The Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains

Pires, Acrísio

doi:10.1075/la.98

Cited by 45 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The much higher frequency of OV order in poetry than in prose is also reported byFoster & van der Wurff (1995) andFischer et al (2000).10 See e.g. MacWhinney (2004),Pearl (2005),Pires (2006),Boeckx (2010) andWillis (2011) for references to and applications of Lightfoot's degree-0 theory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 73%

On the use of data in historical linguistics: word order in early English subordinate clauses

Heggelund¹

2014

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article critically assesses Lightfoot's (1991, 2006) ‘degree-0 theory’ of language change, specifically the use that Lightfoot makes of empirical data from Old English (OE) and Middle English (ME). This is followed by the presentation of a recent analysis of word order in a variety of OE and ME sources. It is argued that data from these periods do not support the ‘degree-0 theory’. Rather, the data demonstrate that verb-final and object–verb order were less dominant in OE subordinate clauses than previously assumed, and that the shift to SV order was fairly gradual. There is also little in the data to suggest that subordinate clauses and main clauses developed in radically different manners or at radically different speeds. The article highlights the importance of careful data usage, both with respect to type and scope of material, and the interpretation of data collected and categorised by others.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 73%

On the use of data in historical linguistics: word order in early English subordinate clauses

Heggelund¹

2014

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moulton (2004) inspects the realization of external arguments and argues that it is a nominalization of a vP, where v stands for the head introducing the external argument, which I take here to be Voice (Kratzer 1996;Alexiadou et al 2015). A confounding factor in some earlier approaches is that they try to unify all the varieties of the gerund under the same construction, although they differ in many ways (Siegel 1998;Pires 2006;Lowe 2019). In addition, the VP in (7) (Abney 1987) may correspond to several projections in current theory: vP/VoiceP (Moulton 2004), AspectP (Siegel 1998;Panagiotidis 2014) and possibly more.…”

Section: The English Verbal Gerund (Poss-ing)mentioning

confidence: 99%

D and N are different nominalizers

Iordăchioaia

2020

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I argue for a split between NP and DP by showing that it accounts for crucial distinctions in the behavior of nominalizations. The NP-DP split is challenged not only by competing frameworks or theories that argue, for instance, that NPs and not DPs are selected. Another challenge comes from derivational theories that reject the existence of possibly covert lexical categorizers such as N and posit instead overt functional categorizers like Classifier and especially D for nominalizations. In this latter trend, it is the NP (not the DP) whose existence is questioned. This paper argues in favor of the lexical categorizer N and for D as a necessary but exceptional nominalizer.

show abstract

“…An alternative view of Acc-ing, which we will employ here, is the one by Munn (1991) and Pires (2006), who do not resort to category conversion. They simply assume that Acc-ing gerunds are TP/IP.…”

Section: The Grammatical Category Of Quasi-complementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Support for Feature Inheritance in English

Hirata

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains

Cited by 45 publications

References 0 publications

On the use of data in historical linguistics: word order in early English subordinate clauses

On the use of data in historical linguistics: word order in early English subordinate clauses

D and N are different nominalizers

Support for Feature Inheritance in English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About