Phase‐Constrained Obligatory Late Adjunction

Zyman, Erik

doi:10.1111/synt.12226

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It also imposes requirements over specific configurations: for example, an implementation of this idea requires us to assume that carefully in read a paper carefully cannot be introduced in the derivation as a head, but rather (i) as a full phrase, or (ii) by means of some additional operation (e.g., Pair-Merge), or (iii) at a derivational point after labelling has taken place (e.g. Stepanov, 2001;Zyman, 2022). This is so because if the structure {read {a paper}} is a VP, and we introduce an adverb as in Merge({carefully}, {read, {a, paper}}), the labelling algorithm would incorrectly label the resulting SO as an AdvP.…”

Section: Symmetric and Asymmetric Structure Buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The search for Minimal Search: A graph-theoretic approach

Krivochen

2023

Bioling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines Minimal Search, an operation that is at the core of current Minimalist inquiry. We argue that, given Minimalist assumptions about structure building consisting of unordered set-formation, there are serious difficulties in defining Minimal Search as a search algorithm. Furthermore, some problematic configurations for Minimal Search (namely, {XP, YP} and {X, Y}) are argued to be an artefact of these set-theoretic commitments. However, if unordered sets are given up as the format of structural descriptions in favour of directed graphs such that Merge(X, Y) creates an arc from X to Y, Minimal Search can be straightforwardly characterised as a sequential deterministic search algorithm: the total order required to define MS as a sequential search algorithm is provided by structure building.

show abstract

Section: Symmetric and Asymmetric Structure Buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The search for Minimal Search: A graph-theoretic approach

Krivochen

2023

Bioling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Wh quantifier float in German

Doliana

2022

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the syntactic distribution of the German quantificational particle known as “invariant alles” (‘all’). The generalization that emerges is that, given a derivation, alles occurs in any position occupied by an Ā chain link of the “associate” of alles, that is, the phrase that alles “modifies.” The article concludes that alles forms a deep constituent with its associate and that therefore instances of nonadjacent alles are derived transformationally, specifically by some stranding procedure. Floating analyses and adverbial analyses of quantifier float are argued to be insufficient to explain the generalization. Three types of argument are presented in support: (a) the distribution of alles is a subset of its associate's; (b) alles blocks derivations when it occurs in a position in which its associate would also block the derivation; (c) alles is sensitive to the kind of movement that its associate undergoes, in that it can occur in tails of Ā movement but not in tails of A movement. Further implications are that wh movement proceeds successive‐cyclically through (presumably) vP in German, that tails of A and Ā movement can be distinguished by alles, and that object scrambling is necessarily A movement in German.

show abstract

Raising out of Finite Clauses (Hyperraising)

Zyman

2023

Annu. Rev. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classical syntactic theory was designed to permit the type of movement called raising to proceed out of infinitival, but not finite, clauses—a positive result for languages such as English. But crosslinguistic investigation reveals that many languages actually allow raising out of finite clauses (hyperraising), challenging certain commonly assumed locality constraints on movement. This article reviews three types of Minimalist analyses of hyperraising and how they address these challenges, noting the strengths and shortcomings of each. Defectiveness/nonphase analyses commendably tie a clause's ability to launch hyperraising to independent observables, but such analyses struggle to derive the former from the latter. Deactivation analyses boast empirical successes but do not straightforwardly rule out hyperraising in English. Phase-edge analyses also boast empirical successes but face empirical and/or conceptual problems (to which a solution is sketched out) and open questions about learnability. These evaluations are intended to spur syntacticians to develop stronger versions of all three types of analyses, bringing us closer to fully understanding the factors regulating movement, a subcase of the fundamental structure-building operation Merge. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Linguistics, Volume 9 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

show abstract

Phase‐Constrained Obligatory Late Adjunction

Abstract: Since Lebeaux 1991, there has been considerable interest in the hypothesis that syntactic structures are not always built in a completely cyclic, bottom-up fashion but, rather, some syntactic elements-in particular, adjuncts-can be inserted late,

Cited by 5 publications

References 35 publications

The search for Minimal Search: A graph-theoretic approach

The search for Minimal Search: A graph-theoretic approach

Wh quantifier float in German

Raising out of Finite Clauses (Hyperraising)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About