A-bar Syntax: A Study in Movement Types by Gereon Müller

By Gereon Müller

Show description

Read or Download A-bar Syntax: A Study in Movement Types PDF

Best grammar books

Structuring Sense: Volume II: The Normal Course of Events

Structuring experience explores the adaptation among phrases although outlined and buildings notwithstanding built. It units out to illustrate over 3 volumes, of which this is often the 1st, that the reason of linguistic competence can be shifted from lexical access to syntactic constitution, from reminiscence of phrases to manipulation of ideas.

Modes of Occurrence: Verbs, Adverbs and Events

Ranging from the placement recursive concept of fact is significant to a thought of that means, this publication investigates the issues adverbs pose for systematic semantics. Barry Taylor argues that the hitherto promising "predicate modifier" technique fails to house the extra refined difficulties of adverbial constitution and that Donald Davidson's substitute - to construe adverbs as adjectives on occasions - can purely paintings inside a metaphysical concept of the character of occasions.

Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English

The criteria investigated within the quantity comprise the subsequent: phonological affects (such because the precept of rhythmic alternation and optimum syllable structure), frequency, pervasive semantic and pragmatic points (including iconicity, markedness, grammaticalization and typological tendencies), details constitution, processing complexity and horror aequi (the avoidance of identification effects).

Additional info for A-bar Syntax: A Study in Movement Types

Example text

Abstract incorporation). The last strategy is available in languages like Dutch or German, where a close relationship of I and C is independently attested, but not in languages like English, Swedish, or Russian. 3. Barriers in situ Unambiguous binding Given that an IP barrier is responsible for the occurrence of complementizertrace effects, and given that adjunction to an IP would resolve its barrierhood, we must ensure that movement to SpecC may not use an IP-adjoined position as a loophole.

14 (31) a. b. c. Wer¿ meinst du [cp t- daß [IP t¿ ihn geküßt hat ]] ? who nom think you that him kissed has Warum* meinst du [cp t[ daß [IP sie t¿ ihn geküßt hat ]] ? why think you that she him kissed has Wen¿ meinst du [cp t- daß [ip sie t¿ geküßt hat ]] ? whoniacc think you that she kissed has Wh-movement at S-structure 35 If we do not want to make the assumption that subjects can be θ-governed by V in German (unlike in English), (31-a) clearly indicates that IP is not a barrier for antecedent-government in the presence of a complementizer in German.

16") a. b. c. [ YP [γ. [χρ ... X ... ] Y ]] [YP [XP ... X ... ] [γ. Y ]] [γρ [ x p ... X ... ] [γρ ... Y ... ]] (16"-ab) represent the normal cases - in (16"-a), XP is the complement of Y, and in (16"-b), XP is the specifier of Y. Both times, YP includes (hence, does not exclude) XP. In (16"-c), on the other hand, XP is adjoined to YP. Still, YP does not exclude XP, so that the barrierhood of XP depends on the distinctness of X and Y, and not some other (higher) head. It remains to specify the conditions under which two heads are (non-) distinct.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.99 of 5 – based on 8 votes