Morphology-Driven Syntax

Rohrbacher, Bernhard

doi:10.1075/la.15

Cited by 203 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As for morphological triggering, it is a long-standing notion that, even though it has proven more difficult to make precise than one might have thought at first, is nonetheless well grounded. Thus, Rohrbacher (1999), Pollock (1997), and Acquaviva (to appear) account for asymmetries in V-movement by relying on the morphological richness manifested in various languages.…”

Section: S Q U I B S a N D Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Head-ing toward PF

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: S Q U I B S a N D Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Head-ing toward PF

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The hypothesis that there is a crucial relation between rich agreement and V-to-I, called the Rich Agreement Hypothesis (RAH) in Bobaljik (2002b), has been intensely investigated ever since the eighties, in relation to Scandinavian (in addition to P&H, see Kosmeijer (1986), Falk (1993a,b), Rohrbacher (1999), Vikner (1995Vikner ( , 1997, and in relation to stages in the evolution of English, see Roberts (1994), Pintzuk (1991)). There are strong indications, though, that rich agreement is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for V-to-I.…”

Section: V-to-imentioning

confidence: 99%

Parameters in minimalist theory: The case of Scandinavian

Holmberg¹

2010

Theoretical Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The P&P theory of UG has come under heavy criticism, lately, from outside but also from inside generative grammar. The claim is that the search for 'deep parameters' underlying clusters of properties across languages has led nowhere, and should be given up. I have revisited a theory, now two decades old, which explained ten syntactic differences between Insular and Mainland Scandinavian as the effects of a single parametric difference (in a series of works by C. Platzack and A. Holmberg ). The theory is shown to be fundamentally right, descriptively and theoretically. Later developments in generative theory only serve to sharpen the formulations, adding another layer of explanatory depth to the earlier theory. The conclusion is that there are parameters of the traditional kind. The problems encountered when the theory is tested on more distantly related languages is discussed on the basis of facts from Finnish. P&P theory is perfectly consistent with the minimalist approach to UG and variation when parameters are seen as points of under-specification in UG, and restrictions on variation are seen as, in part, third factor effects, in the sense of Chomsky (2005).

show abstract

“…This in turn means that German does not have V -to-I movement, assuming that a characteristic of V -to-I movement (as opposed to other kinds of movement, including V2) is that all finite verbs obligatorily undergo this movement (which is generally assumed to be the case, e.g., in the Romance languages and in those Germanic VO-languages that have V -to-I movement, cf., e.g., Vikner 1997, Rohrbacher 1999, and references therein). Whether German does or does not have V -to-I movement has been an on-going debate for at least 15 years.…”

Section: German Urauff € Uhrenmentioning

confidence: 99%