By Gereon Müller
Read or Download A-bar Syntax: A Study in Movement Types PDF
Similar grammar books
This monograph stories problems with present minimalist obstacle, corresponding to even if adjustments within the expression of argument and syntactic constitution can all be attributed to the parameterization of particular useful heads. particularly, this e-book reviews in-depth the level to which version within the expression of causation, to be had either intra- and crosslinguistically, will be accounted for by way of attractive in basic terms to the microparameterization of the causative head, reason, as formerly argued for by way of linguists resembling Pylkk?
A cross-linguistic examine of grammatical morphemes expressing spatial relationships that discusses the connection among the best way people event area and how it's encoded grammatically in language. The dialogue of the similarities and alterations between languages within the encoding and expression of spatial family facilities round the emergence and evolution of spatial grams, and the semantic and morphosyntactic features of 2 varieties of spatial grams.
The argument constitution of verbs, outlined because the a part of grammar that bargains with how individuals in verbal occasions are expressed in clauses, is a classical subject in linguistics that has acquired massive recognition within the literature. This booklet investigates argument constitution in English from a usage-based viewpoint, taking the view that the cognitive illustration of grammar is formed via language use, and that an important points of grammatical association are tied to the frequency with which phrases and syntactic structures are used.
- English Grammar for Today: A New Introduction
- 5th Grade Grammar & Vocabulary Skills Book
- The Syntax of Anaphora (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax)
- Grammar in Plain English
Additional info for A-bar Syntax: A Study in Movement Types
To whom ]¿ did you regret [cp t· that you could not speak t¿ ] ? b. *HoWj did you regret [cp t· that you behaved t¿ ] ? The initial traces t t in (9-ab) are properly governed, as we have seen. But now suppose that complements of non-bridge predicates are barriers (this 22 Proper government and subjacency will be derived below). Then, the intermediate traces t- in (9-ab) are not properly governed - they axe neither θ-governed nor antecedent-governed. This already implies that both (9-a) and (9-b) involve a Subjacency violation at S-structure, given the definition in (5), which assimilates Subjacency to antecedent-government.
First, we must ensure that C is always non-distinct from the next higher head (which we may assume to be the embedding V for the time being, but see below). This follows given (a) that (abstract or overt) C incorporation is not an option, at least not in the languages currently under discussion, which exhibit the island effect (cf. Baker (1988) for discussion of this issue); and (b) that the head which embeds CP is never phonologically and semantically empty. The second assumption we have to make is that intermediate adjunction to CP in the course of longdistance w/i^movement is barred, just as intermediate adjunction to an IP barrier is barred (as argued in the previous section).
Since subject traces are also not θ-governed, t¿ in (8-a) receives the feature [-7] at Sstructure. Given that 7-marking may never apply to a 7-marked trace, (8-a) violates the ECP (7) at LF. Similarly, the initial adjunct trace t¿ in (8-b) is not properly governed at S-structure. But adjunct traces, by assumption, are 7-marked only at LF. On the way to LF, however, the complementizer that, being semantically empty, is deleted, so that antecedent-government of t¿ by the intermediate trace t· can apply.