DOCSLIB.ORG

A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory (Chomsky 1993)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory (Chomsky 1993) MIT Fall A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory Chomsky The Minimalist Chronicles Episo de I MIT We Dec To start with some familiar observations regarding Economy Why do DPs move to Ap ositions a The ship was sunk t i i b The ice melted t i i c L es l les ont toutes dans French The girls have allFEMPL danced The girls have all danced Cf Toutes les l les ont dans Bil l seemed to t that the world is round a i i seemed to Bil l that the Cf It b Bil l struck t that the world is round i i Cf It struck Bil l that the Last Resort Move to Sp ec only if some prop erty of or requires it Some version of the Caselter This is an economy consideration Theory What else may not motivate movement to Ap ositions Binding a Sue b elieved herself to seem likely t to win the game i i would win the game b Sue believed herself to seem likely to t that Mary i i Cf Sue believed it to seem likely to her mother that Mary would win the game judgements O to seem to oneself to always be likely to t win is a welcome il lusion a PR i i b PRO to be liked t by everone is wishful thinking i i c PRO to seem to t that Bush is intel ligent is hard to believe i i or it to seem to anyone that Bush is intel ligent is impossible Cf F 1 Handout inspired in great part from Davids exegesis What ab out covert expletive replacement Though there is much to say ab out the story of ther e a There seem to be children in the room b There seem that children are in the room Cf It seems that children are in the room So what exactly do es motivate movement to an Ap osition Greed Move only to satisfy a featural requirement of Theory conditions and expletive replacement are not such requirements Binding These seem to b e prop erties of LF interpretation More later In any case Greed may well intro duce more problems than it solves More on this later as well a It do es lo ok as though its only Case that motivates such greedy movementGreed is another Economy consideration NB PRO also seems to move for Case reasons p erhaps for Null Case recall Idans lecture on PRO b But really is it only Case that drives Amo vement Consider eg Les tables ont toutes t repeintes French The tables have allFEMPL b een repaintedFEMPL The tables have all b een repainted Cf Toutes les tables ont t repeintes EPP We will return to that b elow Generalized c In the meantime what ab out visvis the plausibility of a Generalized EPP a It seems to some strange astronomist that the world is at b Some strange astronomist seems to t that the world is at i i Another Econonomy constraint on greedy movement Shortest Move cf Rizzis Relativized Minimality a It seemed that Sue was believed t to have won i i b Sue seemed that it was believed t to have won i rtest Move b eyond Amovement Sho a Would Sue t have left i i b Have Sue would t left i i a Whom did John persuade t to visit whom i i MIT Fall b Whom did John persuade whom to visit t i i Without Strict Cyclicity Shortest Move may lose its bite in a framework where Merge and Move are interleaved throughout the derivation ie a Dstructureless framework that mixes Generalized and Singulary Transformations Why not 0 seemed that was believed Sue to have won VP IP I 0 was believed t to have won Sue seemed that IP i IP i VP I 0 was believed t to have won it Sue seemed that IP i IP IP i VP I Why not Sue have left VP Have Sue t left CP i VP i would t left Have Sue VP i CP i IP Why not 0 to visit whom persuade John PAST I Whom did John persuade to visit t CP i VP i 0 to visit t Whom did John persuade whom VP i CP i IP j I Why do some typ es of movements eg VtoI not show up in certain languages Recall some of the EmondsPollo ck facts a We dont like spinach Sub j do not V Ob j IP b We often eat chocolate Sub j Adv V Ob j IP Mary Sub j al l V Ob j c They al l love IP a Nous naimons pas les pinards Sub j ne V pas Ob j IP b Nous mangeons souvent du chocolat Sub j V Adv Ob j IP c Ils aiment tous Marie Sub j V tous Ob j IP a We like not spinach b We eat often chocolate c They love al l Mary 2 But how come headmovement adjunction tuckingin la Norvin do not ob ey Strict Cyclicity Or do they cf Ken Sars collo quium this Friday a Nous ne pas aimons les epinards b Nous souvent mangeons du chocolat c Ils tous aiment Marie Why move at all a Movement for Convergence The only purp ose of movement is to ensure that a derivation converge at b oth the PF and LF interfaces b Sp ellout Separates out strips away the phonological features of a linearized expression and and sends them to the phonetic comp onent c If any morpheme contains an unpronounceable feature eg lowhigh or some Strong Vfeature see it will cause the derivation that contains it to Crash at PF unless the feature is deleted b efore Sp ellout d Unlik e Strong features Weak features eg Agr features and Vfeatures of T in English are invisible at PF though visible at LF until they get deleted e Deletion of a feature o ccurs when the feature is asso ciated via movement p er MPLT with a matching o ccurrence of the same feature eg the pl feature of AgrS in French and the pl inection feature in the V chanterons as in Nous chanterons We will features sing In MPLT this is called checking o Corollaries a Movement o ccurs only when necessary to check o a feature that would cause a Crash if not checked o b Truism Movement that aects PF must o ccur b efore Sp ellout eg French VtoI c Truism Movement that aects only LF might o ccur after Sp ellout eg English VtoI d Assumption There is movement on the LF leg after Sp ellout but nothing like movement on the PF side after Sp ellout NB This holds in MPLT but see PFb ound treatments of Germanic V in later Minimalist treatments e Strengthen might in c to must gives us Pr ocrastinateanother Economy considerationand we have a way of regulating overt vs covert movement eg the EmondsPollo ck observations on Vraising in French vs Vinsitu in English f Sstructure is not an indep endent level with its own levelsp ecic conditions but merely a p oint in the derivation determined by other factors MIT Fall MPLTs lexicalist theory of inection vs Pollo cks and Rohrbacher et al s syntax buildsinection theoriessome Minimalist implications a In MPLT eg verbs and nouns are taken ful lyine cted from the lexiconwords are merged in the derivation with their morphological features eg Tense and Casefeatures already inserted b These morphological features must b e uniformly eliminated by LFin al l languages Consequence Since movement is driven by the need fo check o features see by LF all languages will manifest similar movements and show similar congurations eg the EmondPollo ck contrasts in French vs English disapp ear at LF c Some of these featuresthose that are Strongmust b e eliminated by PF or else the derivation will crash see d Overt raising is banned when covert counterpart is p ossiblePro crastinate see e e Thus Pro crastinate maximizes LF movement while Strong features force overt move ment Pro crastinate Feature strength yield the PFvsLF branching without an indendep ent notion of Sstructure Holbmergs Generalization revisitedexplaining this tether on Amovement But see Holmb erg Fox Pesetsky for radically dierent approaches a Skli segir Sveini oft sgur Icelandic Skuli tells Sveini often stories Skuli often tells Sveini stories Holmb erg al lir vasann b Stdentarnir stungu smjrinu the students put the butter all in the p o cket The students all put the butter in their p o ckets Holmb erg ekki c Hann keypti bkina he b ought the b o ok not He did not buy the b o ok Holmb erg Stdentarnir hafa al lir stungig smjrinu vasann the students have all put the butter in the p o cket The students have all put the butter in their p o ckets Holmb erg Holbmergs generalization re Ob ject Shift pro jection of its governing Move an ob ject NP leftwards within the Xbar verb when this verb is phonetically empty Holmb erg Evidence that OS is Amovement a clauseb oundedness b binding by shifted ob ject into crossedover adverbial is p ossible c no weak crossover eect d no licensing of a parasitic gap Why is the ob jectshifted DP undergoing Amovement Assuming that all movement is Greeddriven Chomskys answer is that ob jectshift is related to Case checking On the p osition in which the shifted ob ject checks its Case Recall Pollo cks discovery ab out French short verbmovement in innitival clauses thus of INFL into T and Agr the explosion a Ne pas souvent lire les journaux To not often read the newspap ers b Ne pas lire souvent les journaux c Ne lire pas souvent les journaux ynes participleagreement facts in Homework III Also recall Ka a Jean a repeint les tables Jean a repeint les tables FEMPL John has repainted the tables b Jean les a repeintes Jean les a repeint es FEMPL FEMPL John has repainted them Jean a repeintes c Les tables que que Jean a repeint es les tables FEMPL FEMPL the tables that John has repainted Kaynes solution a Overt ob ject movement triggers morphological agreement b etween ob ject and par ticiple b Posit an extra Ap osition for the ob ject b etween the surface ob ject p osition and the surface p osition of the agreeing participle t AGR rep eintes t a Jean les a i i i AgrP b les chaises O que Jean a t AGR rep eintes t i i AgrP i i MIT Fall The MPTL brew of Holbmerg Pollo ck Kayne A new theory of Case a Pollo cks analysis makes available several INFL headsrelated to T
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • CAS LX 522 Syntax I
    It is likely… CAS LX 522 IP This satisfies the EPP in Syntax I both clauses. The main DPj I′ clause has Mary in SpecIP. Mary The embedded clause has Vi+I VP is the trace in SpecIP. V AP Week 14b. PRO and control ti This specific instance of A- A IP movement, where we move a likely subject from an embedded DP I′ clause to a higher clause is tj generally called subject raising. I VP to leave Reluctance to leave Reluctance to leave Now, consider: Reluctant has two θ-roles to assign. Mary is reluctant to leave. One to the one feeling the reluctance (Experiencer) One to the proposition about which the reluctance holds (Proposition) This looks very similar to Mary is likely to leave. Can we draw the same kind of tree for it? Leave has one θ-role to assign. To the one doing the leaving (Agent). How many θ-roles does reluctant assign? In Mary is reluctant to leave, what θ-role does Mary get? IP Reluctance to leave Reluctance… DPi I′ Mary Vj+I VP In Mary is reluctant to leave, is V AP Mary is doing the leaving, gets Agent t Mary is reluctant to leave. j t from leave. i A′ Reluctant assigns its θ- Mary is showing the reluctance, gets θ roles within AP as A θ IP Experiencer from reluctant. required, Mary moves reluctant up to SpecIP in the main I′ clause by Spellout. ? And we have a problem: I vP But what gets the θ-role to Mary appears to be getting two θ-roles, from leave, and what v′ in violation of the θ-criterion.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek and Latin Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes
    GREEK AND LATIN ROOTS, PREFIXES, AND SUFFIXES This is a resource pack that I put together for myself to teach roots, prefixes, and suffixes as part of a separate vocabulary class (short weekly sessions). It is a combination of helpful resources that I have found on the web as well as some tips of my own (such as the simple lesson plan). Lesson Plan Ideas ........................................................................................................... 3 Simple Lesson Plan for Word Study: ........................................................................... 3 Lesson Plan Idea 2 ...................................................................................................... 3 Background Information .................................................................................................. 5 Why Study Word Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes? ......................................................... 6 Latin and Greek Word Elements .............................................................................. 6 Latin Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes .......................................................................... 6 Root, Prefix, and Suffix Lists ........................................................................................... 8 List 1: MEGA root list ................................................................................................... 9 List 2: Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes .......................................................................... 32 List 3: Prefix List ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Language Structure: Phrases “Productivity” a Property of Language • Definition – Language Is an Open System
    Language Structure: Phrases “Productivity” a property of Language • Definition – Language is an open system. We can produce potentially an infinite number of different messages by combining elements differently. • Example – Words into phrases. An Example of Productivity • Human language is a communication system that bears some similarities to other animal communication systems, but is also characterized by certain unique features. (24 words) • I think that human language is a communication system that bears some similarities to other animal communication systems, but is also characterized by certain unique features, which are fascinating in and of themselves. (33 words) • I have always thought, and I have spent many years verifying, that human language is a communication system that bears some similarities to other animal communication systems, but is also characterized by certain unique features, which are fascinating in and of themselves. (42 words) • Although mainstream some people might not agree with me, I have always thought… Creating Infinite Messages • Discrete elements – Words, Phrases • Selection – Ease, Meaning, Identity • Combination – Rules of organization Models of Word reCombination 1. Word chains (Markov model) Phrase-level meaning is derived from understanding each word as it is presented in the context of immediately adjacent words. 2. Hierarchical model There are long-distant dependencies between words in a phrase, and these inform the meaning of the entire phrase. Markov Model Rule: Select and concatenate (according to meaning and what types of words should occur next to each other). bites bites bites Man over over over jumps jumps jumps house house house Markov Model • Assumption −Only adjacent words are meaningfully (and lawfully) related.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Minimalism Minimalism Is the Name of the Predominant Approach In
    Minimalism Minimalism is the name of the predominant approach in generative linguistics today. It was first introduced by Chomsky in his work The Minimalist Program (1995) and has seen several developments and changes since. The central idea of minimalism is that a linguistic theory should contain as few non-derived assumptions as possible. Many notions that had been developed in earlier generative theory, specifically the Government & Binding theory (GB), have been abandoned, in an attempt to derive them from more basic concepts. In Chomsky's (1995) view, minimalism is an implementation of the more general Principles and Parameters model. According to this language model, the human language capacity consists of a set of universal principles combined with a set of parameters. The principles are thought to be innate, which means that every language adheres to them. The parameters can be thought of as switches that can be set in two positions. Learning the syntax of one's native language, according to Chomsky's view, is a matter of acquiring the correct parameter settings for the language. Chomsky describes syntax as a cognitive system that connects two other cognitive systems: the conceptual-intentional system and the articulatory-perceptual system. Because syntax is linked to these two systems, the syntactic model defines two interface levels, one for each of them: Phonological Form (PF) is the interface to the articulatory-perceptual system, and Logical Form (LF) is the interface to the conceptual-intentional system. The grammar model is built up as follows: a clause is derived by selecting a set of lexical items from the lexicon.
    [Show full text]
  • 24.902F15 Class 13 Pro Versus
    Unpronounced subjects 1 We have seen PRO, the subject of infinitives and gerunds: 1. I want [PRO to dance in the park] 2. [PRO dancing in the park] was a good idea 2 There are languages that have unpronounced subjects in tensed clauses. Obviously, English is not among those languages: 3. irθe (Greek) came.3sg ‘he came’ or ‘she came’ 4. *came Languages like Greek, which permit this phenomenon are called “pro-drop” languages. 3 What is the status of this unpronounced subject in pro-drop languages? Is it PRO or something else? Something with the same or different properties from PRO? Let’s follow the convention of calling the unpronounced subject in tensed clauses “little pro”, as opposed to “big PRO”. What are the differences between pro and PRO? 4 -A Nominative NP can appear instead of pro. Not so for PRO: 5. i Katerina irθe the Katerina came.3sg ‘Katerina came’ 6. *I hope he/I to come 7. *he to read this book would be great 5 -pro can refer to any individual as long as Binding Condition B is respected. That is, pro is not “controlled”. Not so for OC PRO. 8. i Katerinak nomizi oti prok/m irθe stin ora tis the K thinks that came on-the time her ‘Katerinak thinks that shek/m /hem came on time’ 9. Katerinak wants [PROk/*m to leave] 6 -pro can yield sloppy or strict readings under ellipsis, exactly like pronouns. Not so OC PRO. 10. i Katerinak nomizi oti prok/m irθe stin ora tis the K thinks that came on-the time her ke i Maria episis and the Maria also ‘Katerinak thinks that shek came on time and Maria does too’ =…Maria thinks that Katerina came on time strict …Maria thinks that Maria came on time sloppy 7 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Generative Linguistics Within the Cognitive Neuroscience of Language Alec Marantz
    Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language Alec Marantz Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT Standard practice in linguistics often obscures the connection between theory and data, leading some to the conclusion that generative linguistics could not serve as the basis for a cognitive neuroscience of language. Here the foundations and methodology of generative grammar are clarified with the goal of explaining how generative theory already functions as a reasonable source of hypotheses about the representation and computation of language in the mind and brain. The claims of generative theory, as exemplified, e.g., within Chomsky’s (2000) Minimalist Program, are contrasted with those of theories endorsing parallel architectures with independent systems of generative phonology, syntax and semantics. The single generative engine within Minimalist approaches rejects dual routes to linguistic representations, including possible extra-syntactic strategies for semantic structure-building. Clarification of the implications of this property of generative theory undermines the foundations of an autonomous psycholinguistics, as established in the 1970’s, and brings linguistic theory back to the center of a unified cognitive neuroscience of language. 2 1. The place of linguistics* The first decade of the 21st century should be a golden era for the cognitive neuroscience of language. Fifty years of contemporary linguistic analysis of language can be coupled with a wide range of brain imaging and brain monitoring machines to test hypotheses and refine theory and understanding. However, there is still a gulf between mainstream linguistics within the generative linguistic tradition and most of those engaged in experimental cognitive neuroscience research. Some have argued that the fault here lies with the linguists, whose generative theories are based in principle on separating the study of linguistic representations from research on the acquisition and use of language in the minds and brains of speakers.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Review: Syntax Fall 2007
    Final Review: Syntax Fall 2007 Jean Mark Gawron San Diego State University December 12, 2007 1 Control and Raising Key: S Subject O Object C Control R Raising For example, SOR = Subject(to)-Object Raising. Example answers: 1.1 seem a. Identify the control type [subject/object]. What NP is understood as controller of the infinitive (does or is expected to do or tries to do or ... the action described by the verb in infinitival form) John tries to go Subject SSR, SC John seems to go Subject SSR, SC John is likely to go Subject SSR, SC John is eager to go Subject SSR, SC Mary persuaded John to go Object SOR, OC Mary expected John to go Object SOR, OC Mary promised John to go Subject SSR, SC The control type of seem is subject! b. Produce relevant examples: (1) a. Itseemstoberaining b. There seems to be a problem c. The chips seems to be down. d. It seems to be obvious that John is a fool. e. The police seem to have caught the burglar. f. The burglar seems to have been caught by the police. c. Example construction i. Construct embedded clause: (a) itrains. Simpleexample;dummysubject * John rains Testing dummy subjecthood ittorain Putintoinfinitivalform ii. Embed (a) ∆ seem [CP it to rain] Embed under seem [ctd.] it seem [CP t torain] Moveit— it seems [CP t to rain] Add tense, agreement (to main verb) d. Other examples (b) itisraining. Alternativeexample;dummysubject *Johnisraining Testingdummysubjecthood ittoberaining Putintoinfinitivalform ∆ seem [CP it to be raining] Embed under seem it seem [CP t toberaining] Moveit— it seems [CP t to be raining] Add tense, agreement (to main verb) (c) Thechipsaredown.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimenting with Pro-Drop in Spanish1
    Andrea Pešková Experimenting with Pro-drop in Spanish1 Abstract This paper investigates the omission and expression of pronominal subjects (PS) in Buenos Aires Spanish based on data from a production experiment. The use of PS is a linguistic phenomenon demonstrating that the grammar of a language needs to be considered independently of its usage. Despite the fact that the observed Spanish variety is a consistent pro-drop language with rich verbal agreement, the data from the present study provide evidence for a quite frequent use of overt PS, even in non-focal, non- contrastive and non-ambiguous contexts. This result thus supports previous corpus- based empirical research and contradicts the traditional explanation given by grammarians that overtly realized PS in Spanish are used to avoid possible ambiguities or to mark contrast and emphasis. Moreover, the elicited semi-spontaneous data indicate that the expression of PS is optional; however, this optionality is associated with different linguistic factors. The statistical analysis of the data shows the following ranking of the effects of these factors: grammatical persons > verb semantics > (syntactic) clause type > (semantic) sentence type. 1. Introduction It is well known that Spanish is a pro-drop (“pronoun-dropping”) or null- subject language whose grammar permits the omission of pronominal 1 A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the international conference Variation and typology: New trends in syntactic research in Helsinki (August 2011). I am grateful to the audience for their fruitful discussions and useful commentaries. I would also like to thank the editors, Susann Fischer, Ingo Feldhausen, Christoph Gabriel and the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • The Position of Subjects*
    Lingua 85 (1991) 21 l-258. North-Holland 211 The position of subjects* Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Department of Linguistics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA Grammatical theories all use in one form or another the concept of canonical position of a phrase. If this notion is used in the syntax, when comparing the two sentences: (la) John will see Bill. (1 b) Bill John will see. we say that Bill occupies its canonical position in (la) but not in (lb). Adopting the terminology of the Extended Standard Theory, we can think of the canonical position of a phrase as its D-structure position. Since the concept of canonical position is available, it becomes legitimate to ask of each syntactic unit in a given sentence what its canonical position is, relative to the other units of the sentence. The central question we address in this article is: what is the canonical position of subjects1 Starting with English, we propose that the structure of an English clause is as in (2): * The first section of this article has circulated as part of Koopman and Sportiche (1988) and is a written version of talks given in various places. It was given in March 1985 at the GLOW conference in Brussels as Koopman and Sportiche (1985), at the June 1985 CLA meeting in Montreal, at MIT and Umass Amherst in the winter of 1986, and presented at UCLA and USC since. The input of these audiences is gratefully acknowledged. The second section is almost completely new. 1 For related ideas on what we call the canonical postion of subjects, see Contreras (1987), Kitagawa (1986) Kuroda (1988), Speas (1986) Zagona (1982).
    [Show full text]
  • Features from Aspects Via the Minimalist Program to Combinatory Categorial Grammar
    Á. Gallego & D. Ott (eds.). 2015. 50 Years Later: Reflections on Chomsky’s Aspects. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. Available for purchase at http://mitwpl.mit.edu © The Authors FEATURES FROM ASPECTS VIA THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM TO COMBINATORY CATEGORIAL GRAMMAR NEIL SMITH ANNABEL CORMACK University College London 1 Background One major contribution of Aspects (Chomsky 1965)1 was to initiate the development of a theory of syntactic features. There is no use of features, either syntactic or morphophonemic, in Chomsky’s earliest work The Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew (1951/79); they do not appear in his monumental The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955/75); nor in Syntactic Structures (1957) (except for category labels); nor, except for phonological distinctive features, in Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (1964). In Aspects features play a crucial role. Chomsky suggests (p.214) that “We might, then, take a lexical entry to be simply a set of features, some syntactic, some phonological, some semantic”. But even here the use of features was somewhat haphazard, apparently unconstrained, and a terminological mess. In this contribution we want to trace – in broad outline – the development of a theory of morphosyntactic features and propose a fully Merge-based and parsimonious version of such a theory. Our work is intended as a contribution to Chomsky’s Minimalist Program, pursuing the same ends on the basis of some different background assumptions. These assumptions and the specific analyses derived from them have been developed using an austere version of Combinatorial Categorial Grammar, but are of wider applicability. All current theories use phonological features and ‘semantic’ features which we will largely ignore except to point out that the term ‘semantic’ is used in radically different ways to cover truth-theoretic, conceptual or encyclopaedic distinctions.
    [Show full text]
  • Movement in Minimalism, Class 2: Linearization and the Problem of Copies July 11, LSA Summer Institute 2017
    Movement in Minimalism, Class 2: Linearization and the problem of copies July 11, LSA Summer Institute 2017 This class: . We discuss Nunes’s (1995, 2004) proposal that copy deletion derives from the demands of the linearization algorithm at PF . We look at cases for which a copy theory has an advantage over a trace theory, involving multiple spell-out in predicate clefting/V-fronting constructions as well as wh-copying . We examine exceptional cases of copy spell-out, including deletion of the highest copy and scattered deletion 1 Two approaches to copy deletion As we discussed last week, Merge provides us with a single structure-building mechanism. Merge can create long-distance dependencies as long as we adopt the Copy Theory of Movement: (1) Which book did you read which book? CP DP C’ which book did TP you T’ did VP read which book However, getting rid of traces in this way means that we need to posit a rule of copy deletion. But where does copy deletion come from? 1.1 Three sources of wellformedness constraints In the Minimalist Program, constraints on wellformedness have only three possible sources: 1. Constraints on the PF interface 2. Constraints on the LF interface 3. Natural principles of computation, often referred to as “economy constraints” =) Copy deletion too should derive from one of these sources. 1 Two of these options have been explored in previous work, and we will discuss them this week: 1. Copy deletion as a result of linearization at PF (Nunes 1995, 2004; cf. Fox and Pesetsky 2005; Johnson 2012): .
    [Show full text]