The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

233 References Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Ackema, P. 1995. Syntax Below Zero. UiL-OTS Dissertation Series, Utrecht University. Armon-Lotem, S. 2000. “Language Attrition: Why are Resumptive Pronouns so Susceptible?”, BUCLD 24 Proceedings, ed. S. Catherine Howell et al., Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 58-67. Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baker, M. 1997. “Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure”. Elements of Grammar. Handbook of Generative Syntax, L. Haegeman (ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Baker, M. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press. Bartos, H. “Verbal Complexes and Morphosyntactic Merger”, to appear in Verb Clusters in West Germanic and Hungarian – A Sprachbund?, K. É. Kiss & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bayer, J., M. Bader and M. Meng, 2001. “Morphological Underspecification Meets Oblique Case: Syntactic and Processing Effects in German”, Lingua 111, 465- 514. Beit-Arie, O. 1994. Anaphora within Locative Prepositional Phrases. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University. Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi, 1988. “Psych-Verbs and Theta Theory”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.3, 291-352. Belletti, A. and U. Shlonsky, 1995. “Order of Verbal Complements: A Comparative Study”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 489-526. Ben-David, A. 1971. Lashon hamikra velashon chachamim. Dvir, Tel Aviv. Berman, R. 1978. Modern Hebrew Structure. University Publishing Projects, Tel Aviv. Berman, R. 1981. “On the Role of Prepositions in Modern Hebrew Syntax”, Hebrew Teaching and Applied Linguistics, M. Nahir (ed.), University Press of America. Berman, R. 1982. “On the Nature of ‘Oblique’ Objects in Bitransitive Constructions”, Lingua 56, 101-125. Bierwisch, M. 1988. “On the Grammar of Local Prepositions”, Syntax, Semantik und Lexicon, M. Bierwisch, W. Motsch and I. Zimmermann (eds.), Berlin: Akademie- Verlag, 1-66. Borer, H. 1999. “Deconstructing the Construct”, Beyond Principles and Parameters: Essays in memory of Oswaldo Jaeggli, K. Johnson and I. Roberts (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Borer, H. 2003. “The Grammar Machine”, The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Studies on the syntax-lexicon interface, A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, and M. Everaert (eds.), Oxford University Press. Borer, H. and Y. Grodzinsky. 1986. “Syntactic vs. Lexical Cliticization: The Case of Hebrew Dative Clitics”, The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, H. Borer (ed.), New York: Academic Press, 175-217.
234 Boškovič, Ž. 1994. “D-Structure, Theta-Criterion and Movement into Theta- Positions”, Linguistic Analysis 24, 247-286. Browning, M. A. 1987. Null Operator Constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Carlson, G. 1984. “On the Role of Thematic Roles in Linguistic Theory”, Linguistics 22, 259-279. Chierchia, G. 1989. “Structured Meanings, Thematic Roles and Control”, Properties, Types and Meaning II, G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee, and R. Turner (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 131-166. Chierchia, G. 1995. “The Variability of Impersonal Subjects”, Quantification in Natural Language, E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer and B. H. Partee (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization”, Readings in English Transformational Grammar, R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Waltham, MA: Ginn, 184-221. Chomsky, N. 1973. “Conditions on Transformations”, A Festschrift for Morris Halle, S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 232-286. Chomsky, N. 1977. “On Wh-movement”, Formal Syntax, P. Cullicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian (eds.), Academic Press, NY, 71-132. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht. Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1986a. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. Praeger, NY. Chomsky, N. 1986b. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory”, The View from Building 20, K. Hale, and S. J. Keyser (eds.), Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1995. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory”, The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 167-218. Chomsky, N. 1995. “Bare Phrase Structure”, Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, Webelhuth, G. (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, 383-439. Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework”, Step-by-step, R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by Phase”, Ken Hale: A life in language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy”, ms., MIT. Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik, 1993. “Principles and Parameters Theory”, An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds.), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 506-569. Cinque, G. 1988. “On si Constructions and the Theory of arb”, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 521-581. Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A’ Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Danon, G. 1996. The Syntax of Determiners in Hebrew. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University.
Page 1 and 2:
Tel-Aviv University The Lester & Sa
Page 3 and 4:
Acknowledgements It has been a long
Page 5 and 6:
Abstract 1. Introduction (chapter 1
Page 7 and 8:
c. *Dan i talked about him i d. *Da
Page 9 and 10:
(9) The main hypothesis P is unifor
Page 11 and 12:
In the Theta System theta-roles are
Page 13 and 14:
The (semantically limited) distribu
Page 15 and 16:
of the main verb, along lines propo
Page 17 and 18:
3.2.2 The theta-features (Reinhart
Page 19 and 20:
5.4.2.1 The status and function of
Page 21 and 22:
2 1.1 Previous approaches to P 1.1.
Page 23 and 24:
4 (5) a. dan higi’a axarey ha-mes
Page 25 and 26:
6 b. misaviv *(le)-ec Hebrew around
Page 27 and 28:
8 These approaches do depart from t
Page 29 and 30:
10 heads such as N, V, A do not. 10
Page 31 and 32:
12 To summarize, as it stands, Grim
Page 33 and 34:
14 by the corresponding lexical hea
Page 35 and 36:
16 In the Object Purpose Clause con
Page 37 and 38:
18 2. The theory of P The main goal
Page 39 and 40:
20 yes/no questions).This is comple
Page 41 and 42:
22 (2) Criterion Functional categor
Page 43 and 44:
24 In various languages some Ps are
Page 45 and 46:
26 sharp contrast to the core lexic
Page 47 and 48:
28 lexical, of course) (see the dis
Page 49 and 50:
30 (iv) Froud 2001 is a psycholingu
Page 51 and 52:
32 perspective, I will assume that
Page 53 and 54:
34 Dutch provides an additional arg
Page 55 and 56:
36 the study). Thus, taking the not
Page 57 and 58:
38 On my proposal (section 2.2.1) m
Page 59 and 60:
40 In this respect, let me note a p
Page 61 and 62:
42 The phenomenon of PP-verbs, alth
Page 63 and 64:
44 inability to agree with its DP-o
Page 65 and 66:
46 The question which arises at thi
Page 67 and 68:
48 (13) Internal argument-taking hi
Page 69 and 70:
50 Grimshaw 1990; Baker 1988, 1997;
Page 71 and 72:
52 suitable for the problem at hand
Page 73 and 74:
54 3.2.3 The mapping generalization
Page 75 and 76:
56 (iii) Assignment of [Acc] depend
Page 77 and 78:
58 (25) a. on našol konfet-u v kar
Page 79 and 80:
60 theory of P developed in chapter
Page 81 and 82:
62 (37) a. What did he eat in the m
Page 83 and 84:
64 Thus, whatever the exact restric
Page 85 and 86:
(46). 28 Summarizing the above, P C
Page 87 and 88:
68 As for the alleged arbitrariness
Page 89 and 90:
70 3.4 The [-m]/[-c] distinction Th
Page 91 and 92:
72 viewed as necessary conditions f
Page 93 and 94:
74 (59) [-c] PP-verbs Physical cont
Page 95 and 96:
76 interpreted only as undergoing a
Page 97 and 98:
78 b. dan [he’if mabat] be-rina D
Page 99 and 100:
80 a [+animate] DP. Consequently, h
Page 101 and 102:
82 The meaning of (78a) is somethin
Page 103 and 104:
84 (85) a. he’emanti be-bart [I]
Page 105 and 106:
86 asserted ‘belief’. In other
Page 107 and 108:
88 3.5 PP-verbs cross-linguisticall
Page 109 and 110:
90 But the non-identical realizatio
Page 111 and 112:
92 P device involves the syntactic
Page 113 and 114:
94 Note that the options in (103) d
Page 115 and 116:
96 adjacency requirement between th
Page 117 and 118:
98 would be [-c] PP-verbs in Englis
Page 119 and 120:
100 Appendix A: Residual issues The
Page 121 and 122:
102 (A.6) a. mabat-o nadad (motion)
Page 123 and 124:
104 Given its theta-grid, hikša is
Page 125 and 126:
106 Appendix B Table 1. 70 Hebrew P
Page 127 and 128:
108 Table 2. Some properties of the
Page 129 and 130:
110 67. serev (le-) [+c+m] [-c] - +
Page 131 and 132:
112 4. Locative, Directional and Da
Page 133 and 134:
114 is distinct from both the Dativ
Page 135 and 136:
116 Let me illustrate briefly the e
Page 137 and 138:
118 inability of the Dative PP to d
Page 139 and 140:
120 In principle, (16) can have eit
Page 141 and 142:
122 from natan, but from the embedd
Page 143 and 144:
124 Both (22a) and (22b) are possib
Page 145 and 146:
126 (ii) Binding In the Hebrew Dati
Page 147 and 148:
128 Let us assume that in (29a) the
Page 149 and 150:
130 4.3 The Directional P Zwarts an
Page 151 and 152:
132 (36) a. dan šalax praxim (le-r
Page 153 and 154:
134 The incompatibility of Dative p
Page 155 and 156:
136 (45) ha-tiyul le-hodu haya me
Page 157 and 158:
138 rather an (elided) NP modified
Page 159 and 160:
140 Consider now the English and Ru
Page 161 and 162:
142 the Accusative Case in (56) is
Page 163 and 164:
144 Modification by possessive dati
Page 165 and 166:
146 use (63c), me- (‘from’) def
Page 167 and 168:
148 combination with a path denotin
Page 169 and 170:
150 4.4.1 Evidence for the Small Cl
Page 171 and 172:
152 4.4.2 Projections of a Locative
Page 173 and 174:
154 (81) a. on pologayets y a na Sa
Page 175 and 176:
156 4.4.3 Modification by Locative
Page 177 and 178:
158 c. *ha-sefer še-/ašer al ahav
Page 179 and 180:
V. 48 The remaining alternatives, (
Page 181 and 182:
162 b. ha-ec (še-) ba-ya’ar kara
Page 183 and 184:
164 (99) a. ha-sefer (??/*hu) al ha
Page 185 and 186:
166 Appendix: On some differences b
Page 187 and 188:
168 (A.2) VP Agent V’ V VP Goal i
Page 189 and 190:
170 Consequently, they are predicte
Page 191 and 192:
172 5. P pred in object gap constru
Page 193 and 194:
174 . Extending the proposal to Eng
Page 195 and 196:
176 . Based on previous work, defin
Page 197 and 198:
178 . specifier of an NP is the pos
Page 199 and 200:
180 . possibility that in principle
Page 201 and 202: 182 (19) a. the destruction of the
Page 203 and 204: 184 . 5.2.5 Adverbial modification
Page 205 and 206: 186 b. ha-yeled kal havana the-boy
Page 207 and 208: 188 . Before I discuss the lexical
Page 209 and 210: 190 . Passivization is taken to inv
Page 211 and 212: 192 . already ΘSat ARB (see (37)).
Page 213 and 214: 194 . The strongest empirical suppo
Page 215 and 216: 196 . (i) Aspectual have: Jones (19
Page 217 and 218: 198 . (iv) Adverbial placement: Fin
Page 219 and 220: 200 . Experiencer, and (ii) there i
Page 221 and 222: 202 . Consequently, the arguments o
Page 223 and 224: 204 . phonetically unrealized inter
Page 225 and 226: 206 . stranded. As already mentione
Page 227 and 228: 208 5.5 The role of the le NP/PP in
Page 229 and 230: 210 . be closed (or satisfied) synt
Page 231 and 232: 212 b. *There is hard to believe [t
Page 233 and 234: 214 . Following Higginbotham (1985)
Page 235 and 236: 216 (85) a. ma’axal nora ze (lo)
Page 237 and 238: 218 c. basar adom hu mazon (*ha-/*
Page 239 and 240: 220 . Thus, it seems to be the case
Page 241 and 242: 222 b. ha-oto i huva t i li-vdika [
Page 243 and 244: 224 (105) a. dan [ VP [ V hevi] [ D
Page 245 and 246: 226 . (111) dan [ VP hevi et ha-oto
Page 247 and 248: 228 . In contrast, the adjectives i
Page 249 and 250: 230 . The ECM/Raising SCs differ su
Page 251: 232 . ‘found’) does not license
Page 255 and 256: 236 Froud, K. 2001. “Prepositions
Page 257 and 258: 238 Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist Ana
Page 259 and 260: 240 Riemsdijk van, H. C. 1990. “F
Page 261: 242 Williams, E. 1987. “Implicit
show all

The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?