the majority of other adverbial clauses (e.g. König 2006; Mizuno 2007). It is usually assumed that this is due to their lesser degree of integration with the main clause compared to other adverbial clauses (König 2006). We argue for an alternative view: standard concessives (concessives marking the standard concessive relation, cf. König 2006) are inherently focused, i.e. they compositionally include a (c)overt focus particle responsible for the scalar ranking of the asserted and presupposed propositions. We build on Lund’s (2017) decompositional analysis of even though in English to provide theoretical and quantitative evidence from Serbian that standard concessives include a focus particle, which bans their combination with other focus particles, due to complementary distribution. Specifically, we analyze three main concessive conjunctions in Serbian – iako, mada and premda (traditionally considered fully synonymous), addressing the question of why only iako is compatible with the focus particle čak ‘even’. We argue that this is a consequence of čak being an integral part of constructions with standard iako-concessives. We show that properties of concessives introduced by the three concessive conjunctions under discussion correlate with the meaning of (c)overt focus particles contained in them. We also sketch some consequences for the syntax of concessives.

No detailed description available for \"Contrast\".

This study uses modern linguistic theory to analyze a frequently recurring syntactic phenomenon in the Hebrew Bible that has thus far resisted explanation: כי אם. The combination of the two particles כי and אם produces a construction that is notoriously difficult to describe, analyze syntactically, and translate. Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew offer a dizzying variety of translations for this construction, including “that if,” “except,” “unless,” “but,” “but only,” and “surely,” among other possibilities. In this book, Grace J. Park provides a new approach that strives for greater precision and consistency in translation. Park argues that כי אם is used in three patterns: the “full focus” pattern, the “reduced focus” pattern, and the less common “non-focus” pattern. Her syntactic analysis of all 156 occurrences of the כי אם construction in the Bible lends greater clarity to the contested passages. Drawing on recent linguistic research into the typology of clausal nominalization as well as previous work on contrastive focus, this innovative project provides important new insight into the syntax of Biblical Hebrew. It will be especially valuable for scholars seeking to translate כי אם more consistently and accurately.

No detailed description available for \"Contrast\".

Estonian conditional clauses have previously been divided into two clear-cut groups: real and unreal, with indicative and conditional main verbs of conditional clauses, respectively. This article defends the view that it is a question of the degree of hypotheticality that a sentence conveys, and it treats hypotheticality as a continuum that includes groups of linguistic forms, which have a relatively clear core and are separated by fuzzy transition areas. Secondly, the article concentrates on the relationship between Estonian conditional clauses and temporal clauses. As these clause types have the same marker (kui), the article discusses whether it is always possible to distinguish between these two clauses and which factors are relevant for determining whether the clause is a temporal or conditional one. Thirdly, the relationship between Estonian conditional and concessive clauses is under consideration, focusing particularly on Estonian scalar concessive conditional clauses.

The aim of this chapter is to carry out a crosslinguistic comparison among some North-Eastern Italian dialects displaying subject clitic inversion; it is proposed that in the presence of a verbal form with enclisis of the pronominal subject the event is presented subjectively, that is, related to the speaker’s observational perspective. It is argued that each instance of clausal typing is triggered by the raising of the inflected verb to a different landing site inside the CP-layer; the attested crossdialectal variation provides evidence for the existence of a few functional projections encoding some aspects of the speaker’s relation to the propositional content expressed by the clause. Relying on previous work on the structural articulation of the left periphery, it is also argued that clausal typing can be achieved inside a conditional or concessive clause by verb raising to an appropriate head of the CP field, which in turn triggers raising of the clausal adjunct to the relevant specifier of the matrix left periphery in order to enter a local relation with a force node.

This paper investigates concessive although-stripping in English, a phenomenon where the so-called Stripping or Bare Argument Ellipsis (BAE) occurs in although-clauses. This elliptical construction has at least two sub-patterns: positive and negative although-stripping. Departing from the sentential ellipsis analyses that postulate clausal sources for the construction and deletion processes, in the paper we suggest a non-clausal WYSWYG (what you see is what you get) approach that directly projects the construction from a nonsentential fragment. The support for this direction comes from our corpus investigation. The attested data show that the connectivity effects, claimed to support the ellipsis analyses, can often be overridden, and further that contextual cues play key roles in licensing the construction in question.

The concessive relation is said to not be expressible by a central adverbial clause (CAC) but by a peripheral adverbial clause (PAC) or a non-integrated dependent clause (NonIC). This is true in the standard case. The paper argues that this ban on the appearance of the concessive as a CAC stems from the fact that the concessive relation standardly involves a judgement, which is due to a conception of an expected course of events that is associated as an implicature with the concessive relation. However, based on d’Avis (2016), it is shown that if a concessive just stands in opposition to a conditional that is salient in the context, it does not involve a judgement and can appear as a CAC.A judgement constitutes a private act of evaluation (Krifka to appear). It follows that in the standard case concessive clauses necessarily involve a richer semantic structure than just a core proposition. This has consequences for syntax. Following Krifka, the paper assumes that the private act of a judgement is syntactically represented in clausal structure by a J(udge)P(hrase). CACs do not contain a JP-projection, but PACs do.NonICs encode a speech act; in addition to a JP they also contain a Com(mitment)P(hrase) and an ActP(hrase). It is demonstrated that while concessives realised as PACs may host so-called weak root phenomena, concessives realised as NonICs may also host commitment modifiers and so-called strong root phenomena. Further distinguishing syntactic properties of concessives realised as PACs or as NonICs are discussed.

This paper discusses the hitherto undocumented wh-ever constructions in contemporary American Hasidic Yiddish. Employment of these Germanic constructions in both written and spoken American Hasidic Yiddish raises the question of their origin and the possibility that several Germanic varieties have influenced this seemingly new pattern. Specifically, these constructions might have originated from German-ized Yiddish varieties and past contact with Judeo-German, and then gradually become entrenched in American Hasidic Yiddish through contact with English. The paper uses this particular construction to offer some more general reflections on the possibility of historical impact of German on American Hasidic Yiddish during the formation of Hasidic Yiddish varieties in Williamsburg (New York) in the 1950s.*