Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Problems for This Analysis
Summary and Conclusions
References

Consequences of pair-merge (at the interfaces)

Profile image of Ángel J. GallegoÁngel J. Gallego

2011, Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de …

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This paper investigates the properties of adjuncts within the framework of the Minimalist Program, focusing on the formal operation of pair-Merge as proposed by Chomsky and further explored by Uriagereka. It distinguishes between two different readings of adjuncts, namely Markovian and non-Markovian, with the latter presenting a scopal interpretation that contrasts with the concatenative nature of the former. The role of adjuncts in syntactic structures is analyzed, providing insights into their semantic contributions and implications for syntactic theory.

Figures (2)
Columbus stumbled...because he travelled...because he had been paid to do so
Columbus stumbled...because he travelled...because he had been paid to do so
So, how could we capture the semantics of these structures? Recall that in these cases each of the adjuncts denotes an event. This is patently true for the cases of 55, but we believe that it is also true for the cases of 52-53 and 54, where each of the ad- juncts denotes a cause relating two events (cf Pietroski 2000). Thus, we propose that in order to capture the scopal reading, we would need to enrich the LFs of these sen- tences by postulating the introduction of a new subevent in each syntactic subcycle. This is depicted in 56:
So, how could we capture the semantics of these structures? Recall that in these cases each of the adjuncts denotes an event. This is patently true for the cases of 55, but we believe that it is also true for the cases of 52-53 and 54, where each of the ad- juncts denotes a cause relating two events (cf Pietroski 2000). Thus, we propose that in order to capture the scopal reading, we would need to enrich the LFs of these sen- tences by postulating the introduction of a new subevent in each syntactic subcycle. This is depicted in 56:

Related papers

On the Predicate-Argument Structure: Internal and Absorbing Scope
Igor Boguslavsky

2017

Valency filling is considered a major mechanism for constructing the semantic structure of the sentence from semantic structures of words. This approach requires a broader view of valency and actant, covering all kinds of actant-bearing words and all types of valency filling. We introduce the concept of scope as a generalization of actant: it is any fragment of a Syntactic (SyntScope) or Semantic Structure (SemScope) that fills a valency of a predicate. Actant is a particular case of scope. We discuss two classes of situations, mostly on the material of Russian, that manifest nonisomorphism between SyntScope and SemScope: (a) meaning α that fills a valency of word L constitutes only a part of the meaning of word L′ (internal scope); (b) predicate π is an internal component of the meaning of word L; π extends its valency (distinct from valencies of L) to words different from L (absorbing scope).

View PDFchevron_right
Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax
Laura A Michaelis

Constructional Approaches to Language, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
A spectator's guide to syntactic theories
Richard Hudson

1994

This article' is intended for non-speciaiists who would like to understand the state of play in syntactic theory. It introduces nine different syntactic theories which count as 'important' in some sense, and explains some of the assumptions that they make about sentence structure. It aiso discusses the various kinds of solutions that have been offered for one problem, that of discontinuities produced by topicalisation, and introduces a tenth theory which rests on fundamentally different assumptions.

View PDFchevron_right
Adjuncts and the theory of phrase structure
M. Rita Manzini

Manuscript, University of Florence, 1995

la thia article I ah~ll ftrat review the ava1lable ev1dence concerning the poa1t1on of adverbial&. I shall conclude that the claaa1cal X-bar thuoret1cal approach to co~plex adverbials. in term• o1 r1ght adJunction, accounts adequately for the data. On the contrary. Kayne's (1994) and Shomsky's (1995) constraints aga1nst right adjunction lead to serious problems.

View PDFchevron_right
Adjunction, Labeling, and Bare Phrase Structure
Jairo Nunes

This article argues for a version of bare phrase structure which maintains that — contrary to the standard view on phrase structure — adjunction structures are simpler than structures involving complements and specifiers. Assuming with Hornstein (forthcoming) that the operation Merge is to be decomposed into two basic operations, namely, Concatenate and Label, the article shows that whereas the building of complements and specifiers requires that the output of a Concatenate operation be labeled, adjuncts may only require concatenation to receive a proper interpretation at the interface. It is argued that taking adjunction structures to be label-less concatenates not only complies with Chomsky's (1995) Inclusiveness Condition, but also makes it possible to account in a principled manner for the dual behavior of adjuncts, which sometimes behave as integral parts of the target of adjunction and some other times behave as completely independent elements.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantics in Generative Grammar
Angelika Kratzer

Language, 1999

1 1.2 Frege on compositionality 2 1.3 Tutorial on sets and functions 3 1.3.1 Sets 4 1.3.2 Questions and answers about the abstraction notation for sets 5 1.3.3 Functions 10 2 Executing the Fregean Program 13 2.1 First example of a Fregean interpretation 13 2.1.1 Applying the semantics to an example 16 2.1.2 Deriving truth-conditions in an extensional semantics 2.1.3 Object language and metalanguage 2.2 Sets and their characteristic functions 2.3 Adding transitive verbs: semantic types and denotation domains 2.4 Schonfinkelization 2.5 Defining functions in the i\.-notation 3 Semantics and Syntax 3.1 Type-driven interpretation 3.2 The structure of the input to semantic interpretation 3.3 Well-formedness and interpretability 3.4 The a-Criterion 3.5 Argument structure and linking 4 More of English: Nonverbal Predicates, Modifiers, Definite Descriptions 4.1 Semantically vacuous words 4.2 Nonverbal predicates VI Contents 4.3 Predicates as restrictive modifiers 63 4.3.1 A new composition rule 65 4.3.2 Modification as functional application 66 4.3.3 Evidence from nonintersective adjectives? 4.4 The definite article 73 4.4.1 A lexical entry inspired by Frege 73 4.4.2 Partial denotations and the distinction between presupposition and assertion 75 4.4.3 Uniqueness and utterance context 80 4.4.4 Presupposition failure versus uninterpretability 81 4.5 Modifiers in definite descriptions Contents 6.5.1 A little history 6.5.2 Relational and Sch O nfinkeled denotations for determine r s vii 147 6.6 Forma l properties of relational determiner meanings 6.7 Presuppositional quantifier phrases 6.7. 1 "Both" and "neither" 6.7.2 Presuppositionality and the relational theory 6.7.3 Other examples of presupposing DPs 157 6.8 Presuppositional quantifier phrases: controversial cases 6.8.1 Strawson's reconstruction of Aristotelian logic 6.8.2 Are all determiners presuppositional? 6.8.3 Nonextensional interpretation 6.8.4 Nonpresuppositional behavior in weak determiners 7 Quantification and Grammar 7.1 The problem of quantifiers in ob j ect position 7.2 Repairing the type mismatch in situ 7.2.1 An example of a "flexible types" approach 7.2.2 Excursion: flexible types for connectives 7.3 Repairing the type mismatch by movement 7. 4 Excursion: quantifiers in natural language and predicate logic 7.4.1 Separating quantifiers from variable binding 7.4.2 l-place and 2-place quantifiers 7.5 Choosing between quantifier movement and in situ interpretation : three standard arguments 7.5.1 Scope ambiguity and "inverse " scope 7.5.2 Antecedent-contained deletion 7. 5. 3 Quantifiers that bind pronouns 8 Syntactic and Semantic Constraints on Quantifier Movement 8.1 Which DPs may move, and which ones must? 8.2 How much moves along? And how far can you move? 8.3 What are potential landing sites for moving quantifiers ? 8.4 Quantifying into VP 8.4.1 Quantifiers taking narrow scope with respect to auxiliary negation , 8.4.2 Quantifying into W, VP-internal subjects , and flexible types 8.5 Quantifying into PP, AP, and NP 221 8.5.1 A problem of undergeneration 221 8.5.2 PP-internal subjects 8.5. 3 Subjects in all lexically headed XPs? 228 viii Contents 8.6 Quantifying into DP 230 8.6.1 Readings that can only be represented by DP adjunction? 232 8.6.2 Indirect evidence for DP adjunction : a problem with free IP adjunction? 233 8.6.3 Summary 234 9 Bound and Referential Pronouns and Ellipsis 239 9.1 Referential pronouns as free variables 239 9.1.1 Deictic versus anaphoric, referential versus bound-variable pronouns 23 9 9.1 .2 Utterance contexts and variable assignments 9.2 Co-reference Or binding ? 9.3 Pronouns in the theory of ellipsis 9.3.1 Background: the LF Identity Condition on ellipsis 9. 3.2 Referential pronouns and ellipsis 9.3.3 The "sloppy identity" puzzle and its solution

View PDFchevron_right
An l-syntax for adjuncts
Ángel J. Gallego

Linguistik aktuell, 2010

This paper proposes an l-syntactic (in [11]'s sense) approach to adjuncts that extends the dyadic pattern of (1) to traditional VP modifiers (e.g. happily with the key etc.) thus supporting a Figure-(Ground-based approach to predication (see [9, 11, 18]). In particular and assuming a (neo-) Davidsonian treatment of adjuncts as predicates of the event ([22]), we claim that prepositions relate VPs qua 'subjects' (formally specifiers of P) to adjuncts qua 'predicates (formally complements of P) as shown in (2). Such a structure follows straightforwardly in the case of bona fide PPs (e.g. in Boston

View PDFchevron_right
Arguments and Adjuncts at the Syntax-Semantics Interface
Roxana-Maria Barbu

Continuing with the example from (30), the following two readings are assigned to the string some frog loves all pigs by the grammar, (34).

View PDFchevron_right
On the nonsemantic nature of argument structure
Alex Alsina

Language Sciences, 2001

This paper presents evidence that argument structure is not a semantic, but a syntactic, level of representation. The evidence is based on the distinction between primary and secondary objects found in languages such as Chichew à a. This distinction is shown not to be a semantic distinction, but a syntactic one, and it is shown to be needed at a point in the derivation in which grammatical functions are not available, but argument structure is. Therefore, the distinction between primary and secondary objects has to be part of argument structure. In addition, evidence involving nonthematic idiomatic objects in Chichew à a indicates that this distinction cannot be part of the representation of grammatical functions, contrary to what has been assumed by other researchers (e.g. Baker, M., 1988a. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago; Baker, M., 1988b. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichew à a. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 353±389; Bresnan, J., Moshi, L., 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 147±185). In conclusion, since argument structure must express the distinction between primary and secondary objects, which is not a semantic distinction, it follows that argument structure contains nonsemantic information and, therefore, is a nonsemantic level of representation. # Language Sciences 23 (2001) 355±389 www.elsevier.com/locate/langsci 0388-0001/01/$ -see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. P I I : S 0 3 8 8 -0 0 0 1 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 3 0 -9 E-mail address: alex.alsina@trad.upf.es (A. Alsina).

View PDFchevron_right
Rethinking Depictive Secondary Predicates A Pair- Merge approach and the Adjunct Condition
violeta demonte

Linguística: Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto, 2021

In this article I will propose a new analysis of depictive secondary predication structures. Previous studies of these structures are framed within different approaches: C-command / categorial approaches (Williams 1980, Rothstein 1983, 2001, Demonte 1988, Mallén 1991, Bowers 1993, among others), C-command and Multiple Agree approaches (McNulty 1988, Irimia 2012), linearization after ‘Lateral Movement’ and attachment of identical eventive heads (Gallar 2017), or Parallel-Merge approaches (Irimia 2012, You 2016). Following Chomsky (2019) and Bošković (2020), among others, I will claim here, first, that adjunct depictive secondary predicates start as members of a Pair-MERGE(d) conjunction/ adjunction structure which is unlabeled. There are as many members of these pair merged phrases as modifiers in a sentence, and they are unbounded and unstructured. Pair merged structures are in principle opaque and non-sensible to syntactic operations. However, since they are semantically and syntac...

View PDFchevron_right

References (40)

  1. Boeckx, C., 2003, «Review of T. Ernst, 2002», The syntax of adjuncts, Cambridge U. P., «Studies in the Linguistic Sciences» 32. 95-101.
  2. Bosque, I., 1989, Las Categorias Gramaticales. Madrid: Cátedra.
  3. -and P. J. Masullo, 1998, On Verbal Quantification in Spanish, Studies on the Syntax of Cen- tral Romance Languages ed. by O. Fullana & F. Roca, Girona: U. Girona, 9-64.
  4. Bresnan, J., 1982, «Polyadicity», The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations ed. J. Bresnan, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 149-172.
  5. Cappelen, H. and E. Lepore, 2005, Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism, Oxford: Blackwell.
  6. Chametzky, R. A., 2000, Phrase Structure: from GB to Minimalism, Malden: Blackwell. Chomsky, N., 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT.
  7. -, 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
  8. -, 1990, «On Formalization and Formal Linguistics», NLLT 8, 143-147.
  9. -, 1986, Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Its Origins, Its Use, New York: Praeger.
  10. -, 1995, The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  11. -, 2000, Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik ed. by D. Michaels, R. Martin & J. Uriagereka, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  12. -2001, Derivation by Phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed by M. Kenstowicz. Cam- bridge: MIT Press. 1-52.
  13. -2004, «Beyond Explanatory Adequacy, Structures and Beyond». The Cartography of Syn- tactic Structures, Volume 3 ed. by A. Belletti, Oxford/New York: Oxford U. P., 104-131.
  14. -2005, On Phases. manuscript: MIT.
  15. Davidson, D. D., 1967a, The Logical Form of Action Sentences, The Logic of Decision and Ac- tion ed, by N. Rescher, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press [Reprinted in D. Da- vidson. Essays on Actions and Events (2. ed.). Oxford/New York: Oxford U. P., 105-122].
  16. -1967b, Reply to Martin, The Logical Form of Action Sentences. The Logic of Decision and Action ed. by N. Rescher. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press [Reprinted in D. Davidson. Essays on Actions and Events (2. ed.), Oxford/New York: Oxford U. P., 129-148].
  17. Ernst, T., 1998, «The Scopal Basis of Adverb Licensing», Proceedings of NELS 28, 127-142. -2002, The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P. Fodor, J. A., 1972, Troubles About Actions. Semantics of Natural Language ed. by D. David- son and G. Harman. Dordrecht: Reidel. 48-69.
  18. Gallego, Á. J., 2006, «Connectivity in Markovian Dependencies». Manuscript: UAB.
  19. Grimshaw, J., 1990, Argument Structure, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. -and S. Vikner, 1993, Obligatory Adjuncts and the Structure of Events, Knowledge and Language: Vol. II Lexical and Conceptual Structure ed. by E. Reuland & W. Abraham, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 145-159.
  20. Harley, H., 2003, «How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, Manner Incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English». Manuscript: U.Arizona.
  21. Herburger, E., 2000, What Counts: Focus and Quantification. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press.
  22. Hernanz, M. Ll., 1993, «A propósito de los adjuntos libres». Sintaxi. Teoria i Perspectives, ed by in A. Viana. 125-173.
  23. Hornstein, N., J. Nunes and P. Pietroski, 2005, Some Thoughts on Adjunction, manuscript. UMD-USP.
  24. Irurtzun, A., 2006, «Focus & Clause Structuration in the Minimalist Program». Minimalist Theorizing ed. by C. Boecx. Berlin: John Benjamins. 68-96.
  25. -2003, The Locus of [+F]ocus, ms: EHU-UPV.
  26. -and Á. J. Gallego, 2004, Adjuntos concatenados y (sub)cyclos sintácticos. Paper presented at the XXXIV Simposio de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística, Madrid.
  27. Kayne, R., 1994, The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  28. Larson, R., K. and G. Segal, 1995, Knowledge of Meaning. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  29. Lasnik, H. and J. Uriagereka, 2005, A Course in Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
  30. Lebeaux, D., 1991, Relative clauses, licensing and the nature of the derivation. Syntax and Se- mantics 25: Perspectives on phrase structure, ed. by S. Rothstein. New York: Academic Press. 209-239.
  31. Lycan, W. G., 2001, Real Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford U. P. Martin, R. and J. Uriagereka, 2000, Collapsed Waves. Manuscript: U. Tsukuba & UMD. May, R., 1985, Logical Form. Cambridge: MIT.
  32. Moro, A., 2000, Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  33. Parsons, T., 1990, Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  34. Pietroski, P., 2003, Small Verbs, Complex Events: Analyticity Without Sinonimy. Chomsky and his Critics ed. by N. Hornstein and L. Antony. Oxford: Blackwell, 179-214.
  35. -2000, Causing Actions. Oxford: Oxford U. P.
  36. Recanati, F., 2002, «Unarticulated Constituents», Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 299-345.
  37. Stepanov, A., 2001, «The Timing of Adjunction», Proceedings of NELS 30. Amherst: GLSA. 597-611.
  38. Taylor, B., 1985, Modes of Occurrence: Verbs, Adverbs & Events. Oxford & NY: Blackwell.
  39. Uriagereka, J., 2003, Pure Adjuncts. Manuscript, UMD. -2004, Where do Adjuncts Live? Manuscript: UMD & UPV-EHU.
  40. Vendler, Z., 1967, Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell U. P.

Related papers

Some Thoughts on Adjunction Some Thoughts on Adjunction
Jairo Nunes

1. Introduction It is fair to say that what adjuncts are and how they function grammatically is not well understood. The current wisdom comes in two parts: a description of some of the salient properties of adjuncts (they are optional, not generally selected, often display island (CED) effects, etc.) and a technology to code their presence (Chomsky-adjunction, different labels, etc). Within the Minimalist Program (MP), adjuncts have largely been treated as afterthoughts and this becomes evident when the technology deployed to accommodate them is carefully (or even cursorily) considered. Our primary aim in this paper is to propose a phrase structure for adjunction that is compatible with the precepts of Bare Phrase Structure (BPS). Current accounts, we believe, are at odds with the central vision of BPS and current practice leans more to descriptive eclecticism than to theoretical insight. We have a diagnosis for this conceptual disarray. It stems from a deeply held though seldom formulated intuition; the tacit view that adjuncts are the abnormal case while arguments describe the grammatical norm. We suspect that this has it exactly backwards. In actuality, adjuncts are so well behaved that they require virtually no grammatical support to function properly. Arguments, in contrast, are refractory and require grammatical aid to allow them to make any propositional contribution. This last remark should come as no surprise to those with neo-Davidsonian semantic sympathies. Connoisseurs of this art form are well versed in the important role that grammatical (aka, thematic) roles play in turning arguments into modifiers of events. 1 Such fulcra are not required for meaningfully integrating adjuncts into sentences. In what follows, we take this difference to be of the greatest significance and we ask ourselves what this might imply for the phrase structure of adjunction. A second boundary condition in what follows is that an adequate theory of adjunction comport with the core tenets of BPS. Current approaches sin against BPS in requiring an intrinsic use of bar levels and in using idiosyncratic labeling conventions whose import is murky at best. We rehearse these objections in the following sections. A goal of a successful theory of adjuncts should be to come up with a coherent account of adjunction structures that (at least) allows for a relational view of bar levels along the lines of Chomsky 1995 (following earlier suggestions of Muysken 1982). More ambitiously, one could require that the bar-level properties of adjunction structures play no grammatically significant role. Hornstein 2005b proposes a very strong version of the Inclusiveness Condition, one in which only intrinsic features of lexical elements can be used by the computational system. This excludes, among other things, bar-level information (which is relational) from the purview of the syntax. 2 Thus syntactic rules cannot be stated in terms like " Move/delete XP " or " Move X 0 " or " never

View PDFchevron_right
2008. ‘On the syntactic flexibility of formal features.’ In: Th. Biberauer, (ed). The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam, Benjamins. 143-174.
Hedde Zeijlstra

In this paper I argue that the set of formal features that can head a functional projection is not given by UG but derived through L1 acquisition. I formulate a hypothesis that says that initially every functional category F is realised as a semantic feature [F]; whenever there is an overt doubling effect in the L1 input with respect to F, this semantic feature [F] is reanalysed as a formal feature [i/uF]. In the first part of the paper I provide a theoretical motivation for this hypothesis, in the second part I test this proposal for a case-study, namely the cross-linguistic distribution of Negative Concord (NC). I demonstrate that in NC languages negation has been reanalysed as a formal feature [i/uNEG], whereas in Double Negation languages this feature remains a semantic feature [NEG] (always interpreted as a negative operator), thus paving the way for an explanation of NC in terms of syntactic agreement. In the third part I discuss that the application of the hypothesis to the phenomenon of negation yields two predictions that can be tested empirically. First I demonstrate that negative markers X° can be available only in NC languages; second, independent change of the syntactic status of negative markers, can invoke a change with respect to the exhibition of NC in a particular language. Both predictions are proven to be correct. I finally argue what the consequences of the proposal presented in this paper are for both the syntactic structure of the clause and second for the way parameters are associated to lexical items.

View PDFchevron_right
The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory20200423 91127 x0tdvv
Zeynab Musayeva
View PDFchevron_right
The Theory of Syntax and the Representation of Indexicality
Alessandra Giorgi

The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 7, 2012

View PDFchevron_right
On Syntactic Categories
Gerald Gazdar

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 1981

A traditional concern of grammarians has been the question of whether the members of given pairs of expressions belong to the same or different syntactic categories. Consider the following example sentences. ( a ) I think Fido destroyed the kennel . ( b ) The kennel, I think Fido destroyed . Are the two underlined expressions members of the same syntactic category or not? The generative grammarians of the last quarter century have, almost without exception, taken the answer to be affirmative. In the present paper I explore the implications of taking the answer to be negative. The changes consequent upon this negative answer turn out to be very far-reaching: (i) it becomes as simple to state rules for constructions of the general type exemplified in ( b ) as it is for the canonical NP VP construction in ( a ); (ii) we immediately derive an explanation for a range of coordination facts that have remained quite mysterious since they were discovered by J. R. Ross some 15 years ago; (iii...

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved