Local economy and Generalized Pied-Piping

Ura, Hiroyuki

doi:10.1515/tlir.18.2.169

Cited by 36 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, AD is just a formal implementation of a tacitly assumed view that Agree is a prerequisite for Move. Thus, Agree-as-aprerequisite-for-Move presupposes some formal apparatus like this.12 The economy condition in(21)is compatible withUra's (2001) view on economy that (Generalized) Pied-Piping, like other syntactic operations, is subject to the general economy condition. This runs counter toTanaka 2004, where it is argued that (Generalized) Pied-Piping (Copy in my terms) is cost-free, meaning that (Generalized) Pied-Piping is not constrained by any economy conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 80%

On Headless XP-Movement/Ellipsis

Funakoshi

2012

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I make two proposals in this article: (a) an economy condition on the operation Copy, which states that Copy should apply to as small an element as possible, and (b) the “two types of head movement” hypothesis, which states that Universal Grammar allows head movement via substitution as well as head movement via adjunction. I argue that with these proposals, we can not only explain two generalizations about what I call headless XPs, but also attribute crosslinguistic variation in the applicability of these generalizations to parameters that are responsible for the availability of multiple specifiers.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 80%

On Headless XP-Movement/Ellipsis

Funakoshi

2012

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In transitive participial structures containing a reflexive/reciprocal pronoun (= R), the auxiliary used is être be and agreement data are essentially similar, save that agreement is obligatory where the preverbal accusative is an R-pronoun, as in the example below: A wide range of accounts have been proposed of participle agreement within earlier frameworks (see e.g. Sportiche 1988;Kayne 1989;Ura 1993Ura , 2001Bošković 1997;Déprez 1998). This paper sets out to provide an account of the morphosyntax of transitive participles in French within the recent version of the Minimalist Program outlined in Chomsky (2005bChomsky ( , 2006 and Miyagawa (2005Miyagawa ( , 2006.…”

Section: Data To Be Accounted Formentioning

confidence: 97%

References

Dikken¹

2013

The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

generativa", in 2007 at its 33rd edition, started in the 70's as an informal meeting for Italian scholars working on this, at time quite new, grammatical approach. Evolved into an important international meeting at the beginning of the 90s, it has since then remained a significant moment of debate for scholars interested in formalization in grammar. The proceedings here collected are just a part of the talks given at the 33rd Incontro, held in Bologna from 1 st to 3 rd March 2007. The talks there presented were numerous and ranged over a wide varieties of fields of research in grammar: not only those that we could call 'traditional' as phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics, but also language acquisition and pathology have been taken into account. Contributions in these proceedings, even though limited in number, are an excellent example of richness in contemporary linguistics research and evidence of the attraction that formal linguistics holds on young researchers, which a part of relations was reserved for. We have chosen to divide this collection into subject fields: phonology, morphology, syntax and language acquisition.

show abstract

“…The Brazilian Portuguese patterns reported by Costa 2004 (see (40) and ( 41)) illustrate this point, with the embedded domain being inaccessible to the higher clause (blocking both agreement and clitic climbing), as expected for a phasal domain, while at the same time being internally defective (lacking agreement and tense). 24 As for raising, the traditional prohibition of raising across a phase boundary has increasingly come to be challenged by accounts of hyperraising (Ura 1998), which involves raising out of erstwhile-complete environments like finite CPs (see Grosu & Horvath 1984 for Romanian, Ura 1994 for various languages, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2002 for Greek, and, for Bantu languages, Carstens 2011, Diercks 2012, Halpert 2019. For example, Halpert 2019 presents a pattern in Zulu where raising out of finite CPs is grammatical and obligatory yet the raised subject is also licensed in the lower clause and agrees fully with the embedded predicate.…”

Section: 5mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As for raising, the traditional prohibition of raising across a phase boundary has increasingly come to be challenged by accounts of hyperraising (Ura 1998), which involves raising out of erstwhile‐complete environments like finite CPs (see Grosu & Horvath 1984 for Romanian, Ura 1994 for various languages, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2002 for Greek, and, for Bantu languages, Carstens 2011, Diercks 2012, Halpert 2019). For example, Halpert 2019 presents a pattern in Zulu where raising out of finite CPs is grammatical and obligatory yet the raised subject is also licensed in the lower clause and agrees fully with the embedded predicate.…”

Section: Persian Agreement In Raising Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agree and the subjects of specificational clauses

Béjar

Kahnemuyipour

2023

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates agreement in Persian sentences with a specificational copular clause embedded under the epistemic modal tavānestan ‘can’. We argue that this structure is a raising structure. It exhibits agreement on both the embedded and modal verbs. Crucially, while the subject fails to control agreement in the embedded clause, it successfully controls agreement on the modal. We argue that the subject's failure to form an Agree relation in the embedded specificational clause is due to its defective feature structure, resulting in agreement with the lower noun phrase instead, this being an accessible goal as well. In the matrix clause, the lower noun phrase is inaccessible, due to the presence of an intervening domain boundary. This triggers probe reduction, a process that impoverishes the feature structure of the probe, expanding the set of possible goals to include the subject. We extend this analysis to subject agreement in simple specificational clauses in languages like English.

show abstract

Local economy and Generalized Pied-Piping

Cited by 36 publications

References 0 publications

On Headless XP-Movement/Ellipsis

On Headless XP-Movement/Ellipsis

References

Agree and the subjects of specificational clauses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About