Suchergebnisse

A line of thought within the Minimalist Program proceeds as follows: the objects interpreted at the interface determine the units of syntactic manipulation. This paper argues that chains are not proper units for determining relative quantifier scope and so should not be thought of as proper syntactic objects. This conclusion is buttressed by the claim that once θ‐features are allowed into the theory, a conclusion independently required once control is considered, then chains are redundant objects that can be seen as violating the Inclusiveness Condition. The paper presents a theory that dispenses with chains. This requires syntactic innovations that are examined.

AbstractTwo empirical domains in Brazilian Portuguese have recently been claimed by Modesto (2010) to be problematic for the movement theory of control. We employ experimental‐syntax methods and find that more rigorous methodology reveals a more robust set of results that undermines both lines of argumentation. The first argument concerns agreement with epicene nouns in Romance that can be used as a diagnostic for the underlying presence of a moved element and, in particular, whether embedded null subjects are the result of finite control (as movement). The evidence confirms that embedded null subjects in finiteCPs pattern together with obligatory control in Brazilian Portuguese, but not in Italian, and that the methodology is sensitive enough to distinguish these two language types. The second set of experimental‐syntax results concern the interpretation of inflected infinitives in Portuguese and demonstrate that null subjects of inflected infinitives do not favor partial‐control readings, instead patterning together with nonobligatory control. As such, although they raise interesting questions about the status ofproin partialpro‐drop grammars, inflected infinitives are orthogonal to the predictions of the movement theory of control.

Abstract. Control has played an important role in theoretical debates within the Minimalist Program. This is so because control implicates notions such as module,θ‐role, the Last Resort nature of syntactic operations, movement, binding, chains, Case, complementation, and more.Hornstein (1999)has controversially claimed that control is a subspecies of movement. That is, control is just like familiar instances of raising, except that it involves movement into an additionalθ‐position. If correct, the movement analysis has important conceptual and empirical repercussions, some of which are examined here.

Abstract.  This paper provides a minimalist analysis of the binominal each phenomenon. The analysis incorporates key ideas behind Safir and Stowell's (1988) seminal paper but avoids the complications that this approach entails. Our proposal provides one more empirical argument for movement into θ‐position, sideward movement, the primacy of movement over binding in matters of construal, and the virtues of a very derivational view of syntax. It is also consistent with a framework that dispenses with LF movement entirely.

Assuming that parasitic gaps (PGs) and across‐the‐board (ATB) gaps are derived through sideward movement (Nunes 1995, 2001; Hornstein 2001), this paper aims at explaining why ATB constructions are in general more permissive than PG constructions (Postal 1993). We argue that sideward movement is licensed only by Last Resort in PG constructions but is licensed by either Last Resort or the Parallelism Constraint in ATB constructions. The additional legibility condition that coordinate structures have to satisfy ends up permitting instances of sideward movement that would otherwise be impossible.

In this compelling volume, ten distinguished thinkers -- William G. Lycan, Galen Strawson, Jeffrey Poland, Georges Rey, Frances Egan, Paul Horwich, Peter Ludlow, Paul Pietroski, Alison Gopnik, and Ruth Millikan -- address a variety of conceptual issues raised in Noam Chomsky's work. Distinguished list of critics: William G. Lycan, Galen Strawson, Jeffrey Poland, Georges Rey, Frances Egan, Paul Horwich, Peter Ludlow, Paul Pietroski, Alison Gopnik, and Ruth Millikan. Includes Chomsky's substantial new replies and responses to each essay. The best critical introduction to Chomsky's thought as a w