1

Do we assume a TP/IP projection for the syntax of a tenseless language?

  • 3
    I don't know what other syntacticians would say, but I'd suggest the assumption of a TP is just another sign of Anglocentrism in linguistics. Aspect and modality prominent languages should have AP and MP phrases respectively. – curiousdannii Nov 30 '18 at 9:33
  • 1
    @curiousdannii why do we need to posit the existance of separate categories for those, if those languages all do not treat tense as prominently? – OmarL Nov 30 '18 at 9:37
  • @curiousdannii - English could be considered to have MP and AP too, but T, A, and M are all closed-class (so easy to pack together). English storytelling can slip into tenselessness, once tense has been established (adverbially). – amI Nov 30 '18 at 12:07
  • @curiousdannii One of my concerns is that [Spec, TP] is the position for the Subject at S-representation, so for a tenseless language, we need to assume another position for the subject if we don't assume a TP. If so, this doesn't entertain the idea of universal grammar. – Terry_Clem Dec 1 '18 at 20:45
  • @Terry_Clem Why not simply replace the TP with an AP or MP depending on what is more prominent? The dominant prominence of a language can be considered a parameter, so this approach would be fully compatible with universal grammar IMO. – curiousdannii Dec 2 '18 at 12:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.