Minimise Ad (?/*In-)finitum? In Defense of Weakly Cartographic Computational Models

• Autorzy: Piotr Cegłowski
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper provides a critical overview of the strongly derivational and non-cartographic approaches to syntax based solely on the relation between a newly selected lexical item (LI) and the so-called derivational space (the existing syntactic object) treated as the pivot of the syntactic derivation. Specifically, it is argued that, given the asymmetry requirement requisite for linearization, as stated in Kayne's (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) and Chomsky's (1994) Bare Phrase Structure (BPS), the abovementioned procedure is unattainable in certain strongly derivational syntactic configurations. The latter sections of the paper, while still arguing against the excessively minimized derivational space, focus on the non-cartographic Escape system proposed by Zwart (2007). It is shown that the data (comprising mostly the so-called "look-ahead"- based cases) that prove problematic for Escape can be captured within a moderately (i.e. weakly) cartographic view of the left periphery in accord with Thráinsson's (1996) Limited Diversity Hypothesis.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

left periphery; (non-)cartographic syntax; look-ahead; linearization; asymmetry

• Wydawca: De Gruyter
• Czasopismo: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics
• Rocznik: 2008
• Tom: 44
• Numer: 2
• Strony: 215-245

Daty

wydano

2008-06-01

online

2008-07-11

Twórcy

autor

Piotr Cegłowski

• Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

Bibliografia

• Abraham, W., S. Epstein, H. Thráinsson and J. Zwart (eds.). 1996. Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
• Adger, D., C. de Cat and G. Tsoulas (eds.). 2004. Peripheries: syntactic edges and their effects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Baker, M. 1985. "The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation". Linguistic Inquiry 16. 373-416.
• Bateman, L. and C. Ussery (eds.). 2005. Proceedings of the 35th meeting of the Northeast Linguistics Society. University of Connecticut, Storrs.
• Barrie, M. 2005. "On unifying antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure". In Bateman, L. and C. Ussery (eds.). 103-114.
• Boeckx, C. and K. Grohmann. 2004. "Sub-move: Towards a unified account of scrambling and D- Linking". In Adger, D. et al. (eds.). 341-357.
• Bobaljik, J.D. 1999. "Adverbs: the hierarchy paradox". Glot International 4. 27-28.
• Boškovič, Ž 1995a. On certain violations of the superiority condition, AgrO, and economy of derivation. [Ms., University of Connecticut.]
• Bošković., Ž. 1995b. Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian. [Ms., University of Connecticut.]
• Bošković, Ž 2002. "On multiple wh-fronting". Linguistic Inquiry 33. 351-383.
• Cegłowski, P. 2006. Why move? The analysis of the representational and derivational approaches to English syntax. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań]
• Cegłowski, P. 2007. "Floating inflection reanalyzed - Morphological evidence for T-C movement in Polish". Paper read at PASE conference, Szczyrk, Poland.
• Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. (MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5.)
• Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. 1998/2000. "Minimalist inquiries: The framework". In Martin, R. et al. (eds.). 89-156.
• Chomsky, N. 1999. Derivation by Phase. (MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.)
• Chomsky, N. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. [Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.]
• Chomsky, N. 2005. On phases. [Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.]
• Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A crosslinguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Collins, C. 2002. "Label-Free Syntax". In Epstein S. and D. Seely (eds.). 42-61.
• Collins, C. and H. Ura. 2001. Accessibility. [Ms., Cornell University and Kwansei Gakuin University.]
• Den Besten, H. 1977. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. [Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Amsterdam.]
• Den Besten, H. 1989. Studies in West-Germanic syntax. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tilburg.]
• Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (ed.). 2006. IFAtuation: A life in IFA. A Festschrift for professor Jacek Fisiak on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
• Epstein, S. and D. Seely. 2002. "Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax". In Epstein S. and D. Seely (eds.). 65-84.
• Epstein, S. and D. Seely (eds.). 2002. Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Frampton, J. and S. Gutmann. 2002. "Crash-proof syntax". In Epstein S. and D. Seely (eds.). 90-103.
• Gallego, A. and J. Uriagereka. 2007. "Defective C". Paper presented at the 2nd Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics Alternatives to Cartography, Catholic University of Brussels.
• Grebenyova, L. 2006. "When multiple wh-fronting is not multiple". Paper presented at the 1st Annual Meeting of Slavic Linguistic Society, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
• Haegeman, L. (ed.). 1997. Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Hornstein, N. 1999. "Movement and control". Linguistic Inquiry 30. 69-96.
• Jaspers, D. 1998. "Categories and recursion". Interface 12. 81-112.
• Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Kenstowicz, M. 2001. Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Martin, R., D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.). 2000. Step by step: Essays in honour of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Matushansky, O. 2006. "Head-movement in linguistic theory". Linguistic Inquiry 37. 69-109.
• Müller, S. (ed.) 2005. Proceedings of the HPSG05 Conference. Department of Informatics, University of Lisbon: CSLI Publications.
• Myusken, P. 1982. "Parametrizing the notion Head". Journal of Linguistic Research 2. 57-75.
• Neeleman, A. and H. van de Koot. 2007. The nature of discourse templates. [Ms., University College London.]
• Nilsen, ø. 2003. Eliminating positions: syntax and semantics of sentential modification. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.]
• Pesetsky, D. and E. Torrego. 2001. "T-C movement: Causes and consequences". In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.). 355-426.
• Richards, N. 2001. Movement in language. Interactions and architectures. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Rizzi, L. 1997. "The fine structure of the left periphery". In: Haegeman, L. (ed.). 281-337.
• Rizzi, L. 2004. On the cartography of syntactic structures. In: Rizzi (ed.). 3-16.
• Rizzi, L. (ed.). 2004. The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 2. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
• Tajsner, P. and P. Cegłowski. 2006. "Topicalisation and object fronting in Polish: A view from a minimalist perspective". In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (ed.). 99-131.
• Thráinsson, H. 1996. "On the (non-)universality of functional categories". In Abraham, W. et al. (eds.). 253-281.
• Torrego, E. and J. Uriagereka. 1992. Indicative dependents. [Ms., University of Massachusetts, Boston].
• Van Craenenbroeck, J. 2006. "Transitivity failures in the left periphery and foot-driven movement operations". In Weijer, J. van de and L. Bettelou (eds.). 52-64.
• Weijer, J. van de and L. Bettelou (eds.). 2006. Linguistics in the Netherlands 23(1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Zwart, J.W. 2007. "Uncharted territory? Towards a noncartographic account of Germanic syntax". Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 45. 55-75.
• Zwart, J.W. and J. Fortuny. 2008. "Deriving the LCA". Paper presented at the Theoretical Linguistics in the Netherlands (TIN-dag) conference, Utrecht.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/v10010-008-0013-z