A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections by Yoshiki Ogawa

  • admin
  • February 26, 2017
  • Grammar
  • Comments Off on A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections by Yoshiki Ogawa

By Yoshiki Ogawa

Syntactically talking, it has lengthy been recognized that noun words are parallel to clauses in lots of respects. whereas such a lot syntactic theories comprise this precept, nouns have in most cases been considered as not as good as verbs when it comes to their licensing talents, and nominal projections were considered as much less complicated than verbal projections by way of the variety of sensible different types that they include. Ogawa, even though, argues that clauses and noun words are completely parallel. This publication offers a unified concept of clauses and noun words, finally assisting to simplify a variety of thorny matters within the syntax/morphology interface.

Show description

Read or Download A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections PDF

Similar grammar books

Short Grammar of Bulgarian for English Speaking Learners

Booklet for english audio system who examine bulgarian grammar.

Dutch Translation in Practice

Dutch Translation in perform offers an obtainable and fascinating path in glossy Dutch translation. Taking a hugely sensible procedure, it introduces scholars to the basic options of translation experiences, heightens their wisdom of the issues posed in Dutch translation, and teaches them how you can take on those problems effectively.

Phrasal Movement and Its Kin (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs)

This learn investigates the categories of flow and movement-like family that hyperlink positions in syntactic constitution. David Pesetsky argues that there are 3 such kinfolk. in addition to overt phasal circulation, there are unique sorts of circulation with no phonological impression: covert phrasal stream and have circulation.

A Grammar of Warrongo (Mouton Grammar Library)

Warrongo is an extinct Australian Aboriginal language that was spoken in northeast Australia. This quantity is essentially in response to the wealthy facts recorded from the final fluent speaker. It info the phonology, morphology and syntax of the language. specifically, it presents a really scrutinizing description of syntactic ergativity - a phenomenon that's infrequent one of the world's language.

Extra resources for A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections

Example text

B. Paul hardly speaks Italian, *Paul speaks hardly Italian. *Pierreapeineparlel'italien. (=(12a)) Pierre parle a peine 1'italien. (= (12b)) (Pollock 1989:378) My claim is that the contrast between (11a) and (lib) is related to the contrast between (12) and (13). Let us continue to assume that the null C is an inflectional affix and that it must attach to the selecting head in the cases at hand. Let us also suppose, following Chomsky (1995:chapter 4), that every transitive verb is selected by the light verb v.

B. Jean croyait *(que) elle etait malade. (= (la)) c. the statement *(that) John is guilty Stowell (1981) and Kayne (1981) provided a principled account for the asymmetry between (la) and (lc). In the framework of the principles and parameters theory (Chomsky 1981), they claimed that not only traces left by movement but also empty Cs must be licensed by Empty Category Principle (ECP). Stowell (1981) then attributed the asymmetry to ECP by claiming that the N is scmantically in apposition to its sentential complement and does not assign a 9 -role to it; since Q -role assignment is a prerequisite for proper head government, N cannot be qualified as a proper head governor.

53) a. :46): Kanske Lena inte kopte en ny bok igar. ' b. *Kanske Lena kopte inte en ny bok igar. (54) Norwegian (Watanabe 1996:197): Vi vet at Jens ikke skj nte dette sp rsmalet. ' I could not find a matrix clause counterpart of (54) in Norwegian, though Roberts (1993) points out, in the context of demonstrating the correlation between overt verb raising and overt distinct morphological plural marking, that 'the Norwegian dialect of Hallingdalen . . :265). If he is correct in correlating the absence of V-raising with the absence of overt distinct morphological plural marking, there should be no V-raising in the matrix clause in (54), either, since the morphological inflection on verbs does not differ in the matrix and embedded clauses in Norwegian.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.62 of 5 – based on 26 votes