No abstract

One of the most promising new developments of recent research into theoretical syntax within the model of Government and Binding (GB) as presented in Chomsky (1981) and (1982) has been the new importance given to the study of languages other than English. This has stimulated a great deal of work into a variety of languages (see, for example, Rizzi, 1982; Borer, 1983; Bouchard, 1984; Huang, 1984 and others). It has also been welcomed by linguists outside the TG tradition. Thus, Comrie, (1984:155) expresses his delight that ‘Chomsky (1981) makes clear that generative grammarians have come to realize that an adequate study of syntax within universal grammar requires the study of languages of different types. Chomsky's main concern has always been to formulate a theory that would achieve ‘explanatory adequacy’ by providing a restrictive set of principles which could characterize universally the notion ‘natural language’. However, detailed and in-depth analyses of various languages have revealed that in order to achieve ‘descriptive adequacy’ the theory has to allow for cross-linguistic differences, or ‘parametric variation’. The concept of parametric variation weakens some-what the restrictiveness of the universal grammar (UG) hypothesis and even more so its purported innateness, since the values for the parameters must be arrived at by the child through induction from empirical evidence. Nevertheless, explanatory adequacy may still be attained if the number of parameters is very small and each parameter has few values.

this traditional view, which has been assumed rather than argued for, and I suggested that the basic order is probably V-S-0, while the other ordering possibilities, including S-V-0, are derived. Horrocks (1982) uses MG as an example to show how variations in word order can be handled in a Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG). In this paper Horrocks presents a compromise solution with respect to MG basic order by proposing that MG has two basic patterns (something which a GPSP theory apparently allows), namely the traditional one, S-V-0, and the one I suggested, V-S-0.In this paper I will present the evidence which supports my earlier claims that V-S-0 is the more basic pattern and that S-V-0 is the result of subject thematization.First, I would like to review briefly the criteria on the basis of which one usually proceeds to establish the 'basic' word order pattern.Greenberg (1963) defines as 'basic' or rather 'dominant' the order exhibited by a certain type of sentence, namely main, active, declarative, with nominal subjects and objects. His argument for giving priority to such sentences is that they are the most complete, independent structures and the simplest. Givon (1979: 45-7) reviews the arguments which have been given more implicitly, as he says, than explicitly in various word order studies to justify the privileged status of main, active, declaratives and concludes that they fall into four types: (i) completeness, (ii) dependency, (iii) economy (simplicity) and (iv) markedness. However, there are various problems with this approach.Firstly, the priority given to main sentences must now appear controversial after the studies of Emonds (1976), Hooper and Thompson (1973), G . Green (1976 and others who observe that some movement rules (Root Transformations) apply only to main clauses and some subordinate that-clauses. We are more likely therefore to find more ordering variations in main clauses, and for this reason word order studies cannot afford to ignore the role of

This paper supports a close connection between morphology and syntax. It examines the verbal functional categories of ModernGreek and shows that their choice, order and strength explain the differences among various constructions. The particle tha is analysed not as an exponent of mood but of the future within the indicative while the particle na marks the subjunctive. Mood is located at the left periphery of the verb group and only the imperative is expressed by an affix. We claim that only affixal categories (neither logical mood features in Comp nor the particles) motivate V-movement, where the V left-adjoins to the affix. This explains why the verb precedes the clitics only in the imperative while no further movement of the verb to Comp is necessary.

No abstract