On the Status of Representations and Derivations

Brody, Michael

doi:10.1002/9780470755662.ch2

Cited by 62 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, the Attract Closest property is a major hindrance to efforts aiming to eliminate the remaining representational residue of the derivational minimalist approach: insofar as it involves a search operation carried out on a (partial) representation, the model continues to remain a mixed derivational-representational theory (cf. Brody 2002). Significantly, Attract Closest in fact becomes to a large extent redundant if F&P's proposal is correct: if elements E 1 and E 2 are of the same type [E] and E 1 c-commands E 2 at some 7 This conception places F&P's approach in th e family of approaches to OS/HG which crucially draw on an 'order preserving' property of syntax, cf.…”

Section: Tucking In and Attract Closestmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…F&P's (48)) the notions specifier and complement play the key role. Linearization can rely on such notions at no theoretical cost only if they are, or can be derived in a non-stipulative fashion from, primitives of the theory -an issue that remains elusive in the paper (see Epstein (1999), and especially Brody (1997), for relevant discussion).…”

Section: Cyclic Linearizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Object Shift and linearization at the PF interface

Surányi

2005

Theoretical Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both target articles, in conformity with minimalist ideals, aim to discover to what extent syntax itself can be relieved of descriptive burden, and just how much of word order can be attributed to mechanisms of linearization at the PF interface. I point out two paradoxes the treatment of V2 gives rise to in Erteshik-Shir's paper, and dispute the status and effectiveness of processing constraints in accounting for (un)grammaticalities in various word order patterns. I discuss the relation of Fox and Pesetsky's cyclic linearization algorithm to 'tucking in' as well as to the 'Attract Closest' property of movement. Qualms are raised regarding several apparently stipulative and/or conceptually unattractive properties of the linearization mechanism, and ostensible violations of order preservation are examined. 1.Introduction What makes the juxtaposition of the two target articles in this volume particularly thought-provoking is that both are directly concerned with issues of linearization at the PF interface of the grammar, aiming to discover to what extent syntax itself can be relieved of descriptive burden, and just how much of word order can be attributed to PF mechanisms. In addition to the shared interest in architectural considerations of division of labor, Scandinavian Object Shift (OS) plays a key role in both argumentations.The role of linear order and PF is central to a number of current theories of OS, most notably Holmberg (1999) (where in fact OS is treated essentially as a PF operation) and Chomsky (2001) 1 , as well as Bobaljik (1995Bobaljik ( , 2002) (where PF-adjacency functions prominently). The two target papers can be considered members of the 'PF' family of accounts of OS. Both studies make assumptions with intriguing consequences for the analysis of OS and far-reaching implications beyond. In what follows, I elucidate my main concerns about each of the two proposals, and also spell out several of their apparently desirable consequences. 2.Linearization and PF operations Erteshik-Shir (ES) argues in favor of a radical position according to which a number of displacements that are commonly viewed as syntactic are to be viewed as resulting from operations at PF. The essential claim about OS defended by ES is that it does not exist: it is the result of the PF operation of Prosodic Incorporation (PI) of prosodically weak elements (pronominal objects and weak adverbs like negation) and adverb linearization (adverbs are assumed to be merged to the phrase they modify in a third dimension, cf. e.g. Åfarli 1997), interacting with independently necessary displacements. Basing herself on these fundamentals, ES provides an engagingly detailed treatment of OS phenomena across Scandinavian.One significant advantage of ES's approach, beyond its impressive coverage of variation across Scandinavian, is that it provides a straightforward explanation of why OS has 'no effect' (it has neither A-nor A-bar properties: it does not affect binding configurations, does not license parasitic gaps, or give rise to w...

show abstract

Section: Tucking In and Attract Closestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cyclic Linearizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object Shift and linearization at the PF interface

Surányi

2005

Theoretical Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So let me finally indicate where it would be classified with respect to Brody's hierarchy of derivational approaches in [3]. Brody calls a derivational theory weakly representational if the objects that derivations generate are transparent in the sense that the material they are assembled of is accessible for later operations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Derivational View on Movement Constraints

Unger¹

2012

Local Modelling of Non-Local Dependencies in Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores conditions on movement in a strongly derivational organization of grammar. The setting is Ulf Brozsiewski's model of syntactic derivations [4]. It offers a local encoding of movement dependencies that combines properties of transformational and feature-based approaches. It is based on simple assumptions about syntactic expressions and the operations defined on them, and is thus suitable to investigate how much is needed to derive, or at least express, fundamental characteristics of movement. Moreover it reduces the amount of representations needed for syntactic operations to a minimum and thus constitutes an exploration of how derivational syntax can be.The outline of the paper is the following. In section 1, Brosziewski's view on derivations will be introduced. After that, I address a problem that it faces with extraction from phrases that are extracted themselves, and show how to solve it. Then I will turn to generally assumed constraints on movement. In section 3, I review how the Condition on Extraction Domain is expressed in Brosziewski's model. Then, in section 4, I will consider how weak islands can be captured. Furthermore, section 5 deals with accounting for minimality effects. Finally, in section 6, I will also show how across-the-board extraction can be incorporated.1 On derivations Syntactic expressionsIn approaches like HPSG and the Minimalist Program, features play a central role in constructing and manipulating syntactic structures. Brosziewski's model of syntactic derivations shares this assumption. Simple expressions are taken to be feature bundles containing phonological, syntactic, and semantic features. In the following, phonological and semantic features will be ignored and focus will be on syntactic features only. With respect to these, Brosziewski sticks to a very simple feature system. For encoding syntactic dependencies he assumes that features come in two varieties: as plain features f , and as features ∧ f with a prefix that indicates that it wants to be matched with a corresponding plain feature. Following Adger [2] a. o., I add a distinction between two types 0 For thorough remarks and helpful suggestions, I am very grateful to Gereon Müller, Eric Reuland, and Andreas Pankau.

show abstract

“…Otherwise, the “free” order between Merge and Agree, in fact, is a disjunction (Merge applies before Agree or vice versa). Simultaneous rule application as in (c) is at variance with a strictly derivational approach to syntax (see Brody , Epstein & Seely ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Otherwise, the "free" order between Merge and Agree, in fact, is a disjunction (Merge applies before Agree or vice versa). Simultaneous rule application as in (c) is at variance with a strictly derivational approach to syntax (seeBrody 2002, Epstein & Seely 2002.14 This parameter could be specified either in the lexicon (cf Borer 1984). or in the grammar; for further discussion see M€ uller 2009.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ergatives Move Too Early: On an Instance of Opacity in Syntax

Assmann

Georgi

Heck

et al. 2015

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper we examine the ban onĀ-movement of the external argument of a transitive verb that holds in many morphologically ergative languages. We argue that the prohibition against movement of the ergative subject should not be derived from restrictions on the movement of the ergative DP. Rather, we suggest that movement of the ergative argument is per se unproblematic, but if it applies, it applies too early, and thereby creates problems for its absolutive co-argument, which does not receive structural case. In morphologically accusative languages, no such movement asymmetry arises because arguments move too late to trigger the fatal consequences that moving ergatives cause. We present a relational, co-argument-based analysis that implies a strictly derivational syntax in which the order of operations plays an important role in deriving properties of the grammar.

show abstract

On the Status of Representations and Derivations

Cited by 62 publications

References 19 publications

Object Shift and linearization at the PF interface

Object Shift and linearization at the PF interface

A Derivational View on Movement Constraints

Ergatives Move Too Early: On an Instance of Opacity in Syntax

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About