Syntax

An abridged version can be found on my academic webpage

My work in theoretical linguistics deals primarily with formal historical syntax, especially grammaticalization and syntactic change as modelled in the Chomskyan (Minimalist) framework. In particular, I have looked at copula verbs and information structure in my work on Chinese cleft (shi-de) constructions, Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Latin/Romance (ad) and Chinese (ba), and the interface and frequency effects of grammaticalization in my formal comparative analysis of 'lateral' grammaticalization (LG)  (Simpson and Wu (2002)) and the mainstream more standard types of grammaticalization ('standard' grammaticalization (SG)) (Roberts and Roussou (2003), van Gelderen (2004, 2011)). More detail can be found in my papers, publications, dissertation, conference presentations and invited talks
On this page, I outline my research in theoretical linguistics, namely formal syntax where I worked on grammaticalization, copulas and information structure, especially cleft formation, and Case theory, namely DOM. Here are synopses and downloadable copies of all my theoretical work in thematic order:
Copulas, Clefts, Adnominalisers and Information Structure

'Sinitic nominalisation: microvariation and dialect levelling’. Oral (virtual) presentation at the 24th International Conference on Yue Dialects (第二十四届國際粵方言研討會), University of Macau, Macau, China, 13th-14th November 2020.  

Sinitic strategies of nominalisation as derived by adnominalisers de (的) and ge (個​/嘅/个) show microvariation across and between Chinese dialects, since de has a wider range of use than ge as the former can be used in past-time cleft constructions (VdeO/*VgeO) as well as in Activity nominals whereas the latter is generally prohibited in Southern dialects. However, the dialectal distribution is uneven since in central intermediary dialects ge is marginally acceptable in past-time clefts (?VgeO) but largely unacceptable in Activity nominals, which indicates subtle mechanisms of dialect contact where indefinite uses of ge which historically underlie past-time clefts are more permeable in borrowability than definite uses of ge which mark Activity nominals.   

 

Abstract downloadable here:   

'Microvariation in Chinese nominal domain: mapping formal and dialectal cartography using historical corpora and social media (WeChat)’. Oral presentation at Morphosyntactic Variation and Change in the 21st century (MVC21), University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, 27th-29th May 2020 (TBA).  

Chinese adnominaisers (結構助詞) are broadly divided into uses shared by morphemes de (的) and ge (個​/嘅/个) which display microvariation where de as used in northern varieties (including standard Mandarin) seems to have a wider distribution than ge in central-southern dialects as shown in the uses of the former in past-time cleft constructions and Activity verb constructions which are prohibited for the latter (Tang (2011)). Furthermore, although ge is generally prohibited in the aforementioned constructions in extreme southern dialects such as Yue (Cantonese), Min and Hakka, it is marginally grammatical in past-time clefts but ungrammatical in Activity verb constructions in central dialects such as Wu and Xiang, which may be explained in terms of Feature Interpretability in language contact and dialect levelling (Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou (2007)), since it is widely established that de is a predicational linker formed in appositive uses of phrase-final nominaliser di (底/者) and ge derived from its uses as a general classifier, and while the latter has inherent deixis as a quantifier/determiner the former does not, which may have yielded the discrepancies between cleft and Activity constructions where ge seems to have been reanalysed in clefts but not in Activity nominal phrases. 

 

Abstract downloadable here:   

'Cantonese ge (嘅) vs Mandarin de (的): Microparametric Variation in the Nominal Domain’. Oral presentation at the Third International Symposium on Chinese Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (ISOCTAL-3), University College Cork, 13th December 2019. 

Cantonese ge (嘅) and Mandarin de (的) display subtle microvariations, since although both are classified as Sinitic adnominalisers, they have different distributions in relation to the event structure of the verb.  

 

Abstract downloadable here:  

'Cantonese GE (粵語結構助詞: )’. Oral presentation at the Second Forum on Cantonese Linguistics (FoCaL-2), in conjunction with the School of Cantonese Studies, Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1st June 2019. 

Cantonese adnominaliser (ge 嘅) presents subtle differences from Mandarin adnominaliser (de 的) in ways which suggest a more fine-grained cartographic structure in the Chinese nominal domain where ge and de co-vary microparametric differences which correlate with their different etymologies (嘅 < 個, 的 < 底 < 者). 

 

Abstract downloadable here:  

'Formation of Chinese clefts: microparametric 'lateral' grammaticalization’. Poster presentation at the Third Buckeye East Asian Linguistics Forum (BEAL-3), Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States, 22nd October 2018. 

A formal analysis of the typology of cleft structures in Chinese dialects reveals some common similarities, namely the use of the copula in assigning focus which accords with the cross-linguistic distribution of it-clefts/pseudo-clefts, as well as some microvariations which give rise to different forms of clefts in different areas of the Sinosphere.  

Abstract downloadable here:  

Poster downloadable here: 

Proceedings paper downloadable here: 

'Formation of Cantonese clefts (粵語焦點句形成語法化)’. Oral presentation at the First Forum on Cantonese Linguistics (FoCaL-1), Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 31st May 2018. 

While Cantonese broadly conforms to the Sinitic pattern of cleft formation in that it consists of a copula verb (hai 係) selecting a nominalised clause headed by the adnominaliser (ge 嘅), it displays microvariations and idiosyncracies in comparison to other Chinese dialects which reveal some new mechanisms in formal syntactic change.

 

Abstract downloadable here:  

‘Formation of Chinese shi-de constructions (Mandarin and dialects)’. Oral presentation at the Second International Symposium of Chinese Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (ISOCTAL-2), University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy, 14th December 2017.

Comparative evidence reveals a sharp divide between the Chinese cleft (shi-de) constructions in the north and south of China, which yields new and interesting insights into the formation of Chinese cleft constructions. 

Abstract downloadable here:  

'Chinese shi-de constructions’. Poster presentation at the Summer Institute of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA), University of Kentucky, United States, 9th July 2017. 

New historical evidence indicates new origins for Chinese cleft (shi-de) constructions, a formal analysis of which entails interesting modifications to Simpson and Wu's (2002) 'lateral' grammaticalization hypothesis.

 

Abstract downloadable here: 

‘Formation of Chinese shi-de constructions’. Oral presentation at the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the International Assocation of Chinese Linguistics (IACL-25), Research Institute for Linguistics (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) and Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungarian, 25th June 2017. 

A novel and integrated analysis of the historical origins of Chinese cleft (shi-de) constructions seeks to account for their empirical similarities and differences as well as a new formal definition of Simpson and Wu's (2002) 'lateral' grammaticalization.

Abstract downloadable here: 

‘Chinese copula shi’. Oral presentation at the inaugural International Symposium on Chinese Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (ISOCTAL-1), The Centre for Research in Linguistics and Language Sciences (CRiLLS), Newcastle University, 10th December 2015. 

The historical formation of the Chinese copula shi is reconsidered within a formal (Minimalist) framework and new proposals are made regarding the hypothesis of 'lateral' grammaticalization, as proposed by Simpson and Wu (2002).

 

Abstract downloadable here: 

‘What is ‘lateral’ grammaticalization? Chinese de and shi’'. Oral presentation at the Twentieth Annual Conference of the International Association of Chinese Linguistics (IACL-20), Polytechnic University of Hong Kong, Thursday 30th August 2012. 

A comparison between Simpson and Wu's (2002) 'lateral' grammaticalization (Chinese shi-de constructions) and standard Minimalist accounts of grammaticalization (Roberts and Roussou (2003), van Gelderen (2004, 2011)) reveals crucial and important properties of functional categories and syntactic change.

Abstract downloadable here: 

Keith Tse

Academic

My education at school made me believe that it was possible to combine linguistic research with formal mathematical and scientific modelling, and my dream was to model language just as we model mechanics and statistics i.e. applying pure mathematical algebra and algorithm to real life case-studies. I discovered theoretical linguistics in my graduate education at the University of Manchester and have been obsessed with it since. I distinctly remember my first ever session with Professor Nigel Vincent in which the first thing he said to me was, 'Do you want to become a philologist using lots of theory or a theoretical linguist using lots of data?' At Oxford, I learnt how to analyse linguistic data in my study of classical philology and Romance linguistics, while at Manchester I was taught how to integrate data-analysis with modern theoretical research on the human language faculty. As Nigel explained to me, there is no mutual exclusivity between theory and data. In fact, he was always encouraging me to pursue both disciplines and use them 

complementarily. My first session with him was a memorable and inspirational 

experience, like many others throughout my time at Manchester . He truly is the best (Romance) linguist of his generation.

I am proud to be his last research student.  

Differential Object Marking and Case theory

'Event Structure and Differential Object Marking: Perspectives from Romance and Chinese’. Oral (virtual) presentation at the Workshop on Events and Event Structure at the Limits of Grammar (EESLiG), University of Oxford, United Kingdom, 14th September 2020.  

Two famous case-studies of Differential Object Marking (DOM) (Romance ad and Chinese ba) reveal empirical similarities and differences that can be accounted for in terms of their categories, since the fact that Romance ad is prepositional and Chinese ba is deverbal entails discrepancies in distribution as the former is more nominally-driven while the latter more verbally so. Nonetheless, a comparison reveals some core properties of DOM that may be incorporated into the universal theory of event structure, namely transitivity and aktionsart which seem to underlie typological properties of 'markedness' that are characteristic of DOM in the world's languages.  

 

Abstract downloadable here:   

'What is the D in DOM (Differential Object Marking)? Oral (virtual) presentation at the Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistic (HLL) Online Virtual Colloquium, 11th September 2020.   

Romance varieties display significant microvariation in Differential Object Marking (DOM), and although animacy is a primary factor in triggering DOM, other factors that have to do with referentiality (+D) also condition Romance DOM in ways which create intermediary types of DOM. Taking such D factors into account may allow us to create a formal typology of DOM in Romance. 

 

Abstract downloadable here:   

'Differential Object Marking: Nominal and Verbal Parameters’. Poster presentation at the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) Annual Meeting, Hilton New Orleans Riverside, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2nd January 2020. 

While the robust cross-linguistic distribution of Differential Object Marking (DOM) indicates linguistic and cognitive universals in denoting nominal and verbal markedness, the different diachronic pathways in its genesis reveal subtle microvariations in the mechanisms underlying DOM, as shown in a comparison between Latin/Romance preposition ad and Chinese co-verb ba (把), the former being more nominally-driven and the latter more verbally-driven. 

 

Abstract downloadable here:  

Proceedings Paper downloadable here: 

'Chinese Voice Alternations: Applicatives and Argument Alternations’. Oral presentation at the Third International Workshop on Syntactic Cartography (IWSC2019), Beijing Language and Culture University, 27th October 2019. 

Two special co-verbs in Chinese ba (把) and bei (被) display syntactic properties of argument selection and event structure which indicate unique derivational mechanisms of argument alternation. This paper proposes that Chinese ba and bei are unique forms of Voice heads which entail Voice alternations akin to activisation and passivisation respectively, and though it is traditionally noted that ba and bei share many similarities, their relative positions reveal differences in distributional and collocational range which can be argued to be due to their cartographic positions in the hierarchy of verbal and clausal functional heads. 

 

Abstract downloadable here:  

PhilSoc Report downloadable here: 

'Chinese ba and bei: Co-Verbs, Light Verbs, Voice and Argument Alternations'. Oral presentation at the Eighth International Conference on Formal Linguistics (ICFL-8), Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, 24th November 2018. 

Chinese Co-Verbs denote subtle alternations of argument placement and differential argument marking which suggest a more elaborate cartographic structure in the lower half of the clausal spine, namely between T(ense)/Mod(al) and Asp(ect) where there are reasons to believe that there is a series of Applicative heads denoting Voice (Active/Passive) whose formal arrangement seems to operate on a semantically-driven Remerge rather than Case-driven Internal Merge. 

Abstract downloadable here:  

'Microvariation in Western Romance Differenial Object Marking (ad): diachrony and synchrony'. Oral presentation at 'Differential Object Marking in Romance- Towards Microvariation', Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales (INALCO), Paris, France, 9th November 2018.

 

A microparametric analysis of Western Romance Differential Object Marking (DOM) reveals not only microvariations between different yet related varieties but also mechanisms which underlie the structure of the Romance nominal domain both from a diachronic and synchronic perspective.  

Abstract downloadable here:  

'Chinese Voice: ba and bei’. Poster presentation at the International Forum in Frontiers in Linguistics (IFFL), Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China, 30th October 2018. 

Chinese co-verbs ba (把) and bei (被) involve subtle empirical patterns which support a derivation of argument alternation in a cartographic hierarchy of Applicative heads, the structure of which seems to be based on a mechanism of Voice alternation which is more semantically-oriented rather than Case-driven as seen in Western Indo-European languages.   

Abstract downloadable here:  

'Chinese ba: new Voice head and Voice alternations’. Oral presentation at the 31st Paris Meeting on East Asian Linguistics (JLAO), Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales (INALCO), Paris, France, 28th June 2018. 

Chinese ba is a seminal morpheme in Chinese whose formal and empirical properties have been analysed by Chinese scholars throughout the ages, albeit to no completely satisfactory analysis. This paper presents new perspectives in the structure of Chinese ba-constructions which not only purports to account for some subtle properties of ba hitherto documented but unaccounted for but also raises new perspectives on the formal structure of Case-assignment and Differential Object Marking.  

Abstract downloadable here:  

'Formal convergence and divergence: creative parametric (re)setting in Latin/Romance syntactic change’. Oral presentation at the Workshop on 'Romance Diachrony at the Interfaces', 48th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), University of York, Toronto, Canada, 25th April 2018. 

A formal analysis of the evolution of Latin/Romance prepositions shows that while 'simplicity' strongly determines parameter-(re)setting in historical syntax in conformity to the Inertia Principle, the mechanisms behind this are far from mechanical or predictable as a level of creativity and sensitivity to the inherent semantics of the elements in question can be shown. 

Abstract downloadable here:  

'Western Romance Different Object Marking (ad): analogical generalization and feature 'simplification’. Oral presentation at the 21st Annual Ohio State University Congress on Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics (OSUCHiLL), Ohio State University, Ohio, United States, 30th March 2018

Although Differential Object Marking (ad) is pan-Romance and has proto-Romance origins, it displays subtle microvariations between different dialects which reveal different analogical and formal pressures at bay. 

Abstract downloadable here:  

‘The formation of Differential Object Marking: creative parametric microparametric variation of semantic features’. Oral presentation at the International Workshop: Diachrony of Differential Object Marking, Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales (INALCO), Paris, France, 17th November 2017.

A formal comparative analysis of two famous case-studies of Differential Object Marking (DOM) (Latin/Romance ad and Chinese ba/jiang) reveals striking similarities and differences in the formal alignment of semantic features in nominal arguments, which not only demonstrates the dynamic creativity and sensitivity to semantic features in formal Case-marking, but also allows us to form a formal typology of DOM, which is richly attested as a cross-linguistic universal. 

Abstract downloadable here: 

‘Chinese ba: grammaticalization, ‘lateral’ grammaticalization and Case theory’, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-25), University of Michigan, published by Ohio State University (2014). 

'Lateral' grammaticalization (Chinese de and shi) is similar to yet different from grammaticalization in Minimalism, since while both involve 'structural simplification', the latter displays 'phonological weakening', 'univerbation' and 'semantic bleaching' which the former does not (Tse (2013a, b)). There is another functional category which is not analysed in Roberts and Roussou's (2003) Minimalist account of grammaticalization, namely K(case), which is postulated to represented morphological case (van Kemenade and Vincent (1997:18-21)). An analysis of case-markers (K) in Chinese (ba) suggests that they are 'laterally' grammaticalized, which is significant for Chinese and modern Case theory since it entails that K(case) is not universal and cannot be equated with abstract Case.

Abstract downloadable here: 

Poster downloadable here: 

Paper in proceedings downloadable here: 

'Latin/Romance ad: Differential Object Marking, Minimalism and formalism/functionalism’. Oral presentation at Going Romance 2013, University of Amsterdam, Friday 29th November 2013. 

A new account of the proto-Romance formation of the Romance Differential Object Marking (DOM) system is reconstructed from medieval Romance and traced back to Latin, which not only accounts for the DOM properties of western Romance ad, but also expands on traditional analyses of Latin/Romance ad as a case-marker (K(case)). 

Abstract downloadable here: 

Written-up version downloadable here: 

'The formation of Spanish prepositional objects'. Association of Hispanists in Great Britain and Ireland (AHGBI) Annual Conference, University of Oxford, Monday 25th March 2013. 

The genesis of Spanish prepositional objects (+ direct object) is analysed in depth with reference to medieval Spanish texts (mainly El Poema del mio Cid) and a comparison with other medieval Romance varieties reveals proto-Romance/Latin origins.  

Abstract downloadable here: 

'The formation of (Ibero-)Romance Case-markers'. 2nd Cambridge Colloquium on the 'Histories of the Ibero-Romance Languages', Norman MacColl Symposium 2012, Queens' College, University of Cambridge, Thursday 29th March 2012. 

The use of Latin ad as a Romance case-marker is carefully reconsidered and new empirical and theoretical insights are proposed. 

Presentation downloadable here: 

Grammaticalization and Syntactic Change

'Formalist and functionalist factors in parameter resetting: a creative compromise’. Oral presentation at the Workshop 'Learnability in a Parametric World', Romance Turn IX, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania, 1st September 2018. 

Formal approaches towards syntactic change assume that parameter-resetting occurs in first language acquisition (Lightfoot (1991, 1998)), and current Minimalist assumptions (Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT)) predict that formal 'simplicity' determines the outcome of the formation of child grammar (Roberts (2001, 2007), van Gelderen (2011), cf Chomsky (1995, 2005, 2007)). Romance data, namely the diachrony of prepositions as Case-markers and complementisers, seem to show that while formal 'simplicity' does play a role in parameter-resetting, other factors pertaining to the functionalist realms of expressivity and clarity permit a significant pool of formal variation which demonstrates the creativity in parameter-fixing. 

Abstract downloadable here:  

'Standard' grammaticalization and 'lateral' grammaticalization: weakening (or not) of functional elements- a revised view of co-evolution of meaning and form'. International Symposium on Verbs, Clauses and Constructions (VCC), University of La Rioja, Logroño, Spain, Wednesday 26th October 2016. 

A formal comparison between 'standard' grammaticalization (Roberts and Roussou (2003), van Gelderen (2004, 2011)) and 'lateral' grammaticalization (Simpson and Wu (2002)) reveals new, interesting and important research questions regarding functional elements and their genesis. 

Abstract downloadable here: 

'Loss and gain of features in syntactic change'. PhD course: Loss and gain in language, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway, Thursday 21st May 2015. 

A formal featural analysis of historical syntax shows that formal features play an important part not only in the directionality and formal typology of syntactic change but also in its interface and empirical effects. 

Abstract downloadable here: 

‘The grammaticalization of K(case)Ps within Minimalism: formalism vs functionalism, synchrony vs diachrony’, in Bednaříková, Božena and Pavla, Hernandezová (eds), Bohemica Olomucensia,Od slova k modelu jazyka: Sborník z 13. mezinárodního setkání mladých lingvistů. Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci (ISBN: 978-80-244-3960-0), pp. 310-325. (2014)

Roberts and Roussou (2003) argue that the cross-linguistic distribution of grammaticalization is due to its “simplification”, and the grammaticalization of case-markers displays it since there is a loss of “Agree” relations. Synchronic “simplicity” explains diachronic trends, and formalism and functionalism are not mutually exclusive.

Abstract downloadable here:  

Final draft of chapter downloadable here:

Proof copy of chapter downloadable here:  

Published volume downloadable here:  

‘What is ‘lateral’ grammaticalization?’, in Languages at the University of Essex (LangUE), Proceedings for LangUE 2012, pp. 98-110 (2013). 

Simpson and Wu (2002) and Wu’s (2004) ‘lateral grammaticalization’ is a Minimalist analysis of Chinese de, which has been re-analysed from a determiner (D) to a verbal suffix (T). Roberts and Roussou (2003) and van Gelderen (2011) deal with grammaticalization within Minimalism, though neither take ‘lateral grammaticalization’ into account (Vincent and Borjars (2010:293)). A comparison between these accounts reveals that Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) and van Gelderen’s (2011) ‘feature economy’ also accounts for the cross-linguistic distribution of ‘lateral grammaticalization’, which is the main theoretical thrust of their accounts (Roberts and Roussou (2003:2-7), van Gelderen (2011:4-17)). However, the lack of ‘upward feature analysis’ (Roberts and Roussou (2003:200)) in ‘lateral grammaticalization’ sets it formally apart from grammaticalization, and this ties in empirically with the lack of ‘phonological weakening’, ‘univerbation’ and ‘semantic bleaching’ in ‘lateral grammaticalization’ when these are the diagnostic traits of grammaticalization (Campbell (2001), Roberts and Roussou (2003:224-232)). All this entails some significant revisions to Minimalism as a model for grammaticalization and ‘lateral grammaticalization’, the former of which involves an upward shift of features while the latter involves a re-analysis of features from pragmatics.

Abstract downloadable here:  

Paper downloadable here: 

Full volume downloadable here: 

‘K(case)Ps: ‘configurationality’ and ‘structural simplification’, in Languages at the University of Essex (LangUE), Proceedings for LangUE 2012, pp. 85-97 (2013). 

Roberts and Roussou (2003) analyse grammaticalization within Minimalism, and Ledgeway (2011a, 2011b) deals with grammaticalization in Latin/Romance, also within Minimalism. Neither of them analyses the grammaticalization of KPs (case-markers) and so this is the theme of this paper. The grammaticalization of two very important Latin/Romance KPs (de marking genitive, ad marking dative) indeed conforms to both Robert & Roussou’s and Ledgeway’s hypotheses, since they originate from Latin PPs (de denoting separation, ad denoting direction), and within X’-theory complements (e.g. KPs) are ‘simpler’ than adjuncts (e.g. PPs) in that the former require fewer feature place-holders than the latter (Robert & Roussou (2003:106)), and so by Roberts & Roussou’s (2003:200-201) ‘structural simplification’ (reduction of ‘feature syncretisms’) PPs are grammaticalized as KPs. Robert & Roussou’s ‘structural simplification’ assumes configurationality and can only occur in configurational syntax, and so configurationality is a prerequisite for grammaticalization in Minimalism, which conforms to Ledgeway’s argument (2011a:405-434)) that the key syntactic change from Latin to Romance is the rise of configurationality, which gives rise to functional categories in Romance (Ledgeway (2011a:409)). Finally, as configurationality is a controversial notion, alternative scenarios are considered in the appendix where configurationality no longer has explanatory value, and ‘re-analysis’ is argued to be the key to understanding grammaticalization, since it is in itself sufficient to explain grammaticalization, with or without configurationality.

Abstract downloadable here:  

Paper downloadable here: 

Full volume downloadable here: 

'Grammaticalization and ‘lateral’ grammaticalization, formalism and functionalism’, in Working papers of the University of Geneva, GG@G, SWIGG 12, pp. 95-115 (2012). 

Roberts and Roussou (2003) and van Gelderen (2011) analyse grammaticalization in Minimalism and argue that it involves ‘structural simplification’, which explains its cross-linguistic distribution. Simpson and Wu (2002) analyse ‘lateral’ grammaticalization, also within Minimalism. Vincent and Borjars (V & B) (2010) argue that the latter is problematic for R & R and van Gelderen’s hypotheses, since it does not display an ‘upward shift of features’, yet I argue in this paper that it actually fits into their definitions of ‘structural simplification’ since Agree relations are lost in the process. Furthermore, the lack of ‘upward shift of features’ in ‘lateral’ grammaticalization correlates with the empirical differences, namely ‘phonological weakening’, ‘univerbation’ and ‘semantic bleaching’, all of which occur in grammaticalization but not in ‘lateral’ grammaticalization. Finally, V & B (2010) argue that formalism and functionalism are not mutually exclusive, which can be verified by examining the cross-linguistic examples of both grammaticalization and ‘lateral’ grammaticalization, since while they all undergo ‘structural simplification’, their ‘cues’ are also strikingly similar.

Abstract downloadable here: 

Paper downloadable here:  

Follow me on social media: 

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Google+ Social Icon
  • Tumblr Social Icon
  • Instagram Social Icon

Follow my blog: 

keithtselinguist.wordpress.com

Please right-click the RG logo, or click here.

© Keith Tse (2015-) 

Downloadable CV and Card

London, United Kingdom