DOCSLIB.ORG

CAS LX 522 Syntax I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CAS LX 522 Syntax I C-selection CAS LX 522 Verbs are recorded in the lexicon with the θ-roles they assign as part of their meaning. Syntax I But, verbs are more selective than that. Pat felt a tremor. Pat felt uncomfortable. Pat felt that Chris had not performed well. Pat is the Experiencer; a tremor (noun), uncomfortable (adjective), or that…well (sentence) Week 3b. Merge, feature checking is the Theme/Source. So θ-role does not determine 3.6-4.2 syntactic category. And syntactic category certainly does not determine θ-role. So verbs also need to be recorded with information about the syntactic categor(y/ ies) they combine with. C-selection C-selection (“Subcategorization”) Kick needs a nominal object. Not all transitive verbs (that take just one Pat kicked the pail. object) can take the same kind of object. Kick has a [V] category feature, but also needs Sue knows [ the answer ] to have some form of [N] category feature DP Sue knows [ that Bill left early ] indicating that it needs a nominal object. CP Sue hit [ the ball ] We don’t want to risk interpreting kick as a noun, DP though. So, the [V] and [N] features must have a *Sue hit [CP that Bill left early] different status. So know can take either a DP or a CP as On kick, the [V] feature is interpretable— the [N] its object argument; hit can only take a DP feature is just for use in assembling the structure, as its object argument. it is not interpreted—hence uninterpretable. Feature checking S-selection To model this, we will say that if a syntactic object Verbs also exert semantic control of the kinds of has an uninterpretable feature, it must Merge with arguments they allow. a syntactic object that has a matching feature— and once it’s done, the requirement is met. The feature is checked. For example, many verbs can only have a volitional (agentive) subject: Specifically: Bill likes pizza. Bill kicked the stone. Full Interpretation: The structure to which the semantic #Pizza likes anchovies. #The stone kicked Bill. interface rules apply contains no uninterpretable features. Checking Requirement: Uninterpretable features must be checked (and once checked, they are deleted) We’ll assume that this is not encoded in the syntactic features, but if you mess up with respect Checking (under sisterhood): An uninterpretable feature F on a syntactic object Y is checked when Y is sister to to s-selection, the interpretation is anomalous. another syntactic object Z which bears a matching feature F. 1 Feature checking Feature checking To distinguish interpretable To distinguish interpretable features from uninterpretable features from uninterpretable features, we will write features, we will write uninterpretable features with a u uninterpretable features with a u in front of them. in front of them. D has uninterpretable feature F D has uninterpretable feature F E has interpretable feature F. C E has interpretable feature F. D E If we Merge them, the D E If we Merge them, the [uF] [F] uninterpretable feature can be [uF] [F] uninterpretable feature can be checked (under sisterhood). checked (under sisterhood). Feature checking Feature checking Or, for a more concrete example Or, for a more concrete example kick is a verb (has an kick is a verb (has an interpretable V feature) and c- interpretable V feature) and c- selects a noun (has an selects a noun (has an uninterpretable N feature). uninterpretable N feature). V me is a noun (a pronoun in fact, me is a noun (a pronoun in fact, has an interpretable N feature, has an interpretable N feature, kick me and others like accusative case, kick me and others like accusative case, first person, singular) first person, singular) [uN, V] [N, acc, 1, sg] [uN, V] [N, acc, 1, sg] Merging them will check the uninterpretable feature, and the structure can be interpreted. Feature checking glance at Pat The head is the “needy” one. The one that had the Pat [N, …] at [P, uN, …] uninterpretable feature that was checked by Merge. glance [V, uP, …] The combination has the features of the verb kick and so V its distribution will be like a verb’s distribution would be. kick me Pat wants to kick me. [uN, V] [N, acc, 1, sg] Pat wants to drive. I like to draw elephants. *Pat wants to elephants. *I like to draw kick me. 2 Chris glanced at Pat The idea Pat [N, …] Chris [N, …] Sentences are generated derivationally, by means at [P, uN, …] glanced [V, uP, uN, …] of a series of syntactic operations. A sentence that can be generated by such a procedure is grammatical. One that cannot is not grammatical. Syntactic operations operate on syntactic objects. Lexical items are syntactic objects. A derivation starts off by selecting a number of syntactic objects from the lexicon, and proceeds by performing syntactic operations on them. Syntactic operations Feature checking Syntactic objects have features. Merge is a syntactic operation. It takes two Lexical items (syntactic objects) are bundles of features. syntactic objects and creates a new one out of them. Some features are interpretable, others are uninterpretable. The new syntactic object created by Merge inherits the features of one of the components By the time the derivation is finished, there must be (the head projects its features). no uninterpretable features left (Full Interpretation). Merge cannot “look inside” a syntactic object. Uninterpretable features are eliminated by Syntactic objects are only combined at the root. checking them against matching features. This The Extension Condition: A syntactic derivation can happens as a result of Merge: Features of sisters can only be continued by applying operations to the root projection of ate tree. check against one another. Merge doesn’t just happen. It has to happen. Heads and complements Heads and complements When Merge combines two A syntactic object that has not maximal maximal syntactic objects, one projects its minimal minimal projected at all (that is, a projection projection features, one does not. projection projection lexical item) is sometimes called a minimal projection. When a lexical item projects its Where X is the category, this is features to the combined syntactic min object, it is generally called the alternatively called X or X. head, and the thing it combined The head is a minimal VP with is generally called the VP projection. complement. kick me kick me In traditional terminology, [uN, V] [N, acc, 1, sg] A syntactic object that projects no [uN, V] [N, acc, 1, sg] the complement of a verb is further is called a maximal projection. generally called the object (or Where X is the category, this is “direct object”). max alternatively called X or XP. So, often, is the complement head complement The complement is necessarily a head complement of a preposition (“object of maximal projection. the preposition”). 3 Linear order The head parameter Merge takes two syntactic objects and Languages generally have something like a basic word order, an order in which words come in in “neutral” combines them into a new syntactic object. sentences. Merge does not specify linear order (which English: SVO Akira ate an apple. of the two combined objects comes first in Japanese: SOV pronunciation). John wa ringo o tabeta. John top apple acc ate ‘John ate an apple.’ In our terms, this amounts to a (generally language-wide In the English VP, heads always precede choice) as to whether heads are pronounced before complements. But languages differ on this. complements or vice-versa. English: head-initial Japanese: head-final Specifiers, heads, and Second Merge complements A transitive verb like called Merge occurs when there is a selectional feature that needs two arguments (the caller and the callee). needs to be satisfied. If there is more than one such feature, Merge must happen We encode this knowledge more than once. by hypothesizing two As always, the node that projects is the one whose selectional features for N. The first selectional feature will selectional feature was satisfied by the Merge. be checked by the callee. they The sister of the head (that projects) after the first Merge The second selectional feature [N, nom, will be checked by the caller. involving that head is called the complement (as above). 3, pl] called me [uN, uN, V] [N, acc, So, called is Merged with me. The nonprojecting sister of a syntactic object that has 1, sg] already projected once from a head is called the specifier. Specifiers, heads, and Specifiers, heads, and complements complements So, called is Merged with me. The second selectional maximal feature has been eliminated. projection One of the selectional features is checked off, the The sister to this second remaining features project to specifier intermediate Merge is the specifier. the new object. projection VP A node that does not project A selectional feature still further is a maximal they V [uN] remains. they V [uN] projection. [N, nom, [N, nom, 3, pl] 3, pl] called me Merge applies again, called me A node that has been [uN, uN, V] [N, acc, Merging the new object with [uN, uN, V] [N, acc, projected and projects further 1, sg] they. 1, sg] is neither maximal nor minimal and is usually called head complement head complement an intermediate projection. 4 Specifiers, heads, and complements Historical note: X′-theory maximal In English, specifiers are on In the ’70s and ’80s, these ideas went by the projection the left of the head name “X′-theory”. Unlike complements, which are maximal Every XP has exactly one: specifier on the right. projection intermediate intermediate head (a lexical item) As with the head- projection complement (another XP) projection VP complement order, languages (arguably) also differ in the specifier (another XP) linear order of their for any X (N, V, A, P, I, etc.) XP they V [uN] specifiers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RELATIONAL NOUNS, PRONOUNS, and Resumptionw Relational Nouns, Such As Neighbour, Mother, and Rumour, Present a Challenge to Synt
    Linguistics and Philosophy (2005) 28:375–446 Ó Springer 2005 DOI 10.1007/s10988-005-2656-7 ASH ASUDEH RELATIONAL NOUNS, PRONOUNS, AND RESUMPTIONw ABSTRACT. This paper presents a variable-free analysis of relational nouns in Glue Semantics, within a Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) architecture. Rela- tional nouns and resumptive pronouns are bound using the usual binding mecha- nisms of LFG. Special attention is paid to the bound readings of relational nouns, how these interact with genitives and obliques, and their behaviour with respect to scope, crossover and reconstruction. I consider a puzzle that arises regarding rela- tional nouns and resumptive pronouns, given that relational nouns can have bound readings and resumptive pronouns are just a specific instance of bound pronouns. The puzzle is: why is it impossible for bound implicit arguments of relational nouns to be resumptive? The puzzle is highlighted by a well-known variety of variable-free semantics, where pronouns and relational noun phrases are identical both in category and (base) type. I show that the puzzle also arises for an established variable-based theory. I present an analysis of resumptive pronouns that crucially treats resumptives in terms of the resource logic linear logic that underlies Glue Semantics: a resumptive pronoun is a perfectly ordinary pronoun that constitutes a surplus resource; this surplus resource requires the presence of a resumptive-licensing resource consumer, a manager resource. Manager resources properly distinguish between resumptive pronouns and bound relational nouns based on differences between them at the level of semantic structure. The resumptive puzzle is thus solved. The paper closes by considering the solution in light of the hypothesis of direct compositionality.
    [Show full text]
  • Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: a Case Study from Koro
    Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: A Case Study from Koro By Jessica Cleary-Kemp A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Associate Professor Lev D. Michael, Chair Assistant Professor Peter S. Jenks Professor William F. Hanks Summer 2015 © Copyright by Jessica Cleary-Kemp All Rights Reserved Abstract Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: A Case Study from Koro by Jessica Cleary-Kemp Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Associate Professor Lev D. Michael, Chair In this dissertation a methodology for identifying and analyzing serial verb constructions (SVCs) is developed, and its application is exemplified through an analysis of SVCs in Koro, an Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea. SVCs involve two main verbs that form a single predicate and share at least one of their arguments. In addition, they have shared values for tense, aspect, and mood, and they denote a single event. The unique syntactic and semantic properties of SVCs present a number of theoretical challenges, and thus they have invited great interest from syntacticians and typologists alike. But characterizing the nature of SVCs and making generalizations about the typology of serializing languages has proven difficult. There is still debate about both the surface properties of SVCs and their underlying syntactic structure. The current work addresses some of these issues by approaching serialization from two angles: the typological and the language-specific. On the typological front, it refines the definition of ‘SVC’ and develops a principled set of cross-linguistically applicable diagnostics.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Basic Categorial Syntax
    Hardegree, Compositional Semantics, Chapter 1 : Basic Categorial Syntax 1 of 27 Chapter 1 Basic Categorial Syntax 1. The Task of Grammar ............................................................................................................ 2 2. Artificial versus Natural Languages ....................................................................................... 2 3. Recursion ............................................................................................................................... 3 4. Category-Governed Grammars .............................................................................................. 3 5. Example Grammar – A Tiny Fragment of English ................................................................. 4 6. Type-Governed (Categorial) Grammars ................................................................................. 5 7. Recursive Definition of Types ............................................................................................... 7 8. Examples of Types................................................................................................................. 7 9. First Rule of Composition ...................................................................................................... 8 10. Examples of Type-Categorial Analysis .................................................................................. 8 11. Quantifiers and Quantifier-Phrases ...................................................................................... 10 12. Compound Nouns
    [Show full text]
  • Two Types of Serial Verb Constructions in Korean: Subject-Sharing and Index-Sharing
    Two Types of Serial Verb Constructions in Korean: Subject-Sharing and Index-Sharing Juwon Lee The University of Texas at Austin Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar University at Buffalo Stefan Muller¨ (Editor) 2014 CSLI Publications pages 135–155 http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2014 Lee, Juwon. 2014. Two Types of Serial Verb Constructions in Korean: Subject- Sharing and Index-Sharing. In Muller,¨ Stefan (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st In- ternational Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University at Buffalo, 135–155. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Abstract In this paper I present an account for the lexical passive Serial Verb Constructions (SVCs) in Korean. Regarding the issue of how the arguments of an SVC are realized, I propose two hypotheses: i) Korean SVCs are broadly classified into two types, subject-sharing SVCs where the subject is structure-shared by the verbs and index- sharing SVCs where only indices of semantic arguments are structure-shared by the verbs, and ii) a semantic argument sharing is a general requirement of SVCs in Korean. I also argue that an argument composition analysis can accommodate such the new data as the lexical passive SVCs in a simple manner compared to other alternative derivational analyses. 1. Introduction* Serial verb construction (SVC) is a structure consisting of more than two component verbs but denotes what is conceptualized as a single event, and it is an important part of the study of complex predicates. A central issue of SVC is how the arguments of the component verbs of an SVC are realized in a sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • 30. Tense Aspect Mood 615
    30. Tense Aspect Mood 615 Richards, Ivor Armstrong 1936 The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rockwell, Patricia 2007 Vocal features of conversational sarcasm: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psycho- linguistic Research 36: 361−369. Rosenblum, Doron 5. March 2004 Smart he is not. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/smart-he-is-not- 1.115908. Searle, John 1979 Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seddiq, Mirriam N. A. Why I don’t want to talk to you. http://notguiltynoway.com/2004/09/why-i-dont-want- to-talk-to-you.html. Singh, Onkar 17. December 2002 Parliament attack convicts fight in court. http://www.rediff.com/news/ 2002/dec/17parl2.htm [Accessed 24 July 2013]. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Voegele, Jason N. A. http://www.jvoegele.com/literarysf/cyberpunk.html Voyer, Daniel and Cheryl Techentin 2010 Subjective acoustic features of sarcasm: Lower, slower, and more. Metaphor and Symbol 25: 1−16. Ward, Gregory 1983 A pragmatic analysis of epitomization. Papers in Linguistics 17: 145−161. Ward, Gregory and Betty J. Birner 2006 Information structure. In: B. Aarts and A. McMahon (eds.), Handbook of English Lin- guistics, 291−317. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Rachel Giora, Tel Aviv, (Israel) 30. Tense Aspect Mood 1. Introduction 2. Metaphor: EVENTS ARE (PHYSICAL) OBJECTS 3. Polysemy, construal, profiling, and coercion 4. Interactions of tense, aspect, and mood 5. Conclusion 6. References 1. Introduction In the framework of cognitive linguistics we approach the grammatical categories of tense, aspect, and mood from the perspective of general cognitive strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • September 15 & 17 Class Summary: 24.902
    September 15 & 17 class summary: 24.902 could not be replaced by depend, because depend bears the distinct feature [+ __ NP PP]. The week actually began with some unfinished business from last week, which is OK, painful detail. What is interesting to us is a constraint proposed by Chomsky on the contained in the previous summary. Then we moved on... ability of a subcategorization rule to control the environment in which it applies. 1. Preliminaries Chomsky claimed that the environment of the subcategorization rule for X makes A word often cares about its syntactic environment. A verb, for example, may reference to all and only the sisters of X. More simply still: the subcategorization property require two, one or zero complements, and (seemingly -- see below!) may specify the of X cares only about the sisters of X. syntactic category of its complement. Terminological note: As mentioned in class, a slightly different way of speaking has arisen in the field of syntax. We say that a verb like put "subcategorizes for" an NP and a • Examples: put requires NP PP, devour requiresNP, depend requires PP, eat takes an optional NP. PP. Likewise a verb like eat "subcategorizes for" an optional NP. • Chomsky's constraint has interesting implications for language acquisition. Granted (1) a. Sue put the book under the table. that a child must maintain some record of the syntactic environment in which lexical b. *Sue put the book. items occur (or else subcategorization information would not be acquired), Chomsky's c. *Sue put under the table. constraint suggests that this information is quite limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Corpus Study of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Diglossic Speech in Cairene Arabic
    CORPUS STUDY OF TENSE, ASPECT, AND MODALITY IN DIGLOSSIC SPEECH IN CAIRENE ARABIC BY OLA AHMED MOSHREF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2012 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Elabbas Benmamoun, Chair Professor Eyamba Bokamba Professor Rakesh M. Bhatt Assistant Professor Marina Terkourafi ABSTRACT Morpho-syntactic features of Modern Standard Arabic mix intricately with those of Egyptian Colloquial Arabic in ordinary speech. I study the lexical, phonological and syntactic features of verb phrase morphemes and constituents in different tenses, aspects, moods. A corpus of over 3000 phrases was collected from religious, political/economic and sports interviews on four Egyptian satellite TV channels. The computational analysis of the data shows that systematic and content morphemes from both varieties of Arabic combine in principled ways. Syntactic considerations play a critical role with regard to the frequency and direction of code-switching between the negative marker, subject, or complement on one hand and the verb on the other. Morph-syntactic constraints regulate different types of discourse but more formal topics may exhibit more mixing between Colloquial aspect or future markers and Standard verbs. ii To the One Arab Dream that will come true inshaa’ Allah! عربية أنا.. أميت دمها خري الدماء.. كما يقول أيب الشاعر العراقي: بدر شاكر السياب Arab I am.. My nation’s blood is the finest.. As my father says Iraqi Poet: Badr Shaker Elsayyab iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I’m sincerely thankful to my advisor Prof. Elabbas Benmamoun, who during the six years of my study at UIUC was always kind, caring and supportive on the personal and academic levels.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Noun Classes and Classifiers, Semantics of Alexandra Y
    1 Noun classes and classifiers, semantics of Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University, Melbourne Abstract Almost all languages have some grammatical means for the linguistic categorization of noun referents. Noun categorization devices range from the lexical numeral classifiers of South-East Asia to the highly grammaticalized noun classes and genders in African and Indo-European languages. Further noun categorization devices include noun classifiers, classifiers in possessive constructions, verbal classifiers, and two rare types: locative and deictic classifiers. Classifiers and noun classes provide a unique insight into how the world is categorized through language in terms of universal semantic parameters involving humanness, animacy, sex, shape, form, consistency, orientation in space, and the functional properties of referents. ABBREVIATIONS: ABS - absolutive; CL - classifier; ERG - ergative; FEM - feminine; LOC – locative; MASC - masculine; SG – singular 2 KEY WORDS: noun classes, genders, classifiers, possessive constructions, shape, form, function, social status, metaphorical extension 3 Almost all languages have some grammatical means for the linguistic categorization of nouns and nominals. The continuum of noun categorization devices covers a range of devices from the lexical numeral classifiers of South-East Asia to the highly grammaticalized gender agreement classes of Indo-European languages. They have a similar semantic basis, and one can develop from the other. They provide a unique insight into how people categorize the world through their language in terms of universal semantic parameters involving humanness, animacy, sex, shape, form, consistency, and functional properties. Noun categorization devices are morphemes which occur in surface structures under specifiable conditions, and denote some salient perceived or imputed characteristics of the entity to which an associated noun refers (Allan 1977: 285).
    [Show full text]
  • The Serial Verb Construction in Chinese: a Tenacious Myth and a Gordian Knot Waltraud Paul
    The serial verb construction in Chinese: A tenacious myth and a Gordian knot Waltraud Paul To cite this version: Waltraud Paul. The serial verb construction in Chinese: A tenacious myth and a Gordian knot. Lin- guistic Review, De Gruyter, 2008, 25 (3-4), pp.367-411. 10.1515/TLIR.2008.011. halshs-01574253 HAL Id: halshs-01574253 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01574253 Submitted on 12 Aug 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. The serial verb construction in Chinese: A tenacious myth and a Gordian knot1 WALTRAUD PAUL Abstract The term “construction” is not a label to be assigned randomly, but presup- poses a structural analysis with an associated set of syntactic and semantic properties. Based on this premise, the term “serial verb construction” (SVC) as currently used in Chinese linguistics will be shown to simply refer to any multi- verb surface string i.e,. to subsume different constructions. The synchronic consequence of this situation is that SVCs in Chinese linguistics are not com- mensurate with SVCs in, e.g., Niger-Congo languages, whence the futility at this stage to search for a “serialization parameter” deriving the differences between so-called “serializing” and “non-serializing” languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Object Pronouns
    Grammar ® Lexia Lessons LEVEL 2 Object Pronouns PREPARE CONCEPT The ability to think and talk about VOCABULARY direct object, object pronoun, pronouns helps students understand and noun, pronoun, verb explain texts accurately and write effectively. MATERIALS Lesson reproducibles Words are categorized as pronouns if they take the place of a noun (names a person, place, thing, or idea) in a sentence. A direct object is a noun that comes after the verb and tells who or what. An object pronoun takes the place of a direct object. Object pronouns include me, you, him, her, it, us, and them. INSTRUCT ANCHOR CHART [Display Reproducible page 1.] • Introduce the Concept of this lesson. (See above.) • Explain that direct objects in sentences can be replaced by object pronouns. Explain that object pronouns help readers and listeners know who and what sentences are about without repeating the direct object nouns over and over again (e.g., Lincoln washed the dogs. Lincoln dried the dogs. Then he brushed the dogs). • Discuss that this lesson focuses on the object pronouns listed and described on the right side of the Anchor Chart. Subject pronouns will be discussed in a different lesson. PRACTICE [Display Reproducible page 2, Direct Object Match, Part A.] • Read the directions with students. • Support students in matching the object pronouns with the direct objects. [Display Reproducible page 2, Fill In the Object Pronoun, Part B.] • Read the directions with students. ® • Assist students in determining which pronoun correctly replaces the direct object in parentheses as needed. Prompt them to read the sentence aloud with their choice to see if it makes sense.
    [Show full text]
  • When and Why Can 1St and 2Nd Person Pronouns Be Bound Variables? the Problem with 1St and 2Nd Person Pronouns
    When and why can 1st and 2nd person pronouns be bound variables? The problem with 1st and 2nd person pronouns. In some contexts (call them context A), English 1st and 2nd person pronouns can be used as bound variables (Heim 1991, Kratzer 1998) as in (1). (1) Context A: 1st person (data based on Rullmann 2004) a. Only I got a question that I understood. = (i) !x [x got a question that x understood] = (ii) !x [x got a question that I understood] b. Every guy that I’ve ever dated has wanted us to get married. = (i) "x, guy(x) & dated(I, x) [x wants x & I to get married] = (ii) "x, guy(x) & dated(I, x) [x wants us to get married] Rullmann (2004) argues that such data are problematic for Déchaine & Wiltschko’s (2002) analysis (henceforth DW), where it is claimed that English 1st/2nd person pronouns are DPs. According to the DW analysis, 1st/2nd person pronouns have the status of definite DPs (i.e., definite descriptions) and consequently are predicted not to be construable as bound variables. DW support their claim with the observation that in some contexts of VP-ellipsis (call them context B), 1st/2nd person pronouns cannot be used as bound variables, as in (2). (2) Context B: 1st person (data based on Déchaine & Wiltschko 2002) I know that John saw me, and Mary does too. # (i) ‘I know that John saw me, and Mary knows that John saw her. !x [x knows that John saw x] & !y [y knows that John saw y] = (ii) ‘I know that John saw me, and Mary knows that John saw me.’ !x [x knows that John saw me] & !y [y knows that John saw me] As we will show, the (im)possibility of a bound variable reading with 1st and 2nd person is conditioned by a number of factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Syntactic Categories in the Speech of \Bung Children
    Developmental Psychology Copyright 1986 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 1986, Vol. 22, No. 4,562-579 00l2-1649/86/$0O.75 Syntactic Categories in the Speech of \bung Children Virginia Valian Columbia University This article demonstrates that very young children have knowledge of a range of syntactic categories. Speech samples from six children aged 2 years to 2 years, 5 months, with Mean Lengths of Utterance (MLUs) ranging from 2.93 to 4.14, were examined for evidence of six syntactic categories: Deter- miner, Adjective, Noun, Noun Phrase, Preposition, and Prepositional Phrase. Performance was eval- uated by the conformance of the children's speech to criteria developed for each category. Known syntactic diagnostics served as models for the criteria developed; the criteria exploited distributional regularities. All children showed evidence of all categories, except for the lowest MLU child, whose performance was borderline on Adjectives and Prepositional Phrases. The results suggest that chil- dren are sensitive very early in life to abstract, formal properties of the speech they hear and must be credited with syntactic knowledge at an earlier point than heretofore generally thought. The results argue against various semantic hypotheses about the origin of syntactic knowledge. Finally, the methods and results may be applicable to future investigations of why children's early utterances are short, of the nature of children's semantic categories, and of the nature of the deviance in the speech of language-deviant children and adults. The grammars of mature speakers consist of rules and princi- Levin, 1985). Unless children can select the proper phrasal cate- ples that capture generalizations about the language.
    [Show full text]