The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
1A-MovementsMark R. BaltinNew York UniversityTo appear in: The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Mark Baltin & Chris Collins.eds , Blackwell The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory Publishers, to appear c March. 2000This chapter will concentrate on a range of phenomena that have crucially been held to involve (within Government-Binding Theory and now Minimalism) movement of an element to what is known as an argument position- roughly, a position in which an element can be bas The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theoryegenerated and bear a crucial semantic role with respect to the main predicate of a clause. It is to be distinguished from movement to an -A (read A-bThe Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
ar. or non-argument) position The two types of movement have very different properties, most notably with respect to binding and wanna-contraction (1)1A-MovementsMark R. BaltinNew York UniversityTo appear in: The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Mark Baltin & Chris Collins.eds , Blackwell The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory2a. Who' did he think t' would win?b. John1 he thought t' would win.The trace of an element In an A-posilion IS thought to behave, for the purposes of the binding theory, as an anaphor. while the trace of an element in an ~A-position is thought to behave as an R-expression (although Postal has argue The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theoryd(Postal 1994) that certain “A traces behave as pronouns). Hence, the trace in (3). a case of strong crossover [Postal. 1971 #1] has been thought to bThe Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
e an R-expression, causing the structure for (3) to violate Condition c of the binding theory, while (4) is acceptable because the trace is an anaphor1A-MovementsMark R. BaltinNew York UniversityTo appear in: The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Mark Baltin & Chris Collins.eds , Blackwell The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theorygli 1980). to my knowledge), is that traces of A-movements do not block wanna-contraction, while traces of -A-movements, as is well-known since at least 1970 (due to Larry' Horn’s original observation) do block wanna-contraction. For example, the verb need induces A-movements by the diagnostics that The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory I will be discussing shortly, and. in my casual speech, induces a flap which I take to be diagnostic of wanna-contraction--5Does there really niyDa bThe Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
e a separate constraint?The flap pronounciation cannot occur when need and fo are separated by a wh-trace. as in <6>(b), corresponding to (6)(a):-6(a)1A-MovementsMark R. BaltinNew York UniversityTo appear in: The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Mark Baltin & Chris Collins.eds , Blackwell The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory might in face indicate that they're just not there, and in fact, given the structure-preserving nature of these movements, that raising, and, more generally. A-movements, do not exist. This line has been taken since at least the 1970’s by, (Bresnan 1978). (Bresnan 1982)), (Pollard and Sag 1987). (P The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theoryollard and Sag 1994)), (Foley 1984). (Van Valin 1993)). and many others These theories, while disagreeing with each other on many issues, have in commThe Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
on the view that passives and unaccusatives are to be related by a lexical redundancy rule, which states roughly that if a given subcategorization A e1A-MovementsMark R. BaltinNew York UniversityTo appear in: The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Mark Baltin & Chris Collins.eds , Blackwell The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory that the arguments in L. while expressing the same semantic roles as the arguments in L’. will map them onto distinct argument positions. For the passive construction, the lexical rule will map all of the semantic roles in the active onto a different array of arguments in the passive. With respect The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theoryto the unaccusative construction, as in (1 )(c), while there may be transitive-unaccusative doublets, as in freeze, melt, or break, such doublets needThe Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
not exist, and there would in fact be no semantic role corresponding to a transitive subject for an unaccusative Manzini makes this point with respec1A-MovementsMark R. BaltinNew York UniversityTo appear in: The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Mark Baltin & Chris Collins.eds , Blackwell The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theoryonsidered to induce unaccusativity. and its unacceptability is thought to be due to the fact that there is no implicit agent in unaccusative sink's lexical entry that would control the unexpressed subject of the purpose clause. In (7)(b). on the other hand, the passive of sink would have an implicit The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory agent, optionally expressed as an adjunct by-phrase.With respect to the raising construction, exemplified in (1 )(a), the proponents of the lexical aThe Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
pproach have typically analyzed the infinitival complement as a VP. as they have for control constructions, as in (8):-8John wants to win.One desidera1A-MovementsMark R. BaltinNew York UniversityTo appear in: The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Mark Baltin & Chris Collins.eds , Blackwell The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theoryities, the idea behind which is that grammatical relations can be predicted on the basis of the semantic roles of thearguments that bear those grammatical relations ((Fillmore 1968), (Carter 1976)). Morespecifically, the idea is that a given thematic role can be assigned to a unique syntactic positi The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theoryon.so that. eg., agents are subjects, themes are direct objects, and so on. Passives.unaccusatives, and raised subjects on the face of it complicate tThe Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
he statement of linkingregularities, but linking regularities can be preserved, it is thought, if these three constructions are derived, either lexica1A-MovementsMark R. BaltinNew York UniversityTo appear in: The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Mark Baltin & Chris Collins.eds , Blackwell The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theoryntactic representations).1A-MovementsMark R. BaltinNew York UniversityTo appear in: The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Mark Baltin & Chris Collins.eds , BlackwellGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook