Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
An Overview
Lisa Demena Travis 1 Introduction
Summary
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Syntax

The Routledge Handbook of Syntax

Profile image of Yosuke SatoYosuke Sato

2014

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315796604
visibility

…

description

24 pages

link

1 file

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This chapter discusses the evolution of functional categories in syntax, marking their transition from 'minor' to 'major' roles within phrase structure systems. It outlines three critical stages: integration, proliferation, and expansion, along with the influence of key figures like Chomsky and Cinque. The implications of these changes are explored, focusing on the shifting characteristics of functional categories and their impact on the classification of lexical categories.

Related papers

The Redundancy of Lexical Categories
Andrew Spencer

The Redundancy of Lexical Categories, 1998

"In this paper I argue that the familiar lexical category labels, N, V, A, P or equivalently the features such as [±N, ±V] are redundant in a theory which admits a level of argument structure. I modify Zwart’s (1992) conception of a-structure by arguing that major class members always include a ‘referential role’: <R> for nouns, <E> (for ‘eventuality’) for verbs and <A> (‘attribute’) for adjectives. <A> is coindexed with the <R> role of the modificand. A-structures are canonically associated with sets of F(unctional) features, but ‘mixed’ a-structure types may be associated with ‘mixed’ F-features, without the need to postulate ‘mixed’ lexical categories. Categorial information can thus be read off a-structure representations without the need for purely syntactic category features. I first develop a (constructional) semantics for compound nouns (N N) in which the a-structure of the modifying noun receives a new r(eferential) role <A> with demotion of the original <R> role. The new <A> role is coindexed with the <R> role of the modificand and the attributive relationship interpreted as some pragmatically characterized relationship, ρ. Relational adjectives are given a similar argument structure representation with the same semantic interpretation, but in their lexical representation. I sketch an analysis of participles in which the <E> role of the verb is demoted by introduction of an <A> role. Deverbal nominals are obtained by demoting the <E> role and adding an <R> role (essentially naming an event). By assuming that a-structure is articulated we can account for the typologically observed patterns of argument realization in nominalizations."

View PDFchevron_right
On the Interaction of Linguistic Typology and Functional Grammar (2002)
Jan Rijkhoff

Functions of Language 9-2 (2002), 209–237., 2002

Research conducted within the wider theoretical framework of Dik’s Functional Grammar has resulted in important contributions to linguistic typology, and, vice versa, empirical facts from a wide variety of languages have significantly improved the theory of Functional Grammar, especially regarding its typological adequacy. This article discusses the following contributions to Linguistic Typology: the development of a sound sampling methodology, classification of noun categories (Seinsarten), an account of (so-called) number discord, the introduction of the new grammatical category of ‘nominal aspect’, a new typology of classifiers, and a universal concerning the occurrence of adjectives as a distinct word class. Conversely it will be shown that facts from many different languages have played an important role in the development of a layered model of the noun phrase in Functional Grammar and how currently these facts are used to test hypotheses concerning parallels between NPs and clauses.

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
Proxy categories in Phrase Structure theory
Alain Rouveret
View PDFchevron_right
Functional categories in the syntax and semantics of Malay
Simon Musgrave

Ms., Monash University

View PDFchevron_right
Lecture 12. Some New Perspectives on Lexical and Functional Categories: Revisiting Brown's 'Fourteen Grammatical Morphemes'
Joseph Galasso

This paper presents as a rough sketch what is currently believed to be the dual nature behind the morphosyntatic processing made in formulating a [stem] + {affix} separation. In this paper, we revisit the classic Roger Brown 'Fourteen Grammatical Morphemes and their order of acquisition' and challenge earlier claims made suggesting that children have knowledge of stem+affix separation earlyon in their morphosyntactic development. Hence, past claims defining such early constructs as decomposed are challenged, and arguments are put forward rather suggesting that there is indeed an earlier stage during which such putative constructs actually get processed as undecomposed lexicalized chunks. The paper utilizes recent theoretical advances as developed within the Dual Mechanism Model framework of morphological processing as a means to uncover what might have been previously overlooked regarding the initial sequences supposed in the Roger Brown study.

View PDFchevron_right
The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory20200423 91127 x0tdvv
Zeynab Musayeva
View PDFchevron_right
Form and Function In Syntactic Theory:: a Reaction to Newmeyer
Elaine J Francis

Language Sciences, 2002

View PDFchevron_right
On the interaction of Linguistic Typology and Functional Grammar
Jan Rijkhoff

Functions of Language, 2003

Research conducted within the wider theoretical framework of Dik’s Functional Grammar has resulted in important contributions to linguistic typology, and, vice versa, empirical facts from a wide variety of languages have significantly improved the theory of Functional Grammar, especially regarding its typological adequacy.This article discusses the following contributions to Linguistic Typology: the development of a sound sampling methodology, classification of noun categories (Seinsarten), an account of (so-called) number discord, the introduction of the new grammatical category of ‘nominal aspect’, a new typology of classifiers, and a universal concerning the occurrence of adjectives as a distinct word class. Conversely it will be shown that facts from many different languages have played an important role in the development of a layered model of the noun phrase in Functional Grammar and how currently these facts are used to test hypotheses concerning parallels between NPs and cla...

View PDFchevron_right
Leonid Kulikov & Heinz Vater (eds.). Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten; 382)
Leonid Kulikov

1998

View PDFchevron_right

References (66)

  1. Abney, S. 1985. Functor theory and licensing: toward the elimination of the base component. Unpub- lished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  2. Abney, S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  3. Baker, M. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry, 16: 373-416.
  4. Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  5. Baker, M. and Hale, K. 1990. Relativized Minimality and pronoun incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry, 21:289-297.
  6. Belletti, A. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement. Rosenberg & Sellier, Turin.
  7. Belletti, A., editor 2004. Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3. Oxford University Press, New York.
  8. Borer, H. 1984. Parametric Syntax. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
  9. Borer, H. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In Polinsky, M. and Moore, J., editors, Explanation in Linguistic Theory. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
  10. Bowers, J. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 24:591-656.
  11. Brame, M. 1981. The general theory of binding and fusion. Linguistic Analysis, 7:277-325.
  12. Brame, M. 1982. The head-selector theory of lexical specifi cations of the nonexistence of coarse categories. Linguistic Analysis, 10:321-325.
  13. Bresnan, J. 1976. Nonarguments for raising. Linguistic Inquiry, 7:485-501.
  14. Caha, P. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. PhD thesis, University of Tromsø. Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague.
  15. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  16. Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, J. and Rosenbaum, P., editors, Readings in English Transformational Grammar, pages 184-221. Ginn, Waltham, MA.
  17. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
  18. Chomsky, N. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Freidin, R., editor, Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, pages 417-454. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  19. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  20. Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A., editor, Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3, pages 104-131. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  21. Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press, New York.
  22. Cinque, G., editor 2002. Functional Structure in DP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Struc- tures, Volume 1. Oxford University Press, New York.
  23. Emonds, J. 1978. The verbal complex V'-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 9:151-175.
  24. Fukui, N. 1986. A Theory of Category Projection and its Application. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  25. Fukui, N. and Speas, M. 1986. Specifi ers and projection. In Fukui, N., Rapoport, T. R., and Sagey, E., editors, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 8, pages 128-172. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
  26. Gibson, K. 1986. The ordering of auxiliary notions in Guyanese Creole. Language, 62:571-586.
  27. Grimshaw, J. 1991. Extended projection. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.
  28. Grimshaw, J. 2000. Locality and extended projection. In Coopmans, P., Everaert, M., and Grimshaw, J., editors, Lexical Specifi cation and Insertion, pages 115-134. John Benjamins Publishing Com- pany, Philadelphia.
  29. Grohmann, K. K. and Etxepare, R. 2003. Root infi nitives: A comparative view. Probus, 15: 201-236.
  30. Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic rela- tions. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J., editors, The View from Building 20, pages 53-110. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  31. Harley, H. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  32. Hudson, R. 1995. Competence without comp? In Aarts, B. and Meyer, C. F., editors, The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description, pages 40-53. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  33. Hudson, R. 1999. Grammar without functional categories. In Borsley, R. D., editor, The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories (Syntax and Semantics, Volume 32), pages 7-35. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, W. Yorks.
  34. Iatridou, S. 1990. About Agr(P). Linguistic Inquiry, 21:551-576.
  35. Jackendoff, R. 1977. X¢ Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  36. Kayne, R. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
  37. Kayne, R. 2011. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. In di Sciullo, A.-M., and Boeckx, Cedric, editors, The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Lan- guage Faculty, pages 329-353. Oxford University Press, London.
  38. Kitagawa, Y. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
  39. Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua, 85:211-258.
  40. Kornfi lt, J. 1984. Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
  41. Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L., editors, Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, pages 109-137. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
  42. Larson, R. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19:335-392.
  43. Li, Y. 1990. X°-binding and verb incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry, 21:399-426.
  44. Marantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, A., Siegel, L., Surek-Clark, C., and Williams, A., editors, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics vol. 4.2, pages 201-225. University of Pennsylvania.
  45. Muysken, P. 2008. Functional Categories. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  46. Ouhalla, J. 1991. Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. Routledge, London.
  47. Pantcheva, M. 2011. The nanosyntax of directional expressions. PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.
  48. Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20:365-424.
  49. Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing Arguments. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  50. Ritter, E. 1992. Cross-linguistic evidence for Number Phrase. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 37:197-218.
  51. Ritter, E. and Wiltschko, M. 2009. Varieties of INFL: TENSE, LOCATION, and PERSON. In Craenenbroeck, J. v., editor, Alternatives to Cartography, pages 153-202. De Gruyter, Berlin.
  52. Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  53. Rizzi, L. 1997. The fi ne structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L., editor, Elements of Gram- mar, pages 281-337. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
  54. Rizzi, L. 2004. On the cartography of syntactic structures. In Rizzi, L., editor, The Structure of CP and IP, pages 3-15. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  55. Shlonsky, U. 2010. The cartographic enterprise in syntax. Language and Linguistic Compass, 4:417-429.
  56. Sohn, H.-M. 1994. Korean. Routledge, London.
  57. Starke, M. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. In Svenonius, P., Ramchand, G., Starke, M., and Taraldsen, K. T., editors, Nordlyd 36.1, special issue on Nanosyntax, pages 1-6. CASTL, Tromsø.
  58. Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  59. Taraldsen, T. 2010. The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefi xes and concords. Lingua, 120: 1522-1548.
  60. Travis, L. d. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology.
  61. Travis, L. d. 2000. The L-syntax/S-syntax boundary: Evidence from Austronesian. In Paul, I., Phillips, V., and Travis, L., editors, Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics, pages 167-194. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
  62. Travis, L. d. 2010. Inner Aspect: The Articulation of VP. Springer, Dordrecht.
  63. Travis, L. d. and Lamontagne, G. 1992. The Case Filter and licensing of empty K. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 37:157-174.
  64. van Gelderen, E. 1993. The Rise of Functional Categories. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.
  65. Vitale, A. J. 1981. Swahili Syntax. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
  66. Wiltschko, M. forthcoming. The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a Formal Typology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Related papers

Functional categories, morphosyntactic change, grammaticalization
Ans van Kemenade

Linguistics, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
Functional categories in grammar and typology (2016)
Jan Rijkhoff

Pp. 343-348 from: Rijkhoff, Jan. 2016. Crosslinguistic categories in morphosyntactic typology: Problems and prospects. Linguistic Typology 20-2, 333-363. 3.2. Members of functional categories are the products of a speech act Since morphosyntactic units such as clauses, phrases, words and free or bound morphemes can be characterized in terms of formal, semantic and functional properties, they can simultaneously belong to a formal, a semantic and a functional category. Functional categorization is not directly concerned with the formal or semantic properties of a linguistic unit, but rather with the actual job of a form or construction in the process of verbal communication. Membership of an interpersonal functional category is determined by the way a linguistic unit is used in actual discourse (hence the alternative label ‘discourse unit’). The functional approach to categorization has a long tradition, going back to the Prague School of Linguistics (if not earlier, cf. Weil 1844: 19), whose members were “seeking to understand what jobs the various components were doing […]” (Sampson 1980: 104). A considerable amount of literature has be devoted to pragmatic or functional processes, forces, factors and principles, but so far this has not resulted in a more or less comprehensive classification of the interpersonal (‘communicative’, ‘discourse’) functions that are served by the various kinds of linguistic units in languages across the globe. Hence a tentative list of functional categories is proposed below. Functional categories are here defined as categories whose members are the product of an interpersonal speech act, i.e. a speech act that first and foremost concerns the role of a linguistic unit in the interaction between speaker and addressee from a communicative or discourse perspective. Speech acts are commonly divided into locutionary acts (the act of saying something), illocutionary acts (the act of providing an utterance with a communicative intention, e.g. an assertion, a question or a command), propositional acts (the acts of referring, predicating, and, as we shall see below, modifying), and perlocutionary acts (the actual effect of the speech act). For our purposes we only need to concern ourselves with illocutionary acts and propositional acts, but we need two additional kinds of speech acts to account for functional categories across languages: thetical acts and pragmatic acts. Thus there are four main types of interpersonal functional categories, which I will call ILLOCUTIONS, THETICALS, PROPOSITIONALS and PRAGMATICALS for ease of reference. Each of these functional categories is briefly introduced below.

View PDFchevron_right
Some New Perspectives on Lexical and Functional Categories:
Joseph Galasso

Abstract This paper presents as a rough sketch what is currently believed to be the dual nature behind the morpho-syntatic processing made in formulating a [stem] + {affix} separation. In this paper, we revisit the classic Roger Brown ‘Fourteen Grammatical Morphemes and their order of acquisition’ and challenge earlier claims made suggesting that children have knowledge of stem+affix separation early-on in their morpho-syntactic development. Hence, past claims defining such early constructs as decomposed are challenged, and arguments are put forward rather suggesting that there is indeed an earlier stage during which such putative constructs actually get processed as un-decomposed lexicalized chunks. The paper utilizes recent theoretical advances as developed within the Dual Mechanism Model framework of morphological processing as a means to uncover what might have been previously overlooked regarding the initial sequences supposed in the Roger Brown study. Keywords: Morpho-syntactic processing; stem+affix separation; Dual Mechanism Model

View PDFchevron_right
On the status of functional categories (heads and phrases)
Guglielmo Cinque

Language and Linguistics 18:4, 521–576. , 2017

In this article I would like to revisit one aspect of the structure of the functional sequence of the clause in light of certain recent developments, in particular Kayne's (2016) proposal that all heads are necessarily silent. I will also discuss the possibility that (certain) silent heads may be endowed with single features that denote complex notions taking progressive aspect as a case in point.

View PDFchevron_right
Deixis, Reference, and the Functional Definition of Lexical Categories
Ana Ibanez Moreno

2004

This article provides a definition of lexical categories, that is, Noun, Adjective, Verb, Adposition, and Adverb, which complies with the descriptive (morphological) and explanatory (semantic) requisites for the establishment of the domains of the layered structure of the clause in functional theories of language, more specifically, in Functional Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar. In this sense, it is observed that the semantic properties of reference, attribution, and predication provide a definition of the categories Noun, Adjective, and Verb; the notions of prototipicality and semantic-syntactic domain are needed for the definition of adpositions; finally, for the Adverb a semantic analysis has to be made in terms of its pseudo-deictic and quasi-referential properties.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
  • Syntax

    • Cited by

    Lexically-mediated syntactic priming effects in comprehension: Sources of facilitation
    Kristen Tooley

    Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

    The nature of the facilitation occurring when sentences share a verb and syntactic structure (i.e., lexically-mediated syntactic priming) has not been adequately addressed in comprehension. In four eye-tracking experiments, we investigated the degree to which lexical, syntactic, thematic, and verb form repetition contribute to facilitated target sentence processing. Lexically-mediated syntactic priming was observed when primes and targets shared a verb and abstract syntactic structure, regardless of the ambiguity of the prime. In addition, repeated thematic role assignment resulted in syntactic priming (to a lesser degree), and verb form repetition facilitated lexical rather than structural processing. We conclude that priming in comprehension involves lexically associated abstract syntactic representations, and facilitation of verb and thematic role processes. The results also indicate that syntactic computation errors during prime processing are not necessary for lexically-mediate...

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