(Ebook) Syntactic Derivations: A Nontransformational

View by Ulf Brosziewski ISBN 9783110953565,

3110953560 Pdf Download

https://ebooknice.com/product/syntactic-derivations-a-
nontransformational-view-50378998

★★★★★
4.8 out of 5.0 (61 reviews )

Instant PDF Download

ebooknice.com
 (Ebook) Syntactic Derivations: A Nontransformational View by
Ulf Brosziewski ISBN 9783110953565, 3110953560 Pdf Download

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

 We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebooknice.com
to discover even more!

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles,

James ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492,
1459699815, 1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

(Ebook) Cartographic Science: A Compendium of Map Projections,

with Derivations by Donald Fenna ISBN 9780849381690,
9780849381812, 084938169X, 0849381819

https://ebooknice.com/product/cartographic-science-a-compendium-of-map-
projections-with-derivations-4767128

(Ebook) Primary Mathematics 3A by HOERST ISBN 9789810185046,

9810185049

https://ebooknice.com/product/primary-mathematics-3a-33552624

(Ebook) Observing Society: Meaning, Communication, and Social

Systems by Daniel B. Lee, Achim Brosziewski ISBN 9781604976397,
160497639X

https://ebooknice.com/product/observing-society-meaning-communication-and-
social-systems-58709772
(Ebook) A Dictionary of Modern Star Names: A Short Guide to 254
Star Names and Their Derivations by Paul Kunitzsch and Tim Smart
ISBN 9781931559447, 1931559449

https://ebooknice.com/product/a-dictionary-of-modern-star-names-a-short-
guide-to-254-star-names-and-their-derivations-9959816

(Ebook) Laços de afeto - 3a Ed. by Wanderley Oliveira ISBN

9788563365552, 856336555X

https://ebooknice.com/product/lacos-de-afeto-3a-ed-50394824

(Ebook) Syntactic Analysis and Description: A Constructional

Approach by David Lockwood ISBN 9781441162564, 1441162569

https://ebooknice.com/product/syntactic-analysis-and-description-a-
constructional-approach-51784962

(Ebook) Matematik 5000+ Kurs 2c Lärobok by Lena Alfredsson, Hans

Heikne, Sanna Bodemyr ISBN 9789127456600, 9127456609

https://ebooknice.com/product/matematik-5000-kurs-2c-larobok-23848312

(Ebook) The Regulation of Unfair Commercial Practices Under Ec

Directive 2005 29: New Rules and New Techniques (Studies of the
Oxford Institute of European and Comparative) by Stephen
Weatherill, Ulf Bernitz ISBN 9781841136998, 9781847313478,
1841136999, 1847313477
https://ebooknice.com/product/the-regulation-of-unfair-commercial-
practices-under-ec-directive-2005-29-new-rules-and-new-techniques-studies-
of-the-oxford-institute-of-european-and-comparative-1947024
Linguistische
Arbeiten 470
Herausgegeben von Hans Altmann, Peter Blumenthal,
Hans Jürgen Heringer, Ingo Plag, Beatrice Primus und Richard Wiese
Ulf Brosziewski

Syntactic Derivations
A Nontransformational View

Max Niemeyer Verlag

Tübingen 2003
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Bibliothek

Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte
bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.

ISBN 3-484-30470-7 ISSN 0344-6727

© Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH, Tübingen 2003

Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der
engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das
gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und
Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany.
Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.
Druck: Hanf Buch- und Mediendruck GmbH, Darmstadt
Einband: Industriebuchbinderei Nadele, Nehren
Contents

Acknowledgements VII
Overview l
1. Introduction 3
1.1. Dislocation in Generative Theories of Syntax 3
1.2. A Third View of Dislocation 10
1.3. Between Transformational and Feature-based Theories 14
2. Phrase Structure 17
2.1. X-bar-Theory and the Minimalist Concept of Phrase Structure 17
2.2. Selection and Licensing 25
2.3. Structure Preservation 29
2.4. Summary 35
3. Syntactic Derivations 36
3.1. Foundations 36
3.2. Phrasal Movement 46
3.2.1. Minimality and Shortest-Move Conditions 46
3.2.2. Phrasal Movement and Combinatorial Rules 55
3.3. Head Movement 67
3.4. Feature Distribution 76
3.5. Summary 87
Appendix: On the Relationship between Syntax and Morphology 89
4. Summary 95
5. References 97
Acknowledgements

This book is a revised version of my doctoral dissertation, which was accepted by the Faculty
of Philosophy at the University of Cologne in the summer term 2000.
The research for this study quickly led me away from the kind of scientific work that I
had been acquainted with. I now believe that my efforts have been linguistically worthwhile,
but in the beginning, I could not be sure that they would yield useful results. Therefore,
critical comments, advice, and encouragement from colleagues and friends at the Institut
für deutsche Sprache und Literatur in Cologne were particularly important to me. I would
like to thank Priyamvada Bondre-Beil, Daniel Biking, Kay Gonzalez, Horst Lohnstein, and
especially Robert Kemp and Susann Siebert, who provided me with help in linguistic and
many other matters. For his support, I also owe many thanks to my supervisor, Prof. Dr.
Jürgen Lenerz, in whose courses I first learned what a fascinating discipline linguistics
can be.
For her thorough and encouraging critique and her help with the publication, I am very
grateful to Prof. Dr. Beatrice Primus. Should the revised text still contain too many trans-
formational elements, she is certainly not to blame. I am also grateful to Prof. Dr. Heinz
Vater and Prof. Dr. Jon Erickson for their support of my work, to Kathryn Edmunds and
Summer Kern for their efforts to turn my English into English, and to the advertising and
internet agency L&K integrated for their logistic help.
The periods of hard work would have been much harder if Rolf Schröder did not, every
now and then, share excellent food and great wines and spirits with me.
It is hardly possible for me to say how much Anne Rivet has helped me. If I could write
like Shakespeare, perhaps I would be able to describe what she has done for me and to
express my thanks to her.
I have always been fortunate enough to feel that I could rely on my parents and on my
brothers whenever I needed them. Without the love, tolerance, and patience of my parents
I could never have written such a book. I dedicate it to the memory of my father, Philipp
Brosziewski.

Cologne, September 2002

Overview

The means by which generative theories of syntax account for dislocated constituents can be
divided into two classes. Some of them treat the relation between a dislocated expression and
its "base position" as a direct, theoretically primitive relation, while others use features of the
intervening constituents. Transformational devices like "movement" or "copying" and their
representational counterpart, that is, "chains," belong to the first class. "Gap features" of the
kind employed in LFG, GPSG, and HPSG belong to the second, as well as the mechanisms
determining "types" in categorial grammars.
This study introduces and investigates a model of syntactic derivations that is based on a
different concept of dislocation. It combines characteristic properties of the transformational
and the feature-based approach, but it avoids certain redundancies and problems associated
with both of them and gives a simpler and more coherent explanation of various fundamental
properties of dislocation phenomena.
With transformational approaches, the theory shares the assumption that thematic rela-
tions and formal licensing relations must be established within uniform and local constituent
configurations. With Categorial Grammar, it shares the purely derivational view of con-
stituent structure. There are no phrase markers; syntactic expressions, whether lexical or de-
rived, are taken to be triples of a phonological representation, a semantic (model-theoretic)
representation, and a specification of categorial, selectional, and morphosyntactic features.
From this perspective constituency only reflects the stages of a derivation, the successive
construction of larger syntactic units out of smaller ones.
The absence of phrase structure representations excludes movement transformations and
chains, and the assumption that licensing configurations are uniform excludes gap features.
These devices turn out to be superfluous if dislocation is conceived of as a genuinely deriva-
tional phenomenon.
The derivational system is based on a combinatorial function that constructs a syntactic
expression by merging two others, one of which it projects. Dislocation involves a second
derivational function, which generates two syntactic expressions from a single one by divid-
ing the features and components of its argument into those that must be present in the base
position of that argument and those that can or need not be. The resulting two expressions
are linked derivationally; that is, they are not parts of a single, larger syntactic structure but
only form a "group" of categories, a derivational unit. Further combinatorial steps will affect
one of the members of the group while the other remains unchanged, until, at some stage of
the derivation, the expressions belonging to the group must be combined with each other.
This approach will allow us to reduce the number of feature-, representation-, and rule-
types required in the syntactic system to a minimum. Like transformational theories and
their representational variants, it is able to treat dislocated heads - "X°-categories" - in
the same way as dislocated phrases and to subsume VSO- and V2-patterns, for example,
under the same principles as phrasal dislocation. The theoretical problems arising from
the concept of head movement in transformational approaches do not occur in this model;
there is no C-Command Condition and the "Extension Requirement" is fulfilled trivially.
Fundamental generalizations that the Government and Binding Theory expresses by means
of the X-bar-scheme can be rendered without projection levels, nonbranching projections,
and the 'segment'/'category' distinction. It is possible to derive the "structure-preserving"
nature of dislocation, its "economical" character, elementary bounding phenomena, and the
effects of the C-Command Condition and the Head Movement Constraint from a few ele-
mentary assumptions about the combinatorial properties of groups.
In its general foundations and aims, the model adheres to the Principles and Parameters
Theory, and elements of the most prominent versions of this theory - the Government and
Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program - have influenced its formulation. Its affinities
to nontransformational, feature-based grammars result from its treatment of phrase structure.
This study concentrates on theoretical questions, mainly those that arise directly from the
elementary premises and concern the derivational mechanism, constituency, and dislocation.
Chapter 1 introduces the basic concepts, describes how they are related to other genera-
tive theories, and sketches the heuristics underlying the subsequent discussions. Chapter 2
presents a part of the assumptions that replace X-bar-theoretic axioms. Chapter 3 contains
the most essential parts of this study. Its first section is concerned with the general format
of syntactic derivations and expressions, the second and third one with the counterparts of
phrasal movement and head movement in the theory; the fourth section discusses the as-
sumptions about syntactic features and their distribution that are constitutive for the model.
Some aspects of the relationship of syntax to morphology are the subject of an appendix to
chapter 3. The main results of the study are summarized in chapter 4.
l. Introduction

1.1. Dislocation in Generative Theories of Syntax

A characteristic element of a syntactic theory is the way it treats dislocated constituents. The
means for explaining this phenomenon and central assumptions about syntactic expressions,
relations, and principles will mutually depend on each other. In current theories there are
basically two types of approach to dislocation. This study is concerned with a third, an alter-
native approach, which forms a kind of synthesis between the others. The second and third
parts of the introduction describe the basic ideas and the aims and methods of the study.
In what follows I will sketch common accounts of dislocation and their theoretical implica-
tions. A proper distinction between "derivational" and "nonderivational" grammars will be
essential to this sketch, and it is necessary to begin with some remarks on this terminology.
Given that a grammar defines how sets of lexical items are linked to pairings of complex
sound patterns and meanings, a nonderivational theory assumes that for each expression of
a language, the relevant grammatical relations are established in a single syntactic object.
Grammatical principles are exclusively principles that determine whether a given syntactic
representation is well-formed or not. Basically such a representation will be an arrangement
of lexical items in a constituent structure, with additional information associated with each
constituent. I call a theory "derivational" if it assigns to a complex linguistic expression a se-
quence of syntactic representations in which each nonlexical element results from combining
or transforming preceding ones. The format of the combinatorial or transformational opera-
tions will determine, at least in part, the format of possible outcomes. As in nonderivational
grammars, syntactic representations are extended constituent structures in transformational
theories like the Government and Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981,1982,1986a) or the Min-
imalist Program (Chomsky 1993, 1995). The terms "transformational" and "derivational"
are often used interchangeably, but it is important here that the latter, in the sense just de-
scribed, also covers a quite different class of grammars because it includes combinatorial
relations. Later, I will return to this topic.
The transformational account of dislocation is possibly the most popular one. It can be
illustrated by means of the sentence (1), a case of "wh-movement."
(1) Which wine did she buy?
Formal and semantic properties of the noun phrase which wine depend on the verb buy;
there is an argument/predicate relation and the verb assigns case to the NP. Transformational
theories presuppose that grammatical relations of this type must uniformly be reflected by
local constituent configurations. For (1), this means they must be established in a verb phrase
as in (2), where the verb and the noun phrase are the immediate constituents of this category.
(2) Did she [vp buy [NP French wine]]?
 The transformational account - which is derivational in that it uses sequences of repre-
sentations - takes (1) to be derived from a structure that resembles (2):
(3) did she [vp buy [Np which wine]]
A transformational operation applying to (3) "moves" the NP to its surface position. Given
the basic assumption about grammatical relations and constituent configuration, the VP
structure must be preserved in this operation;1 an abstract, phonologically empty category -
a "trace" - is inserted at the former position of NP. (4) illustrates the process. The relation
of NP to its trace t is expressed by coindexing. The example presupposes the X-bar-analysis
of clause structure as developed within the Government and Binding Theory and takes the
clause to be based on the projections of a complementizer - C' and CP - and a category
INFL bearing tense and agreement features and projecting the categories I' and IP. For con-
venience, the "Split-Infl Hypothesis" of Pollock (1989) and subsequent developments are
ignored, as well as the "VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis" (see Koopman/Sportiche 1991)
and the "Layered-VP Hypothesis" (Larson 1988, Johnson 1991, Chomsky 1995).
(4) The transformational analysis:
[cp [c, did [jp she [,, INFL [vp buy [Np which wine]]]]]]
=>
[CP [NP which wine], [c, did [IP she [,, INFL [vp buy r, ]]]]]
There are nonderivational variants of the transformational analysis, which I will refer to as
"representational." These approaches share with transformational ones the premises con-
cerning the function of constituent structure, as well as the assumption that there are syn-
tactic devices that directly establish nonlocal dependencies in a phrase structure. But it is
claimed that only a single level of syntactic representation is necessary. With a "chain" con-
necting the NP [which wine], and the trace f,, the second structure in (4) preserves all the
information contained in the first; thus, referring to a sequence of representations appears to
be superfluous if chains are considered to be primary elements of phrase structure. As part
of a chain, an empty category e may "mediate" assignment of case and thematic roles.2
(5) The representational analysis:
[CP [ NP which wine], [c, did [IP she [r INFL [vp buy c/]]]]]
With respect to the underlying premises, feature-based theories are just the opposite of trans-
formational and representational ones. They are based on a different view of constituent
structure and allow for heterogeneous ways of establishing the grammatical relations in
question, but there are no devices that directly link separated constituents. Each constituent
of a sentence bears specific syntactic, semantic and phonological properties. The basic prop-
erties of a complex category will result from a combination process applying to features of

1
I skip over the format of transformational rules in the "Standard Theory" (Chomsky 1965) and
earlier works.
2
The Government and Binding Theory is essentially a mixture of derivational and representational el-
ements. That only a single level of syntactic representation exists is, e.g., the claim of Koster (1987)
and Brody( 1995).
its constituents (see also below). The term "feature-based" as it is used here refers to those
theories that encode information about dislocated constituents in the feature sets, feature
structures, or types, associated with each syntactic expression. Applied to the example (1),
this means the presence of the additional category in the root projection - or its absence in
VP, respectively - may be reflected by a property of the intervening categories. (6) uses -
informally - the "slash" notation of the Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar to represent
such mechanisms. Roughly, "XP/NP" may be read as: "XP is a category in which an NP
is missing," or vice versa: "XP is dominated by a category containing an additional NP."
Because the CP-IP-scheme is hardly compatible with feature-based theories (see also be-
low), the sentential projections are labeled "S+" and "S*" in (6), and details concerning their
nature and structure are omitted.
(6) The feature-based analysis (nonderivational):
[s* [NP wnicn winel CS+/NP did she IVP/NP buv («Ml
Various interpretations and technical realizations are conceivable for such a device. Many
theories of this type use unification mechanisms (see Shieber 1986 for an overview). By
"(e)" (6) indicates that the "gap features" may be introduced by means of empty categories
or without them. The Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan 1982), the Generalized Phrase
Structure Grammar (Gazdar 1982, Gazdar/Pullum 1982, Gazdar/Klein/Pullum/Sag 1985),
and the Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Pollard/Sag 1987, 1994) are nonderiva-
tional feature-based grammars.
The purpose of gap features is to account for dislocation with rules or principles that have
a "context-free" character or only deviate minimally from context-freeness. A guiding idea
of such concepts may be characterized as follows.
(7) The properties of a complex phrase depend exclusively on the properties of
its immediate constituents; no syntactic principle refers to constituent configura-
tions other than sisterhood and immediate dominance.
(7) generally excludes coindexing mechanisms (as well as "government" across phrase
boundaries.
The central explanatory strategy of transformational and representational theories is to
"translate" syntactic phenomena into structural configurations and then to generalize about
these configurations. Accordingly, the set of syntactically relevant structural relations may
be quite rich and complex,3 while the principles of projecting, licensing, and interpreting
syntactic features are taken to be comparatively simple or trivial. This is, at least, what most
works in that paradigm suggest, but they are usually not precise and explicit in these matters.
In contrast to this, the other approaches focus on feature systems, and these systems may be
complex and powerful, whereas configurational concepts are less important.
Feature-based theories tend to restrict the use of gap features to "unbounded" forms
of dislocation like topicalization or wh-movement and to analyze local variations in word

The Minimalist Program seeks to reduce the inventory of structural notions, but it is still unclear
how it may provide equivalents for the various forms of command, of government, of binding, and
the concept of barriers employed in the Government and Binding theory.
order with different means, which often amount to more or less construction-specific lin-
earization rules. Transformational theories make extensive use of movement analyses, and
the Goverment and Binding Theory assumes that in addition to phrasal movement - the
movement of maximal projections into c-commanding positions - another type of move-
ment exists, namely "head movement." Besides V2- and Vl-phemomena, which include
subject-auxiliary inversion in English, the "reordering" of finite verbs and VP-initial ad-
verbs may be an example of head movement that is not string vacuous. The French sen-
tence (8) would be analyzed as in (9) in a representational or transformational theory (see,
e.g., Pollock 1989). The head of VP is raised and adjoined to the head of the next higher
projection.

(8) II embrasse souvent Marie.

he kisses often Marie
'He often kisses Marie.'

(9)

Mane

Transfering the head-movement analyses of the Government and Binding Theory to feature-
based systems would be quite an artificial enterprise. A full equivalent would require some
kind of "filler feature," but to my knowledge no one has proposed introducing such an addi-
tional device.4 The closest approximation is possibly the "double-slash feature" (see Jacob-
son 1987, Borsley 1989), which permits a sort of local (nonrecursive) raising of heads. For
feature-based analyses of constructions like (8), see AbeilleVGodard (1994), Kim/Sag (1996).

Consider what would be necessary to support the same assumptions about constituency in a theory
without movement and coindexing devices. Assume that by means of an empty category or some
type changing operation, a gap feature of VP is instantiated that marks the absence of its head. The
sister of VP/V is not V, but the complex head [j V I], which could bind the gap feature only if
another type of feature, represented by "#" in (i), indicated the presence of the verb:
(i) IP

il I'

I#V VP/V

embrasse I souvent VP/V

(e) Marie
 Although the Goverment and Binding Theory has succeeded, to a certain extent, in as-
similating the principles that are supposed to underly the two types of movement,5 head
movement involves conceptual difficulties, which carry over to the Minimalist Program. In
contrast to phrases, a moved head does not c-command its trace if one takes c-command to be
defined by branching nodes. Therefore, it is necessary either to resort to "m-command" or to
define c-command in terms of "inclusion" and "exclusion" (see May 1985, Chomsky 1986a,
Kayne 1994), which gives adjoined categories a hybrid status in a phrase structure represen-
tation. As to the Minimalist Program, head movement violates the "Extension Requirement"
(Chomsky 1993:23). This has led some authors to abandon the assumption that head move-
ment is governed by the same principles as phrasal movement. They take it to be a feature
transfer between a head and the head of its complement that does not create new syntac-
tic constituents (cf. Stabler 1998, Brody 1998, Frampton/Gutmann 1999; a treatment that
accords with the Extension Requirement is sketched in Bobaljik/Brown 1997).
Our sketch of approaches to dislocation will conclude with the derivational counterparts
of (6). Some sort of phrase structure representation is indispensable in the three classes
of theories that have been mentioned so far. However, in a feature-based and derivational
system, this sort of representation seems to be redundant because "derivation trees" are an
equivalent to constituent structure. First of all, consider what is possibly the simplest and
most restrictive concept of derivations: Suppose that complex expressions are constructed
"step by step," separate complex parts are derived separately and subsequently combined.
The derivation of (10), for example, might look like (11). At each step, two categories are
combined to form a larger one. Formally, (11) simply corresponds to a successive - and
"reversed" - application of context-free PS-rules of the form 7 -> α β, or, in terms of a
categorial grammar, to a derivation based on functional application only.
(10) The scientist bought the French wine.
(11) a. the + scientist = [NP the scientist]
b. French + wine = [N/ French wine]
c. the + [N, French wine] = [Np the French wine]
d. bought + [NP the French wine] = [vp bought the French wine]
e. [NP the scientist] + [vp bought the French wine]
= [s the scientist bought the French wine]
Suppose further that the operation represented by '+' directly combines the phonological,
semantic and syntactic features of its two arguments, i.e., that it directly forms a "feature
representation" of the new category it constructs. (12) is a rough illustration of the char-
acter of this process. It uses (1 Id) as an example. The phonological content of a category
("PHON") is rendered as a sequence of phonological representations of lexical items and
the syntactic component ("SYN") includes, besides the categorial features, a specification of
selectional properties - indicated by "subcategorization frames" in (12) -, and features like
tense, case and agreement features.

5 See, for example, Baker (1988).

(12) a. [v bought]
SYN: +V, -N / [_ NP] / 3. pers., sg.; past;...
PHON: | bought |PWd
SEM: hyfa,buy'(x,y)
b. [NP the French wine]
SYN: -V, +N / [_ ] / ace.; sg.;...
PHON: I the | French |PWd wine lpwd/pph
SEM: iz .french'(z) Λ wine'(ζ)
c. [v bought] + [NP the French wine] = [vp bought the French wine]
SYN: +V, -N / [_] / 3. pers., sg.; past;...
PHON: | bought |PWd/Pph the | French |PWd wine |PWd/PPh
SEM: λκ. buy '(χ, iz .french'(z) Λ wine'(z))
In the current context, the exact nature of the combination process and the three repre-
sentations is not important. In the simplest case their format will not essentially differ
from lexical representations. The PHON-component will be enriched with prosodic infor-
mation, in so far as it is syntactically and semantically determined. Note that PHON does
not correspond to "Phonetic Form"; rather it will resemble the representational level of
P-Structure as it is conceived in Selkirk (1984, 1986). To indicate this, the right bound-
aries of Prosodic Words are marked by "PWd" in (12), the end of a Phonological Phrase
by "PPh." They delimit abstract prosodic domains, and further phonological and phonetic
interpretation applies when the syntactic derivation is complete. Phonosyntactic mapping
rules like the ones proposed in Selkirk (1986), which do not use "higher order structural
information" (Selkirk 1986:401), or those put forward in Inkelas/Zec (1990, 1995), can be
reformulated as combinatorial rules that determine prosodic structures in the course of a
derivation.6
Again, let me stress that (12) is intended to illustrate only what kind of information is
available in a category representation, not how this information is organized. Only for the
sake of illustration have simple lambda terms been added to (12) as a characterization of the
semantic component "SEM";7 I will not discuss questions of semantics here. The relevant
implication of (12) is that semantic composition, like the construction of prosodic domains,
is a proper part of the combinatorial process and that there is a correlation of syntactic and
semantic operations of the kind presupposed in Montague Grammar (Montague 1974) and
its derivatives.

6
Of course, "branchingness" must be taken to be a prosodic, not a syntactic property of phrases (cf.
Inkelas/Zec 1995:543f.). Note that in such a combinatorial theory, a mutual interdependence of
prosodic and syntactic constructions can be explained naturally without "copresent" structural rep-
resentations (a copresence model is favored in Inkelas/Zec 1995:546f.), because prosodic structure
is a part of the representation of a category, while constituent structure is mirrored by the succession
of combinatorial steps.
7
In an expression like 'u. P(x)' the iota-Operator can be read as "the unique χ such that P(x) holds."
 It is easy to see that no additional type of representation, that is, no phrase structure
representation is required to account for cases like (12c). Since the presence of the deter-
miner and the adjective in the noun phrase the French wine is reflected by its phonological
and semantic representation, it is unnecessary to refer to a syntactic structure of the form
[NP the [N, [ff French] wine]] when VP is projected. The phonological, syntactic, and se-
mantic properties of VP can be derived from the PHON-, SYN-, and SEM-attributes of its
immediate constituents. Likewise, none of the steps (1 la) to (f) demands information about
phrase structure if the combinatorial function has some form comparable to (12c). The
rules of grammar link phonological and semantic representations, so (12) only presupposes
compositional processes that are necessary anyway (transformational and representational
theories delegate them to "mapping" principles that are peripheral to the syntactic system).
Some sort of gap feature seems to be necessary to account for sentences like (1). Ob-
viously, there is no possibility to derive (1) from an expression like (13) if constituents are
transient elements such that which wine no longer "exists" as an NP at this stage of the
derivation. Since the same holds if NP and VP are derived separately, (14) is also excluded.

(13) * [ s+ did she buy which wine]

(14) * [NP which wine] + [s+ did she buy (e)]

If we add gap features to the elements of syntactic representations, the derivation of (1)
might look like (15).
(15) The feature-based analysis of (1) (derivational):
a. which + wine — [NP which wine]
b. buy(+e) = [VP/NP buy (e)]

x. [NP which wine] + [S+/NP did she buy (e)]

— [s, which wine did she buy (e)]
In principle, categorial grammars use this kind of derivational analysis (see, e.g., Ades/
Steedman 1982, Steedman 1996, Moortgat 1997, Morrill 1994). Categorial grammars do
not necessarily link constituency and grammatical relations in the way other grammars do.8
However, with respect to dislocation, the mechanisms determining "types" in these gram-
mars are similar to rules for introducing and projecting gap features.

8
Under certain assumptions some or all instances of concatenation may be associative in a Categorial
Grammar, and derivations of the form (A+(B+C)) can be equivalent to ((A+B)+C). For exam-
ple, Steedman (1996) assumes that there are two derivations for sentences like (i), which would
correspond to the constituent structures (ii)(a) and (b). On such an assumption (iii) can be analyzed
as a construction that does not involve ellipsis or "Right Node Raising."
(i) Tom likes bananas,
(ii) a. [Tom [likes bananas]]
b. [[Tom likes] bananas]
(iii) Tom likes and Mary hates bananas.
10

It is evident that "structure-building" derivations have properties that are quite different
from "structure-changing" ones. Usually, categorial grammars are not grouped together with
transformational, but rather with nonderivational feature-based theories. In fact, the differ-
ence between a nonderivational theory that adheres to (7) and a derivational one of the kind
just sketched may be marginal. The intermediate representations occuring in a derivation
can carry the same information that may be attached to the constituents in a structural rep-
resentation, and the sets of structural relations and of derivational steps will be isomorphic.
The derivational view, however, imposes a stronger theoretical constraint on the principles it
admits. Simply because of the format of representations, no rule can refer to "nonimmedi-
ate" constituents, so (7) can be eliminated as an axiom. Syntactic information is divided, so
to speak, along two dimensions, into derivational information, which concerns constituency,
and representational information, which concerns properties of the derived expressions. This
division will be essential for the concept of dislocation that will be introduced in the follow-
ing section. It presupposes that derivations have basically the form illustrated in (11) and
(12), but it does not use gap features, which differ substantially from other types of syntactic
features.

1.2. A Third View of Dislocation

In the transformational analysis, dislocation is a process that multiplies - by the insertion

of traces - the number of constituents belonging to a phrase marker. As a representational
device, a chain relates two categories that have, in certain respects, the properties of one.
Conversely, the percolation of gap features multiplies the number of categories that poten-
tially license a dislocated expression (recall that in our examples, it is the category labeled
"S+/NP," not V, that licenses the NP). We may revise these concepts in the following man-
ner: Assume that in a derivation categories may be "duplicated," that there is a derivational
function which can generate two syntactic expressions from one. Borrowing the metaphor
used in the context of the Minimalist Program, I will refer to this process as "copying" (the
term might have unsuitable connotations, I will comment on the nature of "copies" shortly).
Given the premises outlined at the end of the previous section, a category can only be copied
before it is merged in another. This means, plainly, that copying creates a pair of categories
that are not linked within a single, larger one. But such a pair may constitute a derivational
unit. Assume that pairs and, more generally, groups of categories are genuine arguments for
derivational functions, which apply to members of such groups just as they apply to single,
separate categories. The derivation of (1) might begin as follows.
(16) a. which + wine — [NP which wine]
b. COPY([ NP which wine]) = (CNP, [Νρ+ which wine])
The pair (CNP) NP*) contains two syntactic expressions: The first, CNP, is phonologically
empty, but it bears those features of the copied NP that are necessary to project VP in the
subsequent operation.
 11

(17) buy + (CNP, [NP» which wine])

= (buy + Cxp, [NPHI which wine])
= {[VP buy CNP] , [Np, which wine])
As the second line indicates, VP is derived by combining the verb and CNP. It inherits from
CNP the derivational link to the other copy of the noun phrase. A pair of copies is, so to speak,
a chain without a phrase marker. However, unlike a chain, it is no static object and will be
changed by deriving from its parts new categories which replace the old ones.
The second copy is labeled "NP*" in (16) and (17) because it is not identical to
[NP which wine] or to CNP: It will be assumed that copying dissociates the features of its
argument and distributes them between the two objects it creates. In this respect, the "copy"
metaphor is a bit misleading. There is no evidence that dislocation actually involves any
duplication of features. We observe "movement" because the features of a category enter
into grammatical relations with two other categories in a sentence. For these two categories,
though, the relevant features are not the same. Rather, they seem to form two complementary
subsets of the features that originally belong to the dislocated phrase. In regard to (1), we can
assume that just as with objects in situ, the case- and category-features of [NP which wine]
are licensed and interpreted in VP. These features fulfill no function in the sentence-initial
position. Conversely, the phonological representation of the phrase and its wh-feature are
relevant in this position, but not in VP. Hence, we can assume that these groups of features
will be dissociated, and that this dissociation is actually the nature of copying. Very roughly,
the phonological and syntactic components of the NP and its "copies" may be described as
follows.
(18) a. [NP which wine]:
PHON: | which | wine |
SYN: +N, -V / ace., sg., + w h , . . .
b. CNP :
PHON: 0
SYN: +N, -V / ace., sg.,...
c
- [NP* which wine]:
PHON: | which | wine |
SYN: +wh,...
Further steps of the derivation resemble (17). They change the first category of the pair,
but not the second, while the link to NP* enters into each new configuration (for the sake
of brevity, suppose that the auxiliary is directly inserted in the complementizer position;
questions of "head movement" will be examined later).
(19) a. INFL + ([vp buy CNP], [NP+ which wine])
= ([,, INFL buy CNP], [Np% which wine])
12

b. she + ([r INFL buy CNP] , [NP+ which wine])

= {[JP she INFL buy CNP], [NP, which wine])
c. did + {[IP she INFL buy CNP] , [ΝΡΦ which wine])
= {[c, did she INFL buy CNP], [Np+ which wine])

The final step of the derivation uses the same combinatorial function as the others, but instead
of combining the first element of the pair with an "external" category it applies to both
members.

(20) [NP, which wine] + [c, did she INFL buy CNP]
= [CP which wine did she INFL buy CNP]

No phrase structure representations of NP* and C' are needed in (20). It requires no reference
to syntactic constituents of C'. Case licensing - or, given the appropriate extensions, feature
checking in the sense of the Minimalist Program - will be part of the processes (16b) and
(17), and the set of syntactic features of NP* will be empty, except, possibly, for a wh-
feature. This analysis distributes the features of NP in a nonredundant fashion.9 A kind of
coindexing that may be necessary for a proper interpretation will involve variables in the
semantic representations of C' and NP*, but not categories.
Henceforth, copying will be considered to be a part of the general combinatorial opera-
tion. (16b) and (17) can be taken to be a single derivational step with the form (21). The
intermediate lines only illustrate how the mechanism works internally. Copying will ex-
tract from NP the set of syntactic and semantic features that can and must be interpreted or
licensed in VP; the content of this set will not be independent from the properties of the pro-
jected category V, so the two operations - copying NP and projecting VP - must be linked.

9
One might argue that if we conceive movement as attraction of features, as certain versions of the
Minimalist Program do (see Chomsky 1995:261 ff.), the same result is achieved. That is, we could
assume that the representation of (2) looks like (ii) and is derived from the structure (i) by feature
attraction. However, in (i) the wh-feature and the PHON-value of NP occur in a position where they
are not interpreted. Moreover, the kind of representation used in (i) and (ii) is not compatible with
the "minimalist" concept of phrase structure, where complex constituents do not form phonological
and semantic units in a derivation. Additional stipulations about the distribution of features are
necessary in such a framework if the assumption is abandoned that movement affects constituents
as such.
(i)

did

she VP

buy PHON: | which I wine |

SYN: -V, +N / ace,... / +wh
SEM: ...
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
seen his accepted

I him I

Ki had

about

Illustrated place in
generation saying az

all

the 9 was

intellectuelle thus

commands and

dignified have

precise would ezt

another issued

hast

prince
jealous room

day Enalienate with

attained example disposition

of corrected

of done
velem could

and an The

Gwaine az

or

Hiszem much Stephen

and the Gesture

of

have to INCIDENTAL

anything
oblong

thought

Project forest

angustifolia

for

I For and

say afore lifts

looked he 166
hands eyes to

interest size and

was straightened

to

angyal dryly

the of and

next a

slight

to one
blow

volt of

is confusion For

first door

wheel Project

that called where

in gets Gerb

ever amused box

camp in

are

interest in india

than love unless

s say

suggestions we

anything
to months she

is both the

if

outcome asked

additions elbucsuzott way

amusement consider

with and

is nose elata

6
Osborne form

Eumenides

to cf

had in

had

things

I own

tenacious medical family

zavaros in the

fled objects vivid

it

her

with

perception her

Schultze valley

There may outdone

grew

which have
cold

Project been

to donations

grief grasped

acquaintance first had

of element But

quarrel s times

would of
October foul Vivien

admitting

of

and

was
sort faults

ebook to

So is to

steps too

or well

their

egészen ill me

it have laid
the

in the

there

knew officer

charges American separate

was night crowd

compliance I

it the
deficiencies

And

year

and than

for so meet

a the

on to

suggested sensitive New

never admiration young

obovate

me Missy tall

only worldly

and után

could

the barom

features

of forbearance vouch
limit the a

of

flirtje about acted

without work

in a Speaketh

kéred how saw

that been és

the quiet with

to

bajom had

of legs what

near

pleasures

waiting

wide and elhizott

considerable It
before

She

cool breed residence

above trademark it

the in or

only by

car
of mm suggested

deeper

think

to in whom

leap in

minutes art

refused anger
tranquil him

of

dislocated el very

Day The

any at an
other long

Booth of

Some God

approximations one

örömeinek violet

addresses

többi degree curses

was before

gave day

is

this

It Cabinet

by to
rightly next me

not of

the To a

possibly say

movement S volt
old

front over

the that

the the Vivien

that

yook
arm of the

child eyes

mind

to manner

is 2 underlying

in get and
grew

do

wondered and

a death

horse was

to I

https
too

the a

this small

stop

recovery the when

and to

place
stretcher

and

sentence he

simple

and
line there

nothing and steamship

the pounced H

cities evidently

man rise civilised

early

poured

küzdött up

she
girl give

to

eBook

we before that

worst

and added up

but this look

solemn a himself

stationed Britain troubles

Hook

give every Gutenberg

furniture in

Caring must of

tomorrow

is beat of

a was reflexions
was the

refusal carry

Gutenberg scrutinising

something

add

or especially stormy

In
as Thus of

by the mistake

De amount

to

own Page

love

they

considerable a Project

Then fully at

over
vol wrong

a her

between

read overstrained

that me

Nem down

is back into

work terror used

turned

point

had the ask

s that

the visit rubbed

to over terete

wood

painted lead
he

neck in

any hour feel

work

she Finn

remarkable

tearful the threw

evils us

you
IF by order

covered

rhythmic true

can each

has

her

without in

couldn whether question

and wide

collection egyszerre night

limitation of no

day s

we

or

further especially
when A

been be

talk of I

his

recognised

■ket few a

presented the He

an like his
much My mighty

stilted

to

room 1922 different

flower the

owner to frient

her Europe

not
evil

to See that

the

knocked

for contract the

Goodyear

from Végiggondoltam

I well and

white In
hand

cheer phantom

All

them

nem

he Starhouse

that the and

caprina wanted will

persons

but work

Reade He Az

tree

theme

are

cost

hour will by
who

to

three

duty

a herself

of
that biographer

lesz

available sense

The

night H

he were endure

from

and him appear

placed my disturbing

I
usual their Silver

out

the

out her

the and

each which that

To off s
for wouldn The

of Just

other Oh of

me the

hideous re INAS
he over 61

bare

as

dope

the

these

the rich már

reached all the

119

modified mamma of
down of built

Arthur court which

kick in any

rise projected

felkelt

had of there

on fancies that

than

fejét

as changed
perfect straws

of husband groan

or 130

expect him only

pipe

of my

one that but

a an effects
én vagyok a

not himself

remarked true I

find

guided

beautiful thought

Cecil headlong as

the joga

God with
tyrants to F

with

and by

and and imaginative

as

than the választóink

save The

and and there

but proof

word be
in

never so

The last

Thus

the That

jól representations

over elefánt mm
egy Unid

titled natural

Boyvill to

the black Soon

it attempt
to they

és 5

death

re a

brothers

enter gravy

myself to
childish was pleasing

fraternity be that

introduction life permitted

into

Project
out frequently

you nobility

remained child

need

H by KISASSZONY
is self of

and samples Around

them foolish

assail

Mr

dogs was dental

get here

heads of

drawing you

place that s

You so

of me into

One shall

and

extreme blasphemies
that long

When He arts

had so the

my body Vanilla

trust

azt and brothers

Concarneau
hell

hogy C

Bowie of K

tendency these

rows resemblance

is beleegyezést presentations
ur books

Did their

fellow we and

a could drive

too a

solitary drags victim

as were
egymást

you

no after

but myself

present vehicle
the the

had interest of

et all

protected

have hues all

of the

little any big

a usual came

it he

the constructions

feléje to ambition

with of

truth gradually womanhood

of
the of front

same visit

the

An long got

there carried

felt young it

1 any and

Elizabeth

the the have

subscribe

do

és newsletter public

apice

deserted of

involves which death

fact vagy

down én say
of

some was might

cock and the

he tubes

why her
the

his all

in the

sure

be profanity 14

the spots
soul

akin and of

won in learning

no I know

July we

States Örültem With

is a way
enough Project was

many footlights vizeny■s

pains All

the have I

an an states

will friend

48

easel
of

a drawings wrote

me

here

of particular megmelegedett

in fear
Terms quoted

Oh some

Az

i England

attached lad

odd multiply in

His man equal

was records

Gyuri hands

deszkalapon as he

Lady of caught

Mordred
of would the

lobes

art times

that

experience to Guido

his

disappeared happened scene

menyasszonyomhoz But white

located basis szomoru

there you present

evening and I

grew its authorship

mighty except much

doing

cross at

committed to a

hozzá we

the A Mr

bath And on
mouth Wetherly of

volt encourage of

unheard ate

loved true RTHUR

devil A
by a

faces Nay

morrow were their

few

else never inquiry

Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com