Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Ivan Sag

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Thus the category includes both subcategorization information as well as the head features of the constituent in question (e.g. part of speech, case of nouns, inflected form of verbs, etc.) It is crucially important that both category and content information can be subcategorized for. In light of these considerations, the structure of the tree given in (71) is actually represented more precisely in the form (73), although we will continue to employ simplified tree diagrams for expository purposes. Here the lexical head chased is lexically specified as in (74), where “NP:x” abbreviates the structure shown in (75). '9Thus the content of a phrase can be viewed as a rough analog of GB’s LF.

Figure 1 Thus the category includes both subcategorization information as well as the head features of the constituent in question (e.g. part of speech, case of nouns, inflected form of verbs, etc.) It is crucially important that both category and content information can be subcategorized for. In light of these considerations, the structure of the tree given in (71) is actually represented more precisely in the form (73), although we will continue to employ simplified tree diagrams for expository purposes. Here the lexical head chased is lexically specified as in (74), where “NP:x” abbreviates the structure shown in (75). '9Thus the content of a phrase can be viewed as a rough analog of GB’s LF.

Related Figures (7)

As with other verbs (and other predicative categories), the content specification is a predicate-argument structure, similar to a logical formula except that argument po- sitions are indicated by labelling their (theta-)roles rather than positionally; universal grammatical principles (the Semantics Principle and the Head Feature Principle — Pol- lard and Sag (forthcoming)) ensure identity of content and head specifications between a lexical head and its phrasal projections.2? Role assignment is effected by requiring that the contents of the subcategorized NP’s (or other complements) be identical to (structure-shared with) the fillers of the corresponding roles in the content of the verb. The contents of the NP’s themselves, called parameters, are analogous to logical vari- ables, and are indicated here by lower-case letters from the end of the alphabet.?! Unlike logical variables, however, parameters have further internal structure, as we shall discuss dirantlye Aalaur
As with other verbs (and other predicative categories), the content specification is a predicate-argument structure, similar to a logical formula except that argument po- sitions are indicated by labelling their (theta-)roles rather than positionally; universal grammatical principles (the Semantics Principle and the Head Feature Principle — Pol- lard and Sag (forthcoming)) ensure identity of content and head specifications between a lexical head and its phrasal projections.2? Role assignment is effected by requiring that the contents of the subcategorized NP’s (or other complements) be identical to (structure-shared with) the fillers of the corresponding roles in the content of the verb. The contents of the NP’s themselves, called parameters, are analogous to logical vari- ables, and are indicated here by lower-case letters from the end of the alphabet.?! Unlike logical variables, however, parameters have further internal structure, as we shall discuss dirantlye Aalaur
Let us now summarize the ideas just presented. An NP has a parameter as its content. The lexical head of a phrase (the verb in a simple sentence) identifies the parameters of its complements with argument positions in its own content. The Semantics Principle ensures that (in the absence of adjuncts) the verb’s content is identified with that of the sentence it heads. Hence, the content of the sentence Fido chased himself is as indicated in (80). By way of illustration, the parameters of representative NP’s are given in (78):
Let us now summarize the ideas just presented. An NP has a parameter as its content. The lexical head of a phrase (the verb in a simple sentence) identifies the parameters of its complements with argument positions in its own content. The Semantics Principle ensures that (in the absence of adjuncts) the verb’s content is identified with that of the sentence it heads. Hence, the content of the sentence Fido chased himself is as indicated in (80). By way of illustration, the parameters of representative NP’s are given in (78):
Here we see that the lexical entry for to (and other nonpredicative prepositions) identifies the preposition’s content with that of the preposition’s object. This content (here a nonpronominal parameter) is in turn identified with the PP’s content, in virtue of the Semantics Principle. For this reason, PP’s headed by nonpredicative prepositions have as their content the very parameter that is introduced by the preposition’s object. It follows from this analysis that the SUBCAT list of a sentence like Kim talks to himself is as shown in (84)a and that of Sandy talked to Kim about himself is as shown e., £ Bia VK On our account, a more detailed representation of (82) is as shown in (83):
Here we see that the lexical entry for to (and other nonpredicative prepositions) identifies the preposition’s content with that of the preposition’s object. This content (here a nonpronominal parameter) is in turn identified with the PP’s content, in virtue of the Semantics Principle. For this reason, PP’s headed by nonpredicative prepositions have as their content the very parameter that is introduced by the preposition’s object. It follows from this analysis that the SUBCAT list of a sentence like Kim talks to himself is as shown in (84)a and that of Sandy talked to Kim about himself is as shown e., £ Bia VK On our account, a more detailed representation of (82) is as shown in (83):
Kuno’s examples thus involve SUBCAT lists of the sort illustrated in (108).
Kuno’s examples thus involve SUBCAT lists of the sort illustrated in (108).
This in turn has as a consequence that the SUBCAT list of the lower verb in (116) con- tains an anaphor (indicated by the tag “2’) with a local o-commander (Mary, indicated by the tag “@’). Principle A will therefore require that this anaphor trace be coindexed with the npro parameter of Mary. Since the parameter of the trace 7s the parameter of herself, it follows that Mary and herself must be coindexed in (116). In essence, what we have here is the effect of a reconstruction analysis. TT, « 1 a | » oo @ ®@ . i a a ron oale e., +1 FY | a | . fa-apes\
This in turn has as a consequence that the SUBCAT list of the lower verb in (116) con- tains an anaphor (indicated by the tag “2’) with a local o-commander (Mary, indicated by the tag “@’). Principle A will therefore require that this anaphor trace be coindexed with the npro parameter of Mary. Since the parameter of the trace 7s the parameter of herself, it follows that Mary and herself must be coindexed in (116). In essence, what we have here is the effect of a reconstruction analysis. TT, « 1 a | » oo @ ®@ . i a a ron oale e., +1 FY | a | . fa-apes\
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved