DOCSLIB.ORG

Theoretical Comparative Syntax

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Theoretical Comparative Syntax Theoretical Comparative Syntax brings together, for the first time, profoundly influential essays and articles by Naoki Fukui, exploring various topics in the areas of syntactic theory and comparative syntax. The articles have a special focus on the typological differences between English (-type lan- guages) and Japanese (-type languages) and abstract parameters that derive them. Linguistic universals are considered in the light of cross-linguistic variation, and typological (parametric) differences are investigated from the viewpoint of universal principles. The unifying theme of this volume is the nature and structure of invari- ant principles and parameters (variables) and how they interact to give prin- cipled accounts to a variety of seemingly unrelated differences between English and Japanese. These two types of languages provide an ideal testing ground for the principles and their interactions with the parameters since the languages exhibit diverse superficial differences in virtually every aspect of their linguistic structures: word order, wh-movement, grammatical agree- ment, the obligatoriness and uniqueness of a subject, complex predicates, case-marking systems, anaphoric systems, classifiers and numerals, among others. Detailed descriptions of the phenomena and attempts to provide principled accounts for them constitute considerable contributions to the development of the principles-and-parameters model in its exploration and refinement of theoretical concepts and fundamental principles of linguistic theory, leading to some of the basic insights that lie behind the minimalist program. The essays on theoretical comparative syntax collected here present a substantial contribution to the field of linguistics. Naoki Fukui is Professor of Linguistics and Chair of the Linguistics Department at Sophia University, Tokyo. He is the author of several books and has been an editorial board member of various international journals. Routledge leading linguists Series editor Carlos P. Otero University of California, Los Angeles, USA 1 Essays on Syntax and Semantics James Higginbotham 2 Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure Subjects, agreement, case and clitics Dominique Sportiche 3 The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads Collected essays of Hilda J. Koopman Hilda J. Koopman 4 Configurations of Sentential Complementation Perspectives from Romance languages Johan Rooryck 5 Essays in Syntactic Theory Samuel David Epstein 6 On Syntax and Semantics Richard K. Larson 7 Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition Luigi Rizzi 8 Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory Howard Lasnik 9 Derivations Exploring the dynamics of syntax Juan Uriagereka 10 Towards an Elegant Syntax Michael Brody 11 Logical Form and Linguistic Theory Robert May 12 Generative Grammar The theory and its history Robert Freidin 13 Theoretical Comparative Syntax Studies in macroparameters Naoki Fukui Theoretical Comparative Syntax Studies in macroparameters Naoki Fukui I~ ~~o~fJ;n~~~up LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2006 by Routledge Published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2006 Naoki Fukui First issued in paperback 2013 Typeset in Garamond by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear The Open Access version of this book, available at www.tandfebooks.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN 978-0-415-34103-5 (hbk) ISBN 978-0-415-86012-3 (pbk) Contents Original publication details viii Introduction 1 1 Specifiers and projection 9 2 LF extraction of naze: some theoretical implications 38 3 Strong and weak barriers: remarks on the proper characterization of barriers 55 4 Parameters and optionality 69 5 A note on improper movement 87 6 The principles-and-parameters approach: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese 100 7 Symmetry in syntax: Merge and Demerge 132 8 Order in phrase structure and movement 179 9 An A-over-A perspective on locality 209 10 The uniqueness parameter 224 11 Nominal structure: an extension of the Symmetry Principle 229 12 Phrase structure 258 13 The Visibility Guideline for functional categories: verb-raising in Japanese and related issues 289 Appendix: on the nature of economy in language 337 Notes 354 References 392 Index 415 Original publication details Chapter 1 “Specifiers and projection” is reprinted from N. Fukui, T. Rapoport, and E. Sagey (eds) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 8: 128–172, 1986. Chapter 2 “LF extraction of naze: some theoretical implications” is reprinted from Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 503–526, 1988, by per- mission from Kluwer Academic Publishers. Chapter 3 “Strong and weak barriers: remarks on the proper characterization of barriers” is reprinted from H. Nakajima (ed.) Current English Linguistics in Japan, 1991: 77–93, by permission from Mouton de Gruyter. Chapter 4 “Parameters and optionality” is reprinted from Linguistic Inquiry 24: 399–420, 1993, by permission from MIT Press. Chapter 5 “A note on improper movement” is reprinted from The Linguistic Review 10: 111–126, 1993, by permission from Walter de Gruyter. Chapter 6 “The principles-and-parameters approach: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese” is reprinted from M. Shibatani and T. Bynon (eds) Approaches to Language Typology, 1995: 327–372, by permission from Oxford University Press. Chapter 7 “Symmetry in syntax: Merge and Demerge” is reprinted from Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 27–86, 1998, by permission from Kluwer Academic Publishers. Chapter 8 “Order in phrase structure and movement” is reprinted from Lin- guistic Inquiry 29: 439–474, 1998, by permission from MIT Press. Chapter 9 “An A-over-A perspective on locality” is reprinted from E. Iwamoto and M. Muraki (eds) Linguistics: In Search of the Human Mind, 1999: 109–129, by permission from Kaitakusha. Chapter 10 “The uniqueness parameter” is reprinted from Glot International 4, 9/10: 26–27, 1999, by permission from Blackwell Publishers. Chapter 11 “Nominal structure: an extension of the Symmetry Principle” is reprinted from P. Svenonius (ed.) The Derivation of VO and OV, 2000: 219–254, by permission from John Benjamins. Chapter 12 “Phrase structure” is reprinted from M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 2001: 374–406, by permission from Blackwell Publishers. Original publication details ix Chapter 13 “The Visibility Guideline for functional categories: verb-raising in Japanese and related issues” is reprinted from Lingua 113: 321–375, 2003, by permission from Elsevier. Appendix “On the nature of economy in language” is reprinted from Cogni- tive Studies 3: 51–71, 1996, by permission from the Japanese Cognitive Science Society. Introduction This volume is a collection of articles I have written over the years concern- ing linguistic theory and comparative syntax. The study of the principles of Universal Grammar (UG), as they have been discovered in the tradition of modern generative grammar, has always been the major object of my research. Given the diversity of natural languages, however, the discovery of the principles of UG cannot be the sole object of inquiry in linguistic theory, a situation which makes the field more challenging and even more interesting, at least to me, than, say, arithmetic or physics. Thus, compara- tive syntax comes into play. Comparative syntax is concerned with the prop- erties of languages that are not universal, and it attempts to discover “natural classes” of syntactic properties that can be traced back to a single (usually quite abstract) parameter that yields observed differences among target languages. In the principles-and-parameters model assumed through- out the whole book, the study of comparative syntax proceeds hand in hand with the study of general principles of UG that interact with language- specific parameters to induce observed variation. All of the essays contained in this volume deal with comparative syntax as it pertains to the study of invariant principles of UG, with a special focus on the in-depth comparative analyses of English (-type languages) and Japanese (-type languages). Before giving a summary of the articles, let me briefly sketch the develop- ment of my thought on the issues of comparative syntax and syntactic theory over the period in which the articles were written. (References to important work by others are largely omitted in the following discussion. See the ori- ginal articles in this volume for detailed references.) The peculiar properties of subjects in Japanese, as compared to those in English, first attracted my attention. On the one hand, they behave like subjects of noun phrases in English, in that they are truly optional and can be syntactically absent (unlike subjects of clauses in English, which cannot be completely absent but require an empty category). In this respect, subjects in Japanese seem to be more closely connected to a lexical category. On the other hand, a subject in Japanese shares certain properties with a topic and the head of a relative clause. For example, the subject is a default candidate for a topic, and all three elements (subject,
Recommended publications
  • Lisa Pearl LING200, Summer Session I, 2004 Syntax – Sentence Structure

    Lisa Pearl LING200, Summer Session I, 2004 Syntax – Sentence Structure

    Lisa Pearl LING200, Summer Session I, 2004 Syntax – Sentence Structure I. Syntax A. Gives us the ability to say something new with old words. Though you have seen all the words that I’m using in this sentence before, it’s likely you haven’t seen them put together in exactly this way before. But you’re perfectly capable of understanding the sentence, nonetheless. A. Structure: how to put words together. A. Grammatical structure: a way to put words together which is allowed in the language. a. I often paint my nails green or blue. a. *Often green my nails I blue paint or. II. Syntactic Categories A. How to tell which category a word belongs to: look at the type of meaning the word has, the type of affixes which can adjoin to the word, and the environments you find the word in. A. Meaning: tell lexical category from nonlexical category. a. lexical – meaning is fairly easy to paraphrase i. vampire ≈ “night time creature that drinks blood” i. dark ≈ “without much light” i. drink ≈ “ingest a liquid” a. nonlexical – meaning is much harder to pin down i. and ≈ ?? i. the ≈ ?? i. must ≈ ?? a. lexical categories: Noun, Verb, Adjective, Adverb, Preposition i. N: blood, truth, life, beauty (≈ entities, objects) i. V: bleed, tell, live, remain (≈ actions, sensations, states) i. A: gory, truthful, riveting, beautiful (≈ property/attribute of N) 1. gory scene 1. riveting tale i. Adv: sharply, truthfully, loudly, beautifully (≈ property/attribute of V) 1. speak sharply 1. dance beautifully i. P: to, from, inside, around, under (≈ indicates path or position w.r.t N) 1.
  • Logophoricity in Finnish

    Logophoricity in Finnish

    Open Linguistics 2018; 4: 630–656 Research Article Elsi Kaiser* Effects of perspective-taking on pronominal reference to humans and animals: Logophoricity in Finnish https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0031 Received December 19, 2017; accepted August 28, 2018 Abstract: This paper investigates the logophoric pronoun system of Finnish, with a focus on reference to animals, to further our understanding of the linguistic representation of non-human animals, how perspective-taking is signaled linguistically, and how this relates to features such as [+/-HUMAN]. In contexts where animals are grammatically [-HUMAN] but conceptualized as the perspectival center (whose thoughts, speech or mental state is being reported), can they be referred to with logophoric pronouns? Colloquial Finnish is claimed to have a logophoric pronoun which has the same form as the human-referring pronoun of standard Finnish, hän (she/he). This allows us to test whether a pronoun that may at first blush seem featurally specified to seek [+HUMAN] referents can be used for [-HUMAN] referents when they are logophoric. I used corpus data to compare the claim that hän is logophoric in both standard and colloquial Finnish vs. the claim that the two registers have different logophoric systems. I argue for a unified system where hän is logophoric in both registers, and moreover can be used for logophoric [-HUMAN] referents in both colloquial and standard Finnish. Thus, on its logophoric use, hän does not require its referent to be [+HUMAN]. Keywords: Finnish, logophoric pronouns, logophoricity, anti-logophoricity, animacy, non-human animals, perspective-taking, corpus 1 Introduction A key aspect of being human is our ability to think and reason about our own mental states as well as those of others, and to recognize that others’ perspectives, knowledge or mental states are distinct from our own, an ability known as Theory of Mind (term due to Premack & Woodruff 1978).
  • Circumstantial Evidence for Syntactic Head Movement

    Circumstantial Evidence for Syntactic Head Movement

    Circumstantial Evidence for Syntactic Head Move ment Bartosz Wiland University of Pozna 1. Introduction Recently, a number of analyses have advanced a thesis that syntactic heads are immobile and that head movement does not exist in grammar (cf. Mahajan 2001, 2003; Müller 2004, a.o.) or is severely restricted (e.g. Koopman and Szabolcsi 2000, Nilsen 2003). Such approaches take dislocation of the head X0 to be an instance of a remnant movement of the XP-constituent, preceded by vacating movements of other members of the XP. Detrimental to the claim that head movement does not exist is a scenario in which a dislocation of X0 is followed by a remnant movement of the XP-constituent. Such a derivational scenario is outlined in (1). 0 0 0 (1) a. [YP Y [P [XP X ZP]]] 0 0 0 b. [YP Y [P X + [XP tX0 ZP]]] 0 0 0 c. [YP [XP tX0 ZP][Y Y [P X + tXP ]]] The only possibility of dislocating the head X0 before remnant XP-fronting (in (1c)) is by X0-movement (in (1b)). In this paper, I argue that the derivational scenario in (1) is attested in Polish and it allows us to explain the interpretive contrast between (2a–d) and (2e). (2) a. Jan znowu pos a Marii ksi k . (repetitive) Ja n-NOM again sent Mary-DAT book-ACC b. Jan znowu Marii pos a ksi k . (repetitive) Ja n-NOM again Mary-DAT sent book-ACC c. Jan znowu ksi k pos a Marii. (repetitive) Jan-NOM again book-ACC sent Mary-DAT d.
  • Wh-Concord in Okinawan = Syntactic Movement + Morphological Merger

    Wh-Concord in Okinawan = Syntactic Movement + Morphological Merger

    University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 22 Issue 1 Proceedings of the 39th Annual Penn Article 20 Linguistics Conference 2016 Wh-Concord in Okinawan = Syntactic Movement + Morphological Merger Kunio Kinjo Yohei Oseki Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation Kinjo, Kunio and Oseki, Yohei (2016) "Wh-Concord in Okinawan = Syntactic Movement + Morphological Merger," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 22 : Iss. 1 , Article 20. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol22/iss1/20 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol22/iss1/20 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wh-Concord in Okinawan = Syntactic Movement + Morphological Merger Abstract The main purpose of this paper is to provide a novel account for Wh-Concord in Okinawan based on the Copy Theory of Movement and Distributed Morphology. We propose that Wh-Concord interrogatives and Japanese-type wh-interrogatives have exactly the same derivation in the syntactic component: the Q- particle -ga, base-generated as adjoined to a wh-phrase, undergoes movement to the clause-final position. The two types of interrogatives are distinguished in the post-syntactic component: only in Wh-Concord, the -r morpheme on C0 triggers Morphological Merger, which makes it possible to Spell-Out lower copy of -ga. It is shown that the proposed analysis correctly predicts three descriptive generalizations on the distribution of -ga in
  • Derivational Economy in Syntax and Semantics

    Derivational Economy in Syntax and Semantics

    Derivational Economy in Syntax and Semantics Željko Bošković and Troy Messick Summary Economy considerations have always played an important role in the generative theory of grammar. They are particularly prominent in the most recent instantiation of this approach, the Minimalist Program, which explores the possibility that Universal Grammar is an optimal way of satisfying requirements that are imposed on the language faculty by the external systems that interface with the language faculty which is also characterized by optimal, computationally efficient design. In this respect, the operations of the computational system that produce linguistic expressions must be optimal in that they must satisfy general considerations of simplicity and efficient design. Simply put, the guiding principles here are do something only if you need to; and if you do need to, do it in the most economical/efficient way. These considerations ban superfluous steps in derivations and superfluous symbols in representations. Under economy guidelines, movement takes place only when there is a need for it (with both syntactic and semantic considerations playing a role here), and when it does take place, it takes place in the most economical way: it is as short as possible and carries as little material as possible. Furthermore, economy is evaluated locally, on the basis of immediately available structure. The locality of syntactic dependencies is also enforced by minimal search and by limiting the number of syntactic objects and the amount of structure that are accessible in the derivation. This is achieved by transferring parts of syntactic structure to the interfaces during the derivation, the transferred parts not being accessible for further syntactic operations.
  • The Utility and Ubiquity of Taboo Words Timothy Jay

    The Utility and Ubiquity of Taboo Words Timothy Jay

    PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE The Utility and Ubiquity of Taboo Words Timothy Jay Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts ABSTRACT—Taboo words are defined and sanctioned by This review is organized around eight questions that are used institutions of power (e.g., religion, media), and prohibi- to pique psychologists’ interest in taboo words and to promote a tions are reiterated in child-rearing practices. Native deeper understanding of them through future research: What are speakers acquire folk knowledge of taboo words, but it taboo words and why do they exist? What motivates people to use lacks the complexity that psychological science requires for taboo words? How often do people say taboo words, and who says an understanding of swearing. Misperceptions persist in them? What are the most frequently used taboo words? Does psychological science and in society at large about how psychological science acknowledge the significance of the frequently people swear or what it means when they do. frequency of taboo word use? Is a folk knowledge of taboo words Public recordings of taboo words establish the commonplace sufficient for psychological science? How should psychological occurrence of swearing (ubiquity), although frequency data science define language? Does psychological science even need are not always appreciated in laboratory research. A set of a theory of swearing? 10 words that has remained stable over the past 20 years accounts for 80% of public swearing. Swearing is positively WHATARE TABOO WORDS AND WHY DO THEY EXIST? correlated with extraversion and Type A hostility but neg- atively correlated with agreeableness, conscientiousness, I use the terms taboo words or swear words interchangeably to religiosity, and sexual anxiety.
  • First Language Acquisition Theories and Transition to SLA Mohammad

    First Language Acquisition Theories and Transition to SLA Mohammad

    The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2013 Official Conference Proceedings Osaka, Japan First Language Acquisition Theories and Transition to SLA Mohammad Torikul Islam Jazan University, Saudi Arabia 0289 The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2013 Official Conference Proceedings 2013 Abstract First language (L1) acquisition studies have been an interesting issue to both linguists and psycholinguists. A lot of research studies have been carried out over past several decades to investigate how L1 or child language acquisition mechanism takes place. The end point of L1 acquisition theories leads to interlanguage theories which eventually lead to second language acquisition (SLA) research studies. In this paper, I will show that there have been at least three theories that have offered new ideas on L1 acquisition. However, two theories of L1 acquisition have been very prominent as they have propounded two revolutionary schools of thought: Behaviorism and Mentalism. Therefore, in the first segment of this paper I will deal with the detailed theoretical assumptions on these two theories along with a brief discussion on Social Interactionist Theory of L1 acquisition. The second segment will deal with interlanguage theories and their seminal contributions to subsequent language researchers. Finally, I will briefly show how L1 acquisition theories and interlanguage theories have paved the way for new ideas into SLA research studies. iafor The International Academic Forum www.iafor.org 499 The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2013 Official Conference Proceedings Osaka, Japan Behaviorist Theory Behaviorism or Behaviorist Theory of first language (L1) plays a crucial role in understanding the early importance attached to the role of the first language acquisition.
  • II Levels of Language

    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
  • A More Perfect Tree-Building Machine 1. Refining Our Phrase-Structure

    A More Perfect Tree-Building Machine 1. Refining Our Phrase-Structure

    Intro to Linguistics Syntax 2: A more perfect Tree-Building Machine 1. Refining our phrase-structure rules Rules we have so far (similar to the worksheet, compare with previous handout): a. S → NP VP b. NP → (D) AdjP* N PP* c. VP → (AdvP) V (NP) PP* d. PP → P NP e. AP --> (Deg) A f. AdvP → (Deg) Adv More about Noun Phrases Last week I drew trees for NPs that were different from those in the book for the destruction of the city • What is the difference between the two theories of NP? Which one corresponds to the rule (b)? • What does the left theory claim that the right theory does not claim? • Which is closer to reality? How did can we test it? On a related note: how many meanings does one have? 1) John saw a large pink plastic balloon, and I saw one, too. Let us improve our NP-rule: b. CP = Complementizer Phrase Sometimes we get a sentence inside another sentence: Tenors from Odessa know that sopranos from Boston sing songs of glory. We need to have a new rule to build a sentence that can serve as a complement of a verb, where C complementizer is “that” , “whether”, “if” or it could be silent (unpronounced). g. CP → C S We should also improve our rule (c) to be like the one below. c. VP → (AdvP) V (NP) PP* (CP) (says CP can co-occur with NP or PP) Practice: Can you draw all the trees in (2) using the amended rules? 2) a. Residents of Boston hear sopranos of renown at dusk.
  • 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

    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.
  • Antisymmetry Kayne, Richard (1995)

    Antisymmetry Kayne, Richard (1995)

    CAS LX 523 Syntax II (1) A Spring 2001 March 13, 2001 qp Paul Hagstrom Week 7: Antisymmetry BE 33 Kayne, Richard (1995). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CDFG 1111 Koopman, Hilda (2000). The spec-head configuration. In Koopman, H., The syntax of cdef specifiers and heads. London: Routledge. (2) A node α ASYMMETRICALLY C-COMMANDS β if α c-commands β and β does not The basic proposals: c-command α. X-bar structures (universally) have a strict order: Spec-head-complement. There is no distinction between adjuncts and specifiers. • B asymmetrically c-commands F and G. There can be only one specifier. • E asymmetrically c-commands C and D. • No other non-terminal nodes asymmetrically c-command any others. But wait!—What about SOV languages? What about multiple adjunction? Answer: We’ve been analyzing these things wrong. (3) d(X) is the image of a non-terminal node X. Now, we have lots of work to do, because lots of previous analyses relied on d(X) is the set of terminal nodes dominated by node X. the availability of “head-final” structures, or multiple adjunction. • d(C) is {c}. Why make our lives so difficult? Wasn’t our old system good enough? • d(B) is {c, d}. Actually, no. • d(F) is {e}. A number of things had to be stipulated in X-bar theory (which we will review); • d(E) is {e, f}. they can all be made to follow from one general principle. • d(A) is {c, d, e, f}. The availability of a head-parameter actually fails to predict the kinds of languages that actually exist.
  • Some Observations on the Hebrew Desiderative Construction – a Dependency-Based Account in Terms of Catenae1

    Some Observations on the Hebrew Desiderative Construction – a Dependency-Based Account in Terms of Catenae1

    Thomas Groß Some Observations on the Hebrew Desiderative Construction – A Dependency-Based Account in Terms of Catenae1 Abstract The Modern Hebrew (MH) desiderative construction must obey four conditions: 1. A subordinate clause headed by the clitic še= ‘that’ must be present. 2. The verb in the subordinate clause must be marked with future tense. 3. The grammatical properties genus, number, and person tend to be specified, i.e. if the future tense affix is underspecified, material tends to appear that aids specification, if contextual recovery is unavailable. 4. The units of form that make up the constructional meaning of the desiderative must qualify as a catena. A catena is a dependency-based unit of form, the parts of which are immediately continuous in the vertical dimension. The description of the individual parts of the desiderative must address trans-, pre-, and suffixes, and cliticization. Catena-based morphology is representational, monostratal, dependency-, construction-, and piece-based. 1. Purpose, means and claims The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the Hebrew desiderative construction. This construction is linguistically interesting and challenging for a number of reasons. 1. It is a periphrastic construction, with fairly transparent compositionality. 2. It is transclausal, i.e. some parts of the construction reside in the main clause, and others in the subordinated clause. The complementizer is also part of the construction. 3. The construction consists of more than one word, but it does not qualify as a constituent. Rather the construction cuts into words. 4. Two theoretically 1 I want to thank Outi Bat-El (Tel Aviv University) and three anonymous reviewers for their help and advice.