Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2020 / Vocatives as parenthetical adjuncts: Evidence from Arabic

Vocatives as parenthetical adjuncts: Evidence from Arabic

Paper · 2020 · Youssef A. Haddad

Summary

The paper asks where vocatives sit in clause structure. Hill (2014) and Slocum (2016) claim that vocatives merge at a fixed point, occupying an argument position within a speech-act projection at the clause's left edge, and that any material before them got there by movement. Haddad tests this claim against Arabic. He uses mostly naturally occurring tweets, plus a few constructed Levantine examples checked by native speakers. His evaluation framework is Ashdowne's (2002) three criteria for separating parentheticals from vocatives: freedom of placement, necessary connection to the host, and limits on how many can appear. Arabic vocatives headed by the particle ya: pass all three tests in the way parentheticals do. They occur initially, medially and finally. They need no semantic or syntactic tie to the host and can even target overhearers. They can also stack or recur. Haddad concludes that they are parenthetical adjuncts. He sketches a derivation in which the vocative phrase may sit inside its own speech act projection that adjoins parenthetically. He also argues that theoretical syntax should weigh real, in-context data more heavily.

Key points

  • Data: tweets retrieved between November 10, 2019 and July 10, 2020, mostly from Gulf, Levantine and Egyptian Arabic. Tweets were kept uncorrected, with punctuation but without emojis, and URLs are given.
  • All examples use vocatives with ya:, for two reasons: it makes corpus search easy, and evaluative vocatives (e.g. 'dog', 'jackass') often require the particle.
  • Ashdowne's three criteria (placement, connection, number) structure the argument, one section each.
  • Vocatives can refer to unaddressed overhearers, not only to the addressee. A plural vocative can co-occur with singular reference to the hearer in the host clause, which argues against agreement with a left-peripheral speaker/hearer projection.
  • Some preliminary parallel evidence from English and Spanish is included. Native speakers accepted all examples when they saw the full tweets.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Test a structural claim by applying an existing set of diagnostics (here Ashdowne's three) one by one to corpus data, instead of inventing new criteria.
  • I2. Vocatives behave like loosely attached adjuncts whose position says nothing about the clause's internal structure.
  • I3. A vocative's referent may differ from the addressee encoded in the host clause, and can even be a bystander or overhearer.
  • I4. Grammaticality judgments for pragmatically loaded items change when examples are shown out of context. Full-context presentation removed the degraded judgments.
  • I5. Reverse-role vocatives, where a mother calls her child "mom", lexically reveal the speaker's identity and relation to the addressee.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (tree): Parser decisions about vocative and parataxis could be checked with explicit diagnostics: whether the element moves freely, has no tie to the head, and can stack.
  • I2 (tree): The parser should attach mid-sentence vocatives such as "my love" without letting them disturb argument structure. Extracting them as a separate layer before or after parsing could improve LAS on informal text.
  • I3 (frames): Speech-act frames should keep separate slots for the vocative target and the grammatical addressee rather than forcing them to unify, for example when "you" is singular but the call is plural.
  • I4 (learn): When the LLM teacher or human checkers rate silver data, show the whole surrounding text. Comparing truncated and full-context judgments can serve as a control for context-dependent errors.
  • I5 (world): Address terms can be recorded as relation evidence about the speaker and addressee in the text world, while flagging that the literal kin term may be inverted.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of FloridaGainesville · United States9 works · 281 citations

📚 Shelves 2The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 9,296 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 9,206 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.Semitic languages · 1,484 works

Cite

Cite as Youssef A. Haddad. 2020. Vocatives as parenthetical adjuncts: Evidence from Arabic. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.5334/gjgl.1302

@article{haddad2020vocatives,
  title = {{Vocatives as parenthetical adjuncts: Evidence from Arabic}},
  author = {Youssef A. Haddad},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2020},
  doi = {10.5334/gjgl.1302},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1302}
}

References

41 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Abu-Haidar, Farida. 2013. Vocatives in exclamatory nouns in Iraqi Arabic. In Yasir Suleiman (ed.), Arabic grammar and linguistics, 144–160. New York: Routledge. find
  2. Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. find
  3. Akkuş, Faruk & Virginia Hill. 2018. The speaker in inverse vocatives. In Wm. G. Bennet, Lindsay Hracs, & Dennis Ryan Storoshenko (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 49–58. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. find
  4. Al-Bataineh, Hussein. 2020. The syntax of Arabic vocatives. Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 12. 1–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/1877 6930-01202100 Ashdowne, Richard. 2002. The Vocative’s calling. In Ina Hartmann & Andreas Willi (eds.), Oxford University working papers in linguistics, philology & phonetics, 143–162. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ↗
  5. Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. find
  6. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structure 3. 104–131. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ↗
  7. Chomsky, Noam, Ángel J. Gallego, & Dennis Ott. 2019. Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics. 229–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.288 ↗
  8. Downing, Bruce T. 1969. Vocatives and third-person imperatives in English. Papers in Linguistics 1(3). 570–592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351816909389130 ↗
  9. Espinal, Theresa. 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67. 726–762. https://www.jstor.org/stable/415075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/415075 ↗
  10. Espinal, Theresa. 2013. On the structure of vocatives. In Barbara Sonnenhauser & Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna (eds.), Vocative! Addressing between system and performance, 109–132. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ↗
  11. Gallego, Ángel J. 2010. An l-syntax for adjuncts. In Maia Duguine, Susana Huidobro, & Nerea Madariaga (eds.), Argument structure and syntactic relations: A cross-linguistic perspective, 183–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ↗
  12. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. find
  13. Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel structures in syntax. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press. ↗
  14. Gutzmann, Daniel. 2015. Use-conditional meaning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001 ↗
  15. Haddad, Youssef A. 2014. Attitude datives in Lebanese Arabic and the interplay of syntax and pragmatics. Lingua 145: 65–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.006 ↗
  16. Haegeman, Liliane. 1988. Verb projection and the multidimensional analysis: Some empirical problems. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 671–683. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178600 ↗
  17. Haegeman, Lilian & Virginia Hill. 2013. The syntacticization of discourse. In Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevedali, & Robert Truswell (eds.), Syntax and its Limits, 370–390. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof :oso/9780199683239.003.0018 Haegeman, Liliane & Henk Van Riemsdijk. 1986. Verb projection, raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 45–55. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/4178499 Hill, Virginia. 2007. Vocatives and the pragmatics-syntax interface. Lingua 117. 2077–2105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.002 ↗
  18. Hill, Virginia. 2013. Features and strategies: the internal syntax of vocative phrases. In Barbara Sonnenhauser & Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna (eds.), Vocative! Addressing between system and performance, 133–156. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ↗
  19. Hill, Virginia. 2014. Vocatives: How syntax meets with pragmatics. Leiden/Boston: Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004261389 ↗
  20. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983 [1985]. Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. find
  21. Levinson, Stephen C. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s participation framework. In Paul Drew & Anthony Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, 161–227. Oxford, UK: Polity Press. find
  22. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. In Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman, & Rachel Dye (eds.), Main clause phenomena: New horizons, 79–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.190.04miy ↗
  23. Moro, Andrea. 2003. Notes on vocative case: A case study in clause structure. In Josep Quer, Jan Schroten, Mauro Scorretti, Petra Sleeman, & Els Verheugd-Daatzelaar (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2001, 247–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.245.15mor ↗
  24. Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.001.0001 ↗
  25. Potts, Christopher. 2011. Conventional implicature and expressive content. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus Von Heusinger, & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning 3. 2516–2536. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. find
  26. Rieschild, Verna R. 1998. Lebanese Arabic reverse role vocatives. Anthropological Linguistics 40(4). 617–641. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30028668 ↗
  27. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Lilian Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 ↗
  28. Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. find
  29. Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 222–272. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company. find
  30. Shormani, Mohammed Q. & Mohammed Ali Qarabesh. 2018. Vocatives: Correlating the syntax and discourse at the interface. Cognet Arts & Humanities 5(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2018.1469388 Slocum, Poppy. 2016. The syntax of address. NY: Stony Brook University dissertation. ↗
  31. Soltan, Usama. 2015. The syntax of vocatives in Egyptian Arabic. Talk at the 29 th Annual symposium on Arabic Linguistics. University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. find
  32. Sonnenhauser, Barbara & Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna 2013. Vocative! Addressing between system and performance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110304176 Speas, Peggy & Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In A.-M. Di Sciullo (ed.), Asymmetry in grammar 1. 315–345. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.57.15spe ↗
  33. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2002. Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics 34. 529–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X ↗
  34. Starvou, Melita. 2013. About the vocative. In Lilia Schürcks, Anastasia Giannakidou & Urtzi Etxeberria (eds.), The nominal structure in Slavic and beyond, 299–342. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512790.299 ↗
  35. Taglicht, Josef. 1984. Message and emphasis. On focus and scope in English. London: Longman. find
  36. Uriagereka, Juan. 2003. Pure adjuncts. Ms., University of Maryland. Vries, Mark de. 2012. Unconventional mergers. In Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria & Vidal Valmala (eds.), Ways of structure building, 143–166. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644933.003.0007 ↗
  37. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. The merge condition: a syntactic approach to selection. In Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radev-Bork, & Lilia Schürcks (eds.), Minimalism and beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces, 139–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.06wur Zwicky, Arnold. 1974. Hey, whatsyourname! In Michael La Galy, Robert Fox, & Anthony Bruck (eds.), Papers from the tenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 787–801. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. ↗
  38. How to cite this article: Haddad, Youssef A. 2020. Vocatives as parenthetical adjuncts: Evidence from Arabic. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1): 132. 1–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1302 ↗
  39. Accepted: 06 October 2020 find
  40. Published: 30 December 2020 find
  41. Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/haddad-2020-vocatives-as-parenthetical-adjuncts-evidence/