Benjamin Bruening
Biographic Data
| ID | 732314 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Benjamin Bruening |
| GIVEN NAMES | Benjamin |
| FAMILY NAME | Bruening |
| SIGNATURE | BRUENING B |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Delaware |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-9277-4235 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 43 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 335 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 43 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2000 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2026 |
| H-INDEX | 10 |
Mari and Udmurt do not require postsyntactic operations (A reply to Georgieva et al. 2021 and Guseva and Weisser 2018)
Georgieva et al. (2021) argue that negation in Meadow Mari and Udmurt requires the Distributed Morphology conception of grammar with a postsyntactic level of grammar where extrasyntactic operations take place. I show that, by modifying one of their assumptions, a purely syntactic head movement account becomes available that uses no operations other than those of the phrasal syntax. I further show that suspended affixation in Meadow Mari does not …
Subjectless readings of again: A response to Bale (2007) and Smith and Yu (2021)
Under the widely adopted Kratzer (1996) model of argument structure, internal arguments are arguments of verbs but external arguments are not, they are arguments of a functional head, Voice. Bale (2007) and Smith and Yu (2021) present a strong challenge to this model with the claim that it makes incorrect predictions about readings of again . Specifically, they claim that an external argument cannot escape the presupposition of again if the verb …
Selectional Violations in Coordination: A Response to Patejuk and Przepiórkowski 2023
Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020) show that selectional violations in coordination are extremely limited (there are exactly two) and exactly match those that are permitted in ellipsis and displacement. Patejuk and Przepiórkowski (2023) criticize Bruening and Al Khalaf’s article on numerous fronts. They do successfully show that conjuncts do not need to match in syntactic category, but their dismissal of the selectional violation data does not succeed…
A simpler analysis of English negation (and the Bulgarian definite marker)
I propose a maximally simple analysis of English negation in which both not and n't are adjuncts. Not is a phrasal adjunct that can attach to any category, while n't is a head adjunct that strictly selects the category AuxV. I show that this proposal captures all the facts of English negation, without needing a NegP or even multiple NegPs, as other recent work proposes (e.g., Thoms et al. 2023). There is also no need for a distinction between sen…
The Algonquian person prefix is an agreement affix, not a pronominal clitic
Halle & Marantz (1993) propose that the person prefix that appears on Independent Order verbs in Potawatomi is a pronominal clitic and not an agreement affix, and this analysis has been followed for a variety of Algonquian languages by a large number of researchers. With data primarily from Passamaquoddy-Maliseet (Eastern Algonquian), I show that the prefix is not a pronominal clitic, it is an agreement affix, according to all diagnostics for dis…
English middles and implicit arguments
The proper analysis of English middles (Politicians bribe easily) has always been a matter of debate. I argue that they involve three crucial components: (1) A base-generated subject that is interpreted as the logical internal argument; (2) a logical external argument that is not syntactically projected at all; (3) the semantics of an ability modal. Regarding (1), I provide new data indicating that the surface subject of the English middle is not…
Hebrew nominals do not require functional structure above the NP
Ritter (1991) is widely cited as having shown that Hebrew nominals require functional structure like DP and Num(ber)P dominating the lexical NP (see, e.g., Preminger 2020). This paper revisits the arguments for this functional structure, and shows that they do not go through. An endocentric analysis where the maximal projection of the nominal in Hebrew is a projection of the head N is a perfectly viable one. There is no need for functional projec…
Implicit arguments in English double object constructions
Generalizing the Presuppositional Approach to the Binding Conditions
Almost all current approaches to the binding theory (the conditions that regulate covaluation between NPs within a sentence) have accepted the view that the binding theory should regulate only syntactic binding and not coreference. In this article, I argue that this is incorrect and that we need a binding theory that regulates both binding and coreference, as the classical binding theory had it. I also show some problems with the idea that the bi…
The head of the nominal is N, not D: N-to-D Movement, Hybrid Agreement, and conventionalized expressions
The DP Hypothesis has recently come under intense criticism (Bruening 2009, Bruening et al. 2018). In the face of this criticism, several responses have been offered. This paper addresses three such responses and shows that they are without force. First, N-to-D movement is not necessary in Shona, as Carstens (2017) claims. Second, patterns of hybrid agreement in Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian do not require the DP Hypothesis, as Salzmann (2018) claims.…
Idioms, collocations, and structure: Syntactic constraints on conventionalized expressions
Category Mismatches in Coordination Revisited
We reexamine cases of coordinated elements that do not match in syntactic category. We show that these fall into two types. The first type includes predicates, modifiers in the clausal domain, and such modifiers apparently coordinated with arguments. We argue that these do not actually involve coordination of unlike categories. The second type involves coordinated arguments of different categories. With this type, unlike the first, noninitial con…
Passive do so
Double Object Constructions and Prepositional Dative Constructions Are Distinct: A Reply to Ormazabal and Romero 2012
Ormazabal and Romero (2012) take issue with the arguments in Bruening 2010b that certain instances of prepositional dative constructions are really double object constructions. I show that their criticisms, when examined closely, actually support this claim. I also show that their alternative explanation for the facts is not successful. I also expand on the arguments from Bruening 2010b , and further argue that double object constructions must be…
No argument–adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C
The syntax literature has overwhelmingly adopted the view that Condition C reconstruction takes place in wh-chains for R-expressions contained within arguments, but not within adjuncts of fronted wh-phrases. At the same time, this empirical picture has been questioned by various authors. We undertake a series of grammaticality surveys using Amazon Mechanical Turk in an attempt to clarify the empirical picture regarding reconstruction for Binding …
Forthcoming articles
An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button
Brief response to Müller
Brief response to Müller Benjamin Bruening 1. Introduction Stefan Müller (2018) criticizes my article, 'The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous' (Bruening 2018), on several grounds. I go through each of his criticisms here and show that none weaken the arguments I made. The point of the original paper is undiminished, and the lexicalist hypothesis should be rejected as empirically false and explanatorily inadequate. 2. Psycholinguis…
CPs Move Rightward, Not Leftward
Several recent proposals hold that CP complements appear rightmost in many languages as the result of a two-step leftward-movement process: first the CP moves leftward, then a remnant phrase carries all other material to the left of that moved position. I show here that the arguments that have been given in favor of this approach do not go through. In contrast, a rightward-movement analysis explains all the facts in a much simpler and less ad hoc…
Depictive Secondary Predicates and Small Clause Approaches to Argument Structure
Some syntactic approaches to argument structure posit small clause constituents to represent what they take to be the semantics of the constructions being analyzed. For example, this approach would analyze a resultative construction like Martha hammered the metal flat as containing a small clause [the metal flat]. In the small clause analysis, the NP the metal is only an argument of the result state denoted by the small clause, and its referent i…
The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous
The lexicalist hypothesis, which says that the component of grammar that produces words is distinct and strictly separate from the component that produces phrases, is both wrong and superfluous. It is wrong because (i) there are numerous instances where phrasal syntax feeds word formation; (ii) there are cases where phrasal syntax can access subword parts; and (iii) claims that word formation and phrasal syntax obey different principles are not c…
Subject–Auxiliary Inversion
In subject–auxiliary inversion in English, the typical declarative word order subject–auxiliary‐verb is instead realized as auxiliary‐subject‐verb. This inversion occurs in a number of environments, namely, matrix questions, conditionals, blessings and curses, comparatives, exclamatives, negative imperatives, and in environments where certain elements have been fronted ( so/as/nor , negative phrases, phrases with only , and certain others). Most …
Alignment in Syntax: Quotative Inversion in English
This paper explores the idea that many languages have a phonological Align(ment) constraint that requires alignment between the tensed verb and C. This Align constraint is what is behind verb-second and many types of inversion phenomena generally. Numerous facts about English subject-auxiliary inversion and French stylistic inversion fall out from the way this Align constraint is stated in each language. The paper arrives at the Align constraint …
Brief reply to Zwart
Brief reply to Zwart Benjamin Bruening Zwart’s (2015) reply to my 2014 Language article (Bruening 2014) seeks to refute the claim in that article that precede-and-command offers much better empirical coverage than c-command for the conditions that regulate coreference (binding principles A, B, and C). However, nothing in what Zwart says addresses the question of whether there is a structural condition on coreference, much less what that structura…
The nature of the passive, with an analysis of Vietnamese
Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English
ByPhrases in Passives and Nominals
A longstanding claim in the literature holds thatbyphrases are special in the passive, receiving certain external argument roles thatbyphrases in nominals cannot, such as the role of experiencer. This paper challenges this long-standing claim and shows thatbyphrases are not special in the passive: they can receive all of the θ-roles that they can in verbal passives. They are banned from certain nominals for the same reason they are banned from ce…
QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD
The phenomenon of "frozen scope" in double object and spray-load constructions is shown to hold robustly across contexts, constructions, and quantifier types. Nevertheless, frozen scope is not absolute, holding only between two objects but not between an object and a subject or an object and some other operator. The rigidity of two object quantifiers follows the pattern of multiple instances of movement cross linguistically (multiple wh-movement,…
Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation
This article discusses three asymmetries in ditransitives-quantifier scope, nominalizations, and idioms-and argues that an asymmetric theory like that advocated by Marantz (1993) and Bruening (2001) is correct. A symmetric theory like that proposed by Harley (1997, 2002) cannot account for the asymmetries. The article also proposes a complete theory of idiom formation based on selection. It also proposes a formal semantics for double object const…
Precede-and-command revisited
The relation of c-command (Reinhart 1976, 1983) is widely believed to be the fundamental relation in syntax, underlying such diverse phenomena as coreference (the binding principles ), scope and variable binding, syntactic movement, and so on. Precedence is generally held to be irrelevant. This article argues that this view is mistaken. Syntax does not involve c-command at all, but rather a much coarser notion of command, phase-command , where on…
Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English
Double Object Constructions Disguised as Prepositional Datives
Recent work by Bresnan and colleagues (Bresnan 2007, Bresnan et al. 2007, Bresnan and Nikitina 2007) has argued that double object and prepositional dative constructions are essentially identical, the choice between them being conditioned by various factors. I argue against this conclusion, showing that the grammar clearly distinguishes double object from prepositional dative constructions. Under certain circumstances, the first object of a doubl…
No argument–adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C
The syntax literature has overwhelmingly adopted the view that Condition C reconstruction takes place in wh-chains for R-expressions contained within arguments, but not within adjuncts of fronted wh-phrases. At the same time, this empirical picture has been questioned by various authors. We undertake a series of grammaticality surveys using Amazon Mechanical Turk in an attempt to clarify the empirical picture regarding reconstruction for Binding …
Affected Experiencers
Numerous languages permit an NP that is not selected by the verb to be added to a clause, with several different possible interpretations. We divide such non-selected arguments into possessor, benefactive, attitude holder, and affected experiencer categories, on the basis of syntactic and semantic differences between them. We propose a formal analysis of the affected experiencer construction. In our account, a syntactic head Aff(ect) introduces t…
The nature of the passive, with an analysis of Vietnamese
Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English locative inversion and do -support
Locative inversion in English ( under the bridge lived a troll ) is ungrammatical in all of the contexts where do -support applies: subject-auxiliary inversion, sentential negation, emphasis or verum focus, VP ellipsis, and VP displacement. Importantly, it is ungrammatical in these contexts whether do -support applies or not: it is ungrammatical with other auxiliaries, and it is also ungrammatical in nonfinite clauses of these types, where do -su…
Defects of Defective Intervention
A phenomenon that has received much attention in the recent Minimalist literature is what Chomsky has dubbed ‘‘defective intervention’’ (Chomsky 2000). This is a phenomenon in which some head (usually finite T) seeks a matching NP to agree with or attract, but some other NP intervenes. In simple intervention cases, this other NP is itself eligible for agreement or movement. In cases of defective intervention, in contrast, the intervening NP is no…
Category Mismatches in Coordination Revisited
We reexamine cases of coordinated elements that do not match in syntactic category. We show that these fall into two types. The first type includes predicates, modifiers in the clausal domain, and such modifiers apparently coordinated with arguments. We argue that these do not actually involve coordination of unlike categories. The second type involves coordinated arguments of different categories. With this type, unlike the first, noninitial con…
Two Types of Wh-Scope Marking in Passamaquoddy
The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous
The lexicalist hypothesis, which says that the component of grammar that produces words is distinct and strictly separate from the component that produces phrases, is both wrong and superfluous. It is wrong because (i) there are numerous instances where phrasal syntax feeds word formation; (ii) there are cases where phrasal syntax can access subword parts; and (iii) claims that word formation and phrasal syntax obey different principles are not c…
Wh-in-Situ Does Not Correlate with Wh-Indefinites or Question Particles
Two theories, the Clausal Typing Hypothesis (Cheng 1991) and the unselective binding theory of wh-in-situ, have linked wh-in-situ to two other phenomena typologically: the use of a question particle, and the use of wh-words as indefinites. This article shows, through a typological survey and a detailed comparison of Passamaquoddy and Mandarin Chinese, that there is no connection between wh-in-situ and either property. Passamaquoddy uses wh-words …
CPs Move Rightward, Not Leftward
Several recent proposals hold that CP complements appear rightmost in many languages as the result of a two-step leftward-movement process: first the CP moves leftward, then a remnant phrase carries all other material to the left of that moved position. I show here that the arguments that have been given in favor of this approach do not go through. In contrast, a rightward-movement analysis explains all the facts in a much simpler and less ad hoc…
Algonquian Languages Have A-Movement and A-Agreement
Ritter and Rosen (2005) claim that Algonquian languages lack A-movement and A-binding, and they theorize that all agreement in Algonquian is agreement with Ā-positions. I show that this proposal cannot be maintained, given facts of quantifier scope in Passamaquoddy. These facts require recognizing a step of A-movement to a derived A-position, comparable to Spec, TP in languages like English. I further contrast this movement with the movement invo…
Differences between the Wh-Scope-Marking and Wh-Copy Constructions in Passamaquoddy
Several phenomena in Passamaquoddy clearly distinguish wh-scope marking with 'what' from an apparently similar wh-copy construction. These facts argue for a theory of wh-scope marking like that in Bruening 2004 (based on Dayal 1994), where the embedded question is the syntactic and semantic restriction on the matrix wh-word 'what'. The wh-copy construction, in contrast, is best analyzed as spelling out multiple copies of a long-distance movement …
Generalizing the Presuppositional Approach to the Binding Conditions
Almost all current approaches to the binding theory (the conditions that regulate covaluation between NPs within a sentence) have accepted the view that the binding theory should regulate only syntactic binding and not coreference. In this article, I argue that this is incorrect and that we need a binding theory that regulates both binding and coreference, as the classical binding theory had it. I also show some problems with the idea that the bi…
Depictive Secondary Predicates and Small Clause Approaches to Argument Structure
Some syntactic approaches to argument structure posit small clause constituents to represent what they take to be the semantics of the constructions being analyzed. For example, this approach would analyze a resultative construction like Martha hammered the metal flat as containing a small clause [the metal flat]. In the small clause analysis, the NP the metal is only an argument of the result state denoted by the small clause, and its referent i…
Alignment in Syntax: Quotative Inversion in English
This paper explores the idea that many languages have a phonological Align(ment) constraint that requires alignment between the tensed verb and C. This Align constraint is what is behind verb-second and many types of inversion phenomena generally. Numerous facts about English subject-auxiliary inversion and French stylistic inversion fall out from the way this Align constraint is stated in each language. The paper arrives at the Align constraint …
Idioms, collocations, and structure: Syntactic constraints on conventionalized expressions
Implicit arguments in English double object constructions
Passive do so
Brief response to Müller
Brief response to Müller Benjamin Bruening 1. Introduction Stefan Müller (2018) criticizes my article, 'The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous' (Bruening 2018), on several grounds. I go through each of his criticisms here and show that none weaken the arguments I made. The point of the original paper is undiminished, and the lexicalist hypothesis should be rejected as empirically false and explanatorily inadequate. 2. Psycholinguis…
Cheyenne Major Constituent Order
A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhramsa)
Word Order in Arabic
Mood at the Interface
QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD
The phenomenon of "frozen scope" in double object and spray-load constructions is shown to hold robustly across contexts, constructions, and quantifier types. Nevertheless, frozen scope is not absolute, holding only between two objects but not between an object and a subject or an object and some other operator. The rigidity of two object quantifiers follows the pattern of multiple instances of movement cross linguistically (multiple wh-movement,…
Two Types of Wh-Scope Marking in Passamaquoddy
Wh-Questions in Vietnamese
Wh-Conditionals in Vietnamese and Chinese: Against Unselective Binding
Differences between the Wh-Scope-Marking and Wh-Copy Constructions in Passamaquoddy
Several phenomena in Passamaquoddy clearly distinguish wh-scope marking with 'what' from an apparently similar wh-copy construction. These facts argue for a theory of wh-scope marking like that in Bruening 2004 (based on Dayal 1994), where the embedded question is the syntactic and semantic restriction on the matrix wh-word 'what'. The wh-copy construction, in contrast, is best analyzed as spelling out multiple copies of a long-distance movement …
Wh-in-Situ Does Not Correlate with Wh-Indefinites or Question Particles
Two theories, the Clausal Typing Hypothesis (Cheng 1991) and the unselective binding theory of wh-in-situ, have linked wh-in-situ to two other phenomena typologically: the use of a question particle, and the use of wh-words as indefinites. This article shows, through a typological survey and a detailed comparison of Passamaquoddy and Mandarin Chinese, that there is no connection between wh-in-situ and either property. Passamaquoddy uses wh-words …
Algonquian Languages Have A-Movement and A-Agreement
Ritter and Rosen (2005) claim that Algonquian languages lack A-movement and A-binding, and they theorize that all agreement in Algonquian is agreement with Ā-positions. I show that this proposal cannot be maintained, given facts of quantifier scope in Passamaquoddy. These facts require recognizing a step of A-movement to a derived A-position, comparable to Spec, TP in languages like English. I further contrast this movement with the movement invo…
Double Object Constructions Disguised as Prepositional Datives
Recent work by Bresnan and colleagues (Bresnan 2007, Bresnan et al. 2007, Bresnan and Nikitina 2007) has argued that double object and prepositional dative constructions are essentially identical, the choice between them being conditioned by various factors. I argue against this conclusion, showing that the grammar clearly distinguishes double object from prepositional dative constructions. Under certain circumstances, the first object of a doubl…
Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation
This article discusses three asymmetries in ditransitives-quantifier scope, nominalizations, and idioms-and argues that an asymmetric theory like that advocated by Marantz (1993) and Bruening (2001) is correct. A symmetric theory like that proposed by Harley (1997, 2002) cannot account for the asymmetries. The article also proposes a complete theory of idiom formation based on selection. It also proposes a formal semantics for double object const…
Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English locative inversion and do -support
Locative inversion in English ( under the bridge lived a troll ) is ungrammatical in all of the contexts where do -support applies: subject-auxiliary inversion, sentential negation, emphasis or verum focus, VP ellipsis, and VP displacement. Importantly, it is ungrammatical in these contexts whether do -support applies or not: it is ungrammatical with other auxiliaries, and it is also ungrammatical in nonfinite clauses of these types, where do -su…
Affected Experiencers
Numerous languages permit an NP that is not selected by the verb to be added to a clause, with several different possible interpretations. We divide such non-selected arguments into possessor, benefactive, attitude holder, and affected experiencer categories, on the basis of syntactic and semantic differences between them. We propose a formal analysis of the affected experiencer construction. In our account, a syntactic head Aff(ect) introduces t…
ByPhrases in Passives and Nominals
A longstanding claim in the literature holds thatbyphrases are special in the passive, receiving certain external argument roles thatbyphrases in nominals cannot, such as the role of experiencer. This paper challenges this long-standing claim and shows thatbyphrases are not special in the passive: they can receive all of the θ-roles that they can in verbal passives. They are banned from certain nominals for the same reason they are banned from ce…
Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English
Defects of Defective Intervention
A phenomenon that has received much attention in the recent Minimalist literature is what Chomsky has dubbed ‘‘defective intervention’’ (Chomsky 2000). This is a phenomenon in which some head (usually finite T) seeks a matching NP to agree with or attract, but some other NP intervenes. In simple intervention cases, this other NP is itself eligible for agreement or movement. In cases of defective intervention, in contrast, the intervening NP is no…
Precede-and-command revisited
The relation of c-command (Reinhart 1976, 1983) is widely believed to be the fundamental relation in syntax, underlying such diverse phenomena as coreference (the binding principles ), scope and variable binding, syntactic movement, and so on. Precedence is generally held to be irrelevant. This article argues that this view is mistaken. Syntax does not involve c-command at all, but rather a much coarser notion of command, phase-command , where on…
Brief reply to Zwart
Brief reply to Zwart Benjamin Bruening Zwart’s (2015) reply to my 2014 Language article (Bruening 2014) seeks to refute the claim in that article that precede-and-command offers much better empirical coverage than c-command for the conditions that regulate coreference (binding principles A, B, and C). However, nothing in what Zwart says addresses the question of whether there is a structural condition on coreference, much less what that structura…
The nature of the passive, with an analysis of Vietnamese
Alignment in Syntax: Quotative Inversion in English
This paper explores the idea that many languages have a phonological Align(ment) constraint that requires alignment between the tensed verb and C. This Align constraint is what is behind verb-second and many types of inversion phenomena generally. Numerous facts about English subject-auxiliary inversion and French stylistic inversion fall out from the way this Align constraint is stated in each language. The paper arrives at the Align constraint …
Subject–Auxiliary Inversion
In subject–auxiliary inversion in English, the typical declarative word order subject–auxiliary‐verb is instead realized as auxiliary‐subject‐verb. This inversion occurs in a number of environments, namely, matrix questions, conditionals, blessings and curses, comparatives, exclamatives, negative imperatives, and in environments where certain elements have been fronted ( so/as/nor , negative phrases, phrases with only , and certain others). Most …
Double Object Constructions and Prepositional Dative Constructions Are Distinct: A Reply to Ormazabal and Romero 2012
Ormazabal and Romero (2012) take issue with the arguments in Bruening 2010b that certain instances of prepositional dative constructions are really double object constructions. I show that their criticisms, when examined closely, actually support this claim. I also show that their alternative explanation for the facts is not successful. I also expand on the arguments from Bruening 2010b , and further argue that double object constructions must be…
No argument–adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C
The syntax literature has overwhelmingly adopted the view that Condition C reconstruction takes place in wh-chains for R-expressions contained within arguments, but not within adjuncts of fronted wh-phrases. At the same time, this empirical picture has been questioned by various authors. We undertake a series of grammaticality surveys using Amazon Mechanical Turk in an attempt to clarify the empirical picture regarding reconstruction for Binding …
Linguistics (37 works) · Philosophy (37 works) · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation (37 works) · Computer Science (33 works) · Natural Language Processing Techniques (21 works) · Mathematics (19 works) · Linguistics and Discourse Analysis (11 works) · Psychology (11 works) · Artificial Intelligence (10 works) · Syntax (10 works)