Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan

6 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2013: 0.658
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.626
Rank 72 out of 169 in category Linguistics in the 2013 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.584
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.068

ERIH category 2011: INT1

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

Aspects of Vietnamese clausal structure: separating tense from assertion

*Correspondence address: Dept. of English Language and Linguistics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom.

Citation Information: Linguistics. Volume 45, Issue 4, Pages 765–814, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: 10.1515/LING.2007.023, July 2007

Publication History

Received:
2004-03-16
Revised:
2005-01-31
Published Online:
2007-07-31

Abstract

This article presents some data from Vietnamese that provide significant empirical support for the theoretical claims articulated in Klein (1998, 2006): first, that finiteness should be understood as a composite of tense and assertion, and that assertion may be realized independently of tense marking; second, that the assertion operator so realized has only partial scope over elements of the clause, so that fronted elements may evade this scopal influence. Vietnamese is of special interest because — as claimed here — it expresses assertion independently of Tense or Aspect: in this regard Vietnamese contrasts with most Indo-European languages, as well as with other isolating East Asian languages. The formal analysis of these data involves two further theoretical claims. The first is that assertion is syntactically projected in a comparatively low functional projection, immediately above vP: this claim is thus opposed to recent proposals that would place these type of functional category higher (on the left periphery of the clause). The second claim developed here is that in Vietnamese the displacement of certain underspecified constituents is explained by their requirement to come within — alternatively, to evade — the scope of this assertion operator. That is, syntactic movement may be driven by considerations other than purely formal feature checking.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.