5

OK, this is an Answer, not a book, and conversations are inhibited here. So I'm going to observe some restrictions to keep this relatively short. I'm not dealing with Chomsky here; I find Chomsky's proposals and theories about language and its supposed relation to human brains, minds -- and lately biology and genetics -- to be at best irrelevant, and at ...


5

I'm not convinced the notion "clitic" is really needful to explain what is going on. Some syntactic rules depend on what the words are, and you can't always trust traditional English orthography to tell you the truth about where the words are. Why should should you? Probably printers made up those rules. The rule of subject auxiliary inversion moves a ...


5

First, let me get the usual caveats out of the way: MP is a program, not a theory. It tells you what kinds of questions to ask about syntax, and guides you in comparing the answers from competing theories. And so on. But in practice, what you're learning is the theoretical framework that everyone in MP uses. You may later learn why they think MP leads to ...


4

A transformational grammar G is a tuple (P,T) where P is some context-sensitive (e.g. context free) grammar (the 'base component' of G) and T is a finite sequence of transformations over the alphabet of P (the 'transformational component' of G). All of the following are the case: For all CFG P, the TG (P, ∅) describes the same language. For some ...


4

Summarizing the paper by Zwicky and Pullum commented by @sumelic above: They suggest that most contractions are clitics, but <-n't> is an inflection. Most English contractions, such as <-'s> <-'ve> <-'d>, behave like clitics that can be directly substituted for the words they abbreviate. One of their examples is "The ball you hit's just broken ...


4

Wonder takes an embedded interrogative complement with its own internal trace: You wonder who John saw t. You wonder who t saw John. You wonder why I left t. When you front that wh- you're asking it to do double duty, in both an external interrogative and the embedded interrogative: in effect it's standing for itself rather than for the trace! ...


3

du Schach gespielt hast as you say is an embedded clause, and string-identical to the underlying form Carnie is referring to. (To answer your first question.) As for the question on how to detect V->T movement, see @aslakr's comment on whether we should even assume that for German. My own work currently suggests for Alemannic (which is not Standard German,...


3

You might want to have a look at LFG, they use X' Theory extended with an additional "lexocentric" category S to accommodate nonconfigurational phrase structures.


3

No, Raising is alive and well, but the conception of Raising as a transformation is moribund, because transformations are no longer accepted. So, if we believe in Raising, and Raising is a transformation, where does that leave us? In a word, confused. Confused, but at least open to the possibility that Raising exists but is not a transformation. Well, ...


3

Andrew Radford (Radford 2004) discusses it on p. 351. Go is an unaccusative verb, which means, under Radford's analysis, that the subject originates in spec-VP, unlike in the case of transitive (unergative) verbs, where the subject originates in spec-vP. This is what Radford proposed. However, it doesn't mean that everyone has the same interpretation of ...


3

Successive cyclic wh-movement is motivated by theoretical principles of minimal computation, as well as empirical data. There's nothing inherently wrong with the 'one fell swoop' analysis, but cyclic wh-movement is preferable. Minimal computation: At any point in the derivation, the range of visible syntactic objects available for computations (e.g. ...


2

Going through the derivation might help. Since your question is framed in terms of the generative framework, i'll give my answer also from a generative PoV - specifically, from the PoV of the Minimalist Program, where movement is feature-driven. I presuppose i certain amount of familiarity with minimalism in my answer, so apologies in advance. We start with ...


2

The question is excellent. I would like to answer the question as well, adding an overlooked aspect of the issue. Some derivationalists will likely defend the first interpretation of syntactic movement listed in the question, stating that syntactic movement (or copying) is a real condition of the human faculty for language. Humans have an innate ability to ...


2

Assuming that those Scandinavians from Normandy in France were speakers of Spanish and not French, also that the invasion was still in 1066, English would sound more or less the same except that some borrowed lexical items would be different. For instance, palaver might be a regular word, not pirate talk, and "pay" would probably have a g. There would be a ...


2

No. Not in the Turkish that is spoken in Istanbul. The evidence comes from scope relations when the subject is not dropped. When you say: Bütün çocuk-lar gel-me-di. all kid-pl come-neg-pst All the kids did not come. In English, the sentence is ambiguous. It can be either NOT ALL the students came (NOT > ALL) or No students came (ALL > NOT). ...


2

Chomsky’s original formulation is obsolete, if only because lexical integrity of some sort is usually assumed. But there are many languages in which suffixes or clitics are part of a constituent that doesn’t contain their governor (in the sense of dependency grammar). In some languages a more appropriate term would be clitic hopping but the principle is the ...


2

The original sentence for the question “Which canvas appears to have been painted with a red paint?” is “This/That canvas appears to have been painted with a red paint”, and the answer would be “This one/canvas” or “that one/canvas”. The reason why that sentence has no does is that it is the subject noun phrase (NP) that is being questioned. When, say, an ...


1

'The men all have a {noun}' is fine, but 'the men all have {verb}ed' is not. The rule is probably the same one as the one that has us say 'they/we have all {verbed}' rather than 'they/we all have {verbed}'. Also, the other way around for a noun, 'they/we all have a {noun}' rather than e.g. 'they/we have all a hat'.


1

I think you have to be more careful with the examples you're using here. Your parallelism seems odd (at least to me). There are issues of transformation (passivization), surface PP order, and argument structure (transitivity) that should be considered. You didn't take this into consideration. I believe this is the source of your confusion. Let me explain. ...


1

EPP entails that [Spec; TP] must be filled. However, the subject can move out from [Spec; TP] to an adjunct position, leaving a trace at [Spec; TP]. An example of such a movement is topicalization, which is an A'-movement and follows many properties of wh-movement.


1

Well, compare TG ( Transformational Grammar) and GPSG (Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar). TG allows the formulation of rules that perform long distance movement, using the variables of a transformation to stand for arbitrarily long strings of parts of a "proper analysis". For your example, a variable X of the WH movement transformation represents "John ...


1

As I understand it, you're asking about a specific extraction marker that occurs always and only when a nominal is extracted, and in clause chains it appears in each clause. As far as I know, this does not exist in Bantu. There are languages which show subject and object agreement reflecting the pattern of movement, for example in Kipsigis (Jake & Odden ...


1

To my mind, the canonical "generative but non-derivational" work is the stuff that Michael Brody did. Have a look at his book Lexico-Logical Form, which is a great and detailed exploration of an alternative approach to "minimalism", and after that find his work on "Mirror Syntax" (I think it appeared in Linguistic Inquiry circa 2000).


1

Lasnik & Fiengo (1974) "Complement Object Deletion" (section 2) argue against Tough Movement, and Chomsky (1977) "On WH-Movement" p. 102 adopts the base-generated analysis and accepts the correctness of that approach without comment. L&F begin by presenting arguments against arguments against tough-deletion. For instance, an earlier argument for TM ...


1

See here for the distinction between A-movement and A'-movement (=A-bar-movement). In short, A-movement moves syntactic objects (words, phrases) into positions where grammatical functions can be assigned. See the examples and the explanations on the page referenced. Please note that the concept of A-movement is taken for granted only in Government and ...


1

Your question seems to presuppose the framework of minimalist syntax as it has been practiced in the last 20 years, so my answer is in this framework as well. In this framework, categories like N, D and T are not primitive but should rather be considered as convenient placeholders for common configurations of syntactic features. Now a tension inevitably ...


1

SV is a verb-second pattern: as jlawler says in his comment, the subject is a constituent, so the verb is in second position. Anyone who uses the term "verb-second" would agree with this, I believe. The Wikipedia page you link to actually gives examples of SV order as a type of verb-second order: e.g. the very first example, from German, which it says "...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible