DOCSLIB.ORG

Advanced Generative Syntax

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Advanced Generative Syntax Advanced Generative Syntax Michael Barrie Sogang University December 2, 2020 2 Contents 1 Foundations of Generative Grammar 7 1.1 Historical Background . .7 1.2 Methodological Concerns . 11 1.3 Syntactic Theorizing . 15 Further Reading . 17 2 The Lexicon, Features, and Phrase Structure 19 2.1 The Lexicon . 19 2.2 Features . 20 2.2.1 Types of Features . 21 2.2.2 Subcategorization . 27 2.2.3 Agree . 28 2.3 Bare Phrase Structure . 31 2.4 Clausal Structure . 32 2.5 Configurationality . 35 Further Reading . 38 3 Ditransitives and the vP Layer 39 3.1 VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis . 39 3.2 Severing the External Argument . 44 3.3 Ditransitives . 47 3.4 vP Refined . 52 Further Reading . 55 4 Nominal Syntax 57 4.1 DP Theory . 57 4.2 Nominalizers and Roots . 59 4.3 Number . 65 3 4 CONTENTS 4.4 Case . 68 Further Reading . 73 5 The Architecture of Syntax 75 5.1 Phrasal Movement and Head Movement . 75 5.2 Transfer and the Interfaces . 79 5.3 Phase Theory . 83 Further Reading . 92 6 Case and A-Movement 93 6.1 Case Assignment . 93 6.1.1 Nominative Case . 94 6.1.2 Accusative Case . 97 6.2 A-Movement . 103 6.3 Unaccusativity . 106 6.4 Ergativity and the Dependent Theory of Case . 110 6.5 Properties of A-Movement . 111 Further Reading . 113 7 A-Bar Movement 115 7.1 Introduction . 115 7.2 Constraints on A-Bar Movement . 115 7.3 The Mechanism of A-Bar Movement . 117 7.4 Wh-in-situ . 121 7.5 Multiple Wh Movement . 127 7.6 Partial Movement and Scope Marking Constructions . 131 Further Reading . 134 8 Raising and Control 135 8.1 Introduction . 135 8.2 Diagnostics for Raising and Control . 137 8.2.1 Idiom Tests . 138 8.2.2 Expletive Subjects . 140 8.2.3 Voice Transparency . 140 8.2.4 Scope Reconstruction . 141 8.3 The Analysis of Raising and Control . 142 8.3.1 GB Analysis of Raising and Control . 142 8.3.2 Raising to Object . 144 CONTENTS 5 8.3.3 Control as Movement . 146 8.4 Partial Control . 148 8.5 Control into Subjunctive Clauses . 154 8.6 Non-obligatory Control . 154 Further Reading . 157 9 Linearization 159 9.1 Introduction . 159 9.2 The Headedness Parameter . 159 9.3 Antisymmetry . 161 9.4 Dynamic Antisymmetry . 168 Further Reading . 170 Index ............................................... 170 Bibliography . 173 6 CONTENTS Chapter 1 Foundations of Generative Grammar 1.1 Historical Background This book is an advanced introduction to generative grammar. It assumes a prior familiarity with general linguistic theory and some familiarity with basic generative grammar. In this introduction we briefly cover some historical aspects of how generative linguistics came into being followed by a discussion of the core properties of generative linguistics. Until the mid nineteenth century linguistic scholarship was dominated by historical linguistics. Scholars such as Sir William Jones, Grimm, and others were concerned with the historical relation- ships among languages and reconstructing proto-languages. In the mid-nineteenth century Ferdinand de Saussure proposed that language is an abstract system consisting of units of sound and units of meaning. This view of language grew into Structuralist Linguistics (l조주X ¸´Y). Structural- ist linguistics attempts to understand languages and dialects in synchronic terms, divorced from their historical predecessors (although structuralists certainly believed that both synchronic and diachronic approaches to the study of language were necessary). To be concrete, when students take introduction to linguistics at most universities and are introduced to phonology and morphology, most of the procedures covered are the same procedures developed by structuralists. Structuralist linguistics is the study of how the units of sound and the units of meaning are put together to form language. This view continued to grow both in Europe and in the United States. The structuralist approach began to mesh with similar approaches in China, although similar approaches had already been established in China much earlier (Wang and §Èø, 1989). In North America Structuralist Linguistics blossomed under the work of scholars such as Bloom- field, Haas, Hockett, and Martinet. In Europe, the Prague School led by Jakobson and Trubetzkoy took hold. The two approaches were largely similar, although American Structuralism was influ- enced by advances in behavioural psychology, notably by B. F. Skinner. Meanwhile, in China, Chao Yuen Ren worked with Chinese scholars on Historical Chinese linguistics, integrating both West- 7 8 CHAPTER 1. FOUNDATIONS OF GENERATIVE GRAMMAR ern and Eastern approaches to the study of language. What all these approaches had in common was a methodical approach to understanding how the bits of sound and the bits of meaning were put together. Structuralist phonology and morphology came to full fruition under these approaches and was applied to hundreds of languages around the world. Here are two Korean examples of the Structuralist approach to language. (1.1) Allophones in Korean (a) /s/ has two allophones: [s] and [S] (b) /s/ ! [S] / __ i (1.2) Allomorphs in Korean (a) nom has two allomorphs: /-i/ and /-ka/ (b) nom ! [-i] / C __, elsewhere /-ka/ A major shift in the field of linguistics took place in the 1950s with Chomsky’s The Logical Struc- ture of Linguistic Theory (Chomsky, 1955).1 The much shorter Syntactic Structures is a published version of LSLT, which gives a concise discussion of Chomsky’s work. Chomsky harshly refuted the behaviourist approach to language (Chomsky, 1959) and proposed an innate Universal Grammar (UG) as a model for language acquisition. Concomitantly, he proposed that a model of grammar should be able to account for all and only the grammatical sentences of a language. We say that a model consists of a set of rules that generates sentence, hence this approach is called generative grammar (생18법). The first instantiation of Generative Grammar is now referred to as Standard Theory (Chom- sky, 1957, 1965). It consists of a language specific Lexicon and a set of language-specific Phrase Structure Rules (PSR). Here is a basic example for English. (1.3) (a)S ! NP VP (b)NP ! (Det) N (c)VP ! V (NP) (d)N ! {Susan, John, apple} (e)V ! {sees, eats, cries} (f) Det ! {the} These rules are capable of generating the following sentences. 1LSLT was written in 1955, but was not published until 1975. 1.1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 9 (1.4) (a) S NP VP N V NP Susan sees N John (b) S NP VP N V John cries (c) S NP VP N V NP Susan eats Det N the apple The following data are problematic for the mini-grammar in (1.3. Our mini-grammar generates the ungrammatical sentences in (1.5) and (1.6), and it fails to generate the grammatical sentence in (1.7). Thus, we say the grammar in (1.3 overgenerates (1.5 and (1.6), and it undergenerates (1.7). (1.5) *Susan cried the apple. (1.6) *The apple sees John. (1.7) Susan eats the apple with a knife. We will not attempt refine our mini-grammar here. For a contemporary, pedagogical approach to Standard Theory, see Larson (2009). Standard Theory involved numerous language-dependent transformations. By the late 1960s Chomsky had already laid out his idea of Universal Grammar. The next revolution in genera- tive grammar, Extended Standard Theory was introduced in Chomsky (1973). Here, Chomsky 10 CHAPTER 1. FOUNDATIONS OF GENERATIVE GRAMMAR proposed "Conditions on Transformations", whereby, as the name suggests, transformations were subject to strict conditions. The idea is that the child has a much narrower range of choices to consider during acquisition. It was during Extended Standard Theory that X-Bar Theory became standard (Jackendoff, 1977; Stowell, 1981; Chomsky, 1970). In Stardard Theory, nominalizations were argued to be derived from a common underlying clausal core (Lees, 1960). This argument was based on numerous parallels between clausal and nominal constructions. (1.8) Parallels between clausal and nominal projections (a) The enemy destroyed the city. (b) the enemy’s destruction of the city (c) The actor portrayed himself. (d) the actor’s portrayal of himself Chomsky (1970) argued that while many nominals can be derived from underlying clausal con- structions, not all can, as in the following examples. (1.9) (a) the author of the book (b) Mary’s car Structurally, of course, the nominals in (1.9) and the nominals in (1.8) have the same structure; however, if the nominals in (1.8) are derived from underlying clauses, then we have no way to derive the nominals in (1.9). We don’t want to lose the fact that all nominals have the same basic structure, however. To overcome this conundrum, Chomsky proposed that lexical categories have the same universal phrase structure rules. The PSRs shown here are updated slightly. X stands for any lexical category. (1.10) general phrase structure rules (a)XP ! SpecXP X (b)X ! X ... These PSRs underlie Stowell’s 1981 development of X-Bar.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ECSP Report 6
    Features Environmental Change & Security Project REPORT ISSUE NO. 6 • THE WOODROW WILSON CENTER • SUMMER 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS FEATURES X5 Human Population and Environmental Stresses in the Twenty-first Century Richard E. Benedick 19 Oiling the Friction: Environmental Conflict Management in the Niger Delta, Nigeria Okechukwu Ibeanu SPECIAL REPORTS 33 The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States National Intelligence Council 66 Exploring Capacity for Integration: University of Michigan Population-Environment Fellows Programs Impact Assessment Project Denise Caudill COMMENTARY 77 Environment, Population, and Conflict Geoffrey D. Dabelko Ted Gaulin Richard A. Matthew Tom Deligiannis Thomas F. Homer-Dixon Daniel M. Schwartz 107 Trade and the Environment Martin Albrow Andrea Durbin Kent Hughes Stephen Clarkson Mikhail Gorbachev Anju Sharma William M. Daley Tamar Gutner Stacy D. VanDeveer OFFICIAL STATEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS 119 William J. Clinton; Albert Gore, Jr.; Madeleine K. Albright; David B. Sandalow; Benjamin A. Gilman; George W. Bush; Kofi Annan; Mark Malloch Brown; Klaus Töpfer; Nafis Sadik; Gro Harlem Brundtland ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE & SECURITY PROJECT REPORT, ISSUE 6 (SUMMER 2000) 1 Features 132 NEW PUBLICATIONS Environmental Change, Adaptation, and Security 132 Ecology, Politics, and Violent Conflict 135 Hydropolitics in the Third World: Conflict and Cooperation in International River Basins 136 Violence Through Environmental Discrimination: Causes, Rwanda Arena, and Conflict Model 139 The Sustainability
    [Show full text]
  • The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology
    UCLA UCLA Previously Published Works Title The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/05b2s4wg ISBN 978-3946234043 Author Schütze, Carson T Publication Date 2016-02-01 DOI 10.17169/langsci.b89.101 Data Availability The data associated with this publication are managed by: Language Science Press, Berlin Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language Classics in Linguistics 2 science press Classics in Linguistics Chief Editors: Martin Haspelmath, Stefan Müller In this series: 1. Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts on grammaticalization 2. Schütze, Carson T. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology 3. Bickerton, Derek. Roots of language ISSN: 2366-374X The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language science press Carson T. Schütze. 2019. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology (Classics in Linguistics 2). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/89 © 2019, Carson T. Schütze Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-946234-02-9 (Digital) 978-3-946234-03-6 (Hardcover) 978-3-946234-04-3 (Softcover) 978-1-523743-32-2
    [Show full text]
  • Feature Clusters
    Chapter 2 Feature Clusters 1. Introduction The goal of this Chapter is to address certain issues that pertain to the properties of feature clusters and the rules that govern their co-occurrences. Feature clusters come as fully specified (e.g. [+c+m] associated with people in (1a)) and ‘underspecified’ (e.g. [-c] associated with acquaintances in (1a)). Such partitioning of feature clusters raises the question of the implications of notions such as ‘underspecified’ and ‘fully specified’ in syntactic and semantic terms. The sharp contrast between the grammaticality of the middle derivation in (1b) and ungrammaticality of (1c) takes the investigation into rules that regulate the co-realization of feature clusters of the base-verb (1a). Another issue that is discussed in this Chapter is the status of arguments versus adjuncts in the Theta System. This topic is also of importance for tackling the issue of middles in Chapter 4 since – intriguingly enough – whereas (1c) is not an acceptable middle derivation in English, (1d) is. (1a) People[+c+m] don’t send expensive presents to acquaintances[-c] (1b) Expensive presents send easily. (1c) *Expensive presents send acquaintances easily. (1d) Expensive presents do not send easily to foreign countries. In section 2 of this Chapter, the properties of feature clusters with respect to syntax and semantics are examined. Section 3 sets the background for Section 4 by addressing the issue of conditions on thematic roles that have been assumed in the literature. Section 4 deals with conditions that govern the co-occurrences of feature clusters in the Theta System. The discussion in section 4 will necessitate the discussion of adjunct versus argument status of certain phrases.
    [Show full text]
  • The Linguistics Wars Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    THE LINGUISTICS WARS PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Randy Allen Harris | 368 pages | 09 Mar 1995 | Oxford University Press Inc | 9780195098341 | English | New York, United States The Linguistics Wars PDF Book As a non-linguist, this book also served as a serviceable introduction to some of the field's basic ideas, and it was interesting to read about Chomsky in his original role. Javascript is not enabled in your browser. It has also been noted that the complex adaptive system view of language is highly compatible with those strands of language evolution research that focus on the cumulative cultural evolution of language see e. We can begin with very simple notions that depend on bodily orientation: front-back, before-after, left-right, etc. The book is certainly not suitable for people outside the field because it involves too much linguistic theory, so in a sense the book fails to do what it wants to do. Protolanguage and mechanisms of meaning construal in interaction. It''s just a matter of fact. Spivey, M. The major research project was aimed at overcoming this tension by showing that the apparent complexity and variety of language was only superficial, the result of minor changes in a fixed and invariant system. Since the mid-twentieth century, the field of linguistics has been a tumultuous discipline. Jul 30, Tom rated it it was ok. Leaving the myth behind: a reply to Adger The shape of the human language-ready brain. However, Christiansen and Chater , p. Oxford: OUP. Wang Taiwan: Pyramid Press , — It should be stressed that these matters are presented in an entirely different light by intellectual opinion, which has its own tasks and commitments.
    [Show full text]
  • II Levels of Language
    II Levels of language 1 Phonetics and phonology 1.1 Characterising articulations 1.1.1 Consonants 1.1.2 Vowels 1.2 Phonotactics 1.3 Syllable structure 1.4 Prosody 1.5 Writing and sound 2 Morphology 2.1 Word, morpheme and allomorph 2.1.1 Various types of morphemes 2.2 Word classes 2.3 Inflectional morphology 2.3.1 Other types of inflection 2.3.2 Status of inflectional morphology 2.4 Derivational morphology 2.4.1 Types of word formation 2.4.2 Further issues in word formation 2.4.3 The mixed lexicon 2.4.4 Phonological processes in word formation 3 Lexicology 3.1 Awareness of the lexicon 3.2 Terms and distinctions 3.3 Word fields 3.4 Lexicological processes in English 3.5 Questions of style 4 Syntax 4.1 The nature of linguistic theory 4.2 Why analyse sentence structure? 4.2.1 Acquisition of syntax 4.2.2 Sentence production 4.3 The structure of clauses and sentences 4.3.1 Form and function 4.3.2 Arguments and complements 4.3.3 Thematic roles in sentences 4.3.4 Traces 4.3.5 Empty categories 4.3.6 Similarities in patterning Raymond Hickey Levels of language Page 2 of 115 4.4 Sentence analysis 4.4.1 Phrase structure grammar 4.4.2 The concept of ‘generation’ 4.4.3 Surface ambiguity 4.4.4 Impossible sentences 4.5 The study of syntax 4.5.1 The early model of generative grammar 4.5.2 The standard theory 4.5.3 EST and REST 4.5.4 X-bar theory 4.5.5 Government and binding theory 4.5.6 Universal grammar 4.5.7 Modular organisation of language 4.5.8 The minimalist program 5 Semantics 5.1 The meaning of ‘meaning’ 5.1.1 Presupposition and entailment 5.2
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded for Personal Non-Commercial Research Or Study, Without Prior Permission Or Charge
    https://theses.gla.ac.uk/ Theses Digitisation: https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/research/enlighten/theses/digitisation/ This is a digitised version of the original print thesis. Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Enlighten: Theses https://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] THE POLITICS AMO ADMINISTRATION OF COhTUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE RIVERS STATE OF NIGERIA BY LAURENCE A.8. lYAGOA Submitbed for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Glasgow Duly 1976 ProQuest Number: 10647271 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uesL ProQuest 10647271 Published by ProQuest LLO (2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLO. ProQuest LLO.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Syntax of Scope Anna Szabolcsi January 1999 Submitted to Baltin—Collins, Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
    1 The Syntax of Scope Anna Szabolcsi January 1999 Submitted to Baltin—Collins, Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory 1. Introduction This chapter reviews some representative examples of scopal dependency and focuses on the issue of how the scope of quantifiers is determined. In particular, we will ask to what extent independently motivated syntactic considerations decide, delimit, or interact with scope interpretation. Many of the theories to be reviewed postulate a level of representation called Logical Form (LF). Originally, this level was invented for the purpose of determining quantifier scope. In current Minimalist theory, all output conditions (the theta-criterion, the case filter, subjacency, binding theory, etc.) are checked at LF. Thus, the study of LF is enormously broader than the study of the syntax of scope. The present chapter will not attempt to cover this broader topic. 1.1 Scope relations We are going to take the following definition as a point of departure: (1) The scope of an operator is the domain within which it has the ability to affect the interpretation of other expressions. Some uncontroversial examples of an operator having scope over an expression and affecting some aspect of its interpretation are as follows: Quantifier -- quantifier Quantifier -- pronoun Quantifier -- negative polarity item (NPI) Examples (2a,b) each have a reading on which every boy affects the interpretation of a planet by inducing referential variation: the planets can vary with the boys. In (2c), the teachers cannot vary with the boys. (2) a. Every boy named a planet. `for every boy, there is a possibly different planet that he named' b.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Did Pragmatics Comme From
    n°19, Juin 2003, pp. 7-12 Where did pragmatics come from ? Abstract The present study is concerned with the early beginnings of pragmatics. It investigated the linguistic and philosophical backgrounds of this field. It was argued that pragmatics grew within philosophy and its emergence as an independent field Dr. A. HAMAD was, for some time, delayed by the influence of some linguistic Associate Prof. of Linguistics theories especially the generative-transformational theory. An-Najah Nat. University Finally, it was pointed out that this field was freed from the Nablus, Palestine influence of this theory. lthough many scholars, philosophers and A linguists, have been studying various types of pragmatic topics such as indexicality, implicatures, illocutionary force, speech acts, presuppositions, etc. For hundreds of years, pragmatics as a field has not emerged until recently. Not only that, but it has been denied the status of a component of grammar besides the phonological, syntactic, and semantic components which altogether constitute the core components of human language grammar. Critics have questioned the nature and the domain of this field; that is the theoretical as well as the practical status of the field in general. It seems that the scholars’ attitude toward pragmatics has been the result of radical theorizations in the main trend of theoretical linguistics motivated primarily by the structural and ملخص generative-transformational linguistic theories. The تهدف هذه الدراسة للتعرف على present study will attempt to explore briefly the البدايات المبكرة لعلم المقا مية. بحثت background of this field, its development, and the الدراسة في الخلفيات اللغوية والفلسفية reasons that stood behind the delay of its emergence التي تقف وراء هذا العلم.ثم حاولت .and institutionalization الدراسة التدليل على أن علم المقامية Philosophy and the Study of Language قد نشأ في حضن الفلسفة وأن بعض النضريات اللغوية عملت ولبعض In order to have a better understanding of the الوقت على تأخير ظهور هذا العلم.
    [Show full text]
  • A PROLOG Implementation of Government-Binding Theory
    A PROLOG Implementation of Government-Binding Theory Robert J. Kuhns Artificial Intelligence Center Arthur D. Little, Inc. Cambridge, MA 02140 USA Abstrae_~t For the purposes (and space limitations) of A parser which is founded on Chomskyts this paper we only briefly describe the theories Government-Binding Theory and implemented in of X-bar, Theta, Control, and Binding. We also PROLOG is described. By focussing on systems of will present three principles, viz., Theta- constraints as proposed by this theory, the Criterion, Projection Principle, and Binding system is capable of parsing without an Conditions. elaborate rule set and subcategorization features on lexical items. In addition to the 2.1 X-Bar Theory parse, theta, binding, and control relations are determined simultaneously. X-bar theory is one part of GB-theory which captures eross-categorial relations and 1. Introduction specifies the constraints on underlying structures. The two general schemata of X-bar A number of recent research efforts have theory are: explicitly grounded parser design on linguistic theory (e.g., Bayer et al. (1985), Berwick and Weinberg (1984), Marcus (1980), Reyle and Frey (1)a. X~Specifier (1983), and Wehrli (1983)). Although many of these parsers are based on generative grammar, b. X-------~X Complement and transformational grammar in particular, with few exceptions (Wehrli (1983)) the modular The types of categories that may precede or approach as suggested by this theory has been follow a head are similar and Specifier and lagging (Barton (1984)). Moreover, Chomsky Complement represent this commonality of the (1986) has recently suggested that rule-based pre-head and post-head categories, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles and Parameters Set out from Europe
    Principles and Parameters Set Out from Europe Mark Baker MIT Linguistics 50th Anniversary, 9 December 2011 1. The Opportunity Afforded (1980-1995) The conception of universal principles plus finite discrete parameters of variation offered: The hope and challenge of simultaneously doing justice to both the similarities and the differences among languages. The discovery and expectation of patterns in crosslinguistic variation. These were first presented with respect to “medium- sized” differences in European languages: The subjacency parameter (Rizzi, 1982) The pro-drop parameter (Chomsky, 1981; Kayne, 1984; Rizzi, 1982) They were then perhaps extended to the largest differences among languages around the world: The configurationality parameter(s) (Hale, 1983) “The more languages differ, the more they are the same” Example 1: Mohawk (Baker, 1988, 1991, 1996) Mohawk seems nonconfigurational, with no “syntactic” evidence of a VP containing the object and not the subject: (1) a. Sak wa-ha-hninu-’ ne ka-nakt-a’. Sak FACT-3mS-buy-PUNC NE 3n-bed-NSF b. Sak kanakta wahahninu’ c. Kanakta’ wahahninu’ ne Sak d. Kanakta’ Sak wahahninu’ e. Wahahninu’ ne Sak ne kanakta’ f. Wahahninu’ ne kanakta’ ne Sak g. Wahahninu’ ne kanakta’ h. Kanakta’ wahahninu’ i. Sak wahahninu’ j. Wahahninu’ ne Sak k. Wahahninu. All: ‘Sak/he bought a bed/it.’ There are also no differences between subject and object in binding (Condition C, neither c- commands the other) or wh-extraction (both are islands, no “subject condition”) (Baker 1992) Mohawk is polysynthetic (agreement, noun incorporation, applicative, causative, directionals…): (2) a. Sak wa-ha-nakt-a-hninu-’ Sak FACT-3mS-bed-Ø-buy-PUNC ‘Sak bought the bed.’ 1 b.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 English Subjectless Tagged Sentences Paul Kay Department Of
    1 English subjectless tagged sentences Paul Kay Department of Linguistics University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 [email protected] 2 Abstract A colloquial English sentence like Fooled us, didn't they? contains a finite main verb but no expressed subject. The identity of the missing subject of fooled is recovered from the tag subject they: compare Fooled us, didn't she?, Fooled us, didn't you? This paper argues (1) that such subjectless tagged sentences (STSs) pose a problem for grammatical approaches based on movement and empty categories and (2) that STSs receive a revealing analysis as part of a finely articulated family of tagged sentence constructions when viewed within a non-derivational, constructional, multiple-inheritance-based approach.* *I would like to thank Peter Culicover, Liliane Haegeman, Charles Fillmore Andreas Kathol and Richard Oehrle for comments on previous versions of this paper, as well as an anonymous reviewer for Language. They have doubtless offered more good advice than I have accepted. 3 0. Introduction. It has been argued from several points of view that whatever can be done with empty categories (ecs) can be done without them (Ades and Steedman 1982, Gazdar et al. 1984, Kaplan and Zaenen 1989, Pollard and Sag 1994 chapter 9, Sag and Fodor 1994, Kay and Fillmore 1999, Sag 1999). It has also been argued that, because there is no hard evidence for their existence, linguistic theory would be better off dispensing with these unobservable entities (Pickering and Barry 1991, Sag and Fodor 1994, Sag 1999).1 The present paper purports to take the argument one step further by showing that there are things that can be done without empty categories that cannot be done with them, at least not with any of the ecs currently available.
    [Show full text]
  • Sequence-Of-Tense and the Features of Finite Tenses Karen Zagona University of Washington*
    Sequence-of-tense and the Features of Finite Tenses Karen Zagona University of Washington* Abstract Sequence-of-tense (SOT) is often described as a (past) tense verb form that does not correspond to a semantically interpretable tense. Since SOT clauses behave in other respects like finite clauses, the question arises as to whether the syntactic category Tense has to be distinguished from the functional category tense. I claim that SOT clauses do in fact contain interpretable PRESENT tense. The “past” form is analyzed as a manifestation of agreement with the (matrix past) controller of the SOT clause evaluation time. One implication of this analysis is that finite verb forms should be analyzed as representing features that correspond to functional categories higher in clause structure, including those of the clausal left periphery. SOT morphology then sheds light on the existence of a series of finer- grained functional heads that contribute to tense construal, and to verbal paradigms. These include Tense, Modality and Force. 1. Introduction The phenomenon of sequence-of-tense (SOT) poses several challenges for the standard assumption that a “past tense” verb form signals the presence of a functional category in clause structure with an interpretable ‘past’ value. SOT is illustrated by the ‘simultaneous’ reading of sentence (1): (1) Terry believed that Sue was pregnant. a. The time of Sue’s pregnancy precedes time of Terry’s belief (precedence) b. The time of Sue’ pregnancy overlaps time of Terry’s belief (simultaneity) For the ‘precedence’ reading in (1a), the embedded clause tense is semantically transparent in the sense that the past form was corresponds to a past ordering relation (relative to the time of Terry’s belief).
    [Show full text]