By Samuel David Epstein, Erich M. Groat, Ruriko Kawashima, Hisatsugu Kitahara

A primary proposal in all syntactic theories is that of a syntactic relation among syntactic items. whereas contemporary paintings within the Minimalist Framework has tried to give an explanation for the character of syntactic gadgets by way of easy and conceptually important assumptions in regards to the language college, the kinfolk that carry among syntactic items has no longer been equally explored. The authors begin such an exploration and argue that yes basic relatives resembling c-command, dominance, and checking relatives may be defined inside a derivational method of structure-building.This strategy has major effects about the structure of the syntactic part. Semantic and phonological interpretation needn't function upon the output phrase-structure illustration created through the syntactic derivation. Interpretation is extra with ease computed derivationally, via reading the stairs of a derivation, instead of the one output constitution created by way of it. the result's a brand new and arguable level-free version of the syntactic part of the human language school. This topical and well timed Minimalist research will curiosity specialist and theoretical linguists, syntacticians, and someone drawn to modern ways to syntactic concept.

Show description

Read or Download A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations PDF

Best grammar books

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations

The Derivation of Anaphoric kin resolves a conspicuous challenge for Minimalist conception, the it appears representational nature of the binding stipulations. Hicks adduces a huge number of facts opposed to the binding stipulations employing at LF and builds upon the insights of contemporary proposals through Hornstein, Kayne, and Reuland through lowering them to the center narrow-syntactic operations (specifically, Agree and Merge).

Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure

This booklet is the 1st entire presentation of practical Discourse Grammar, a brand new and demanding idea of language constitution. The authors set out its nature and origins and express the way it pertains to modern linguistic idea. They exhibit and try out its explanatory energy and descriptive application opposed to linguistic evidence from over one hundred fifty languages throughout quite a lot of linguistic households.

Mongolian Grammar Textbook

Meant for English clients all over the world, this booklet bargains specific clarification of contemporary written Mongolian. This ebook beneficial properties: ? grammar buildings which are effortless to appreciate ? concise spelling ideas of contemporary written Mongolian ? a large number of practices for college kids to paintings independently with solutions given ?

Additional resources for A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations

Sample text

T1 is a proper subterm of K1, and ii. T2 is a proper subterm of K2, and iii. there is no K3 such that K1 and K2 are both terms of K3. Informally, there are no relations between members of two trees that were unconnected at any point in the derivation. In the derivation of (24), assuming cyclicity, there was necessarily a derivational point at which Dthe was a member of Da/Spec and Dit was a member of Vb, but there did not yet exist a tree containing both the branching Da tree and the Vb tree. Therefore, it follows from the derivational construal of the First Law, perhaps the most fundamental law of syntax, that there is no relation between Dthe and Dit.

First consider the following example: (1) John wondered [which picture of Bill] he saw t In (1), he cannot take Bill as antecedent. Under the minimalist conception of linguistic levels, LF is the only level representing syntactic relations for the interpretive version of binding theory, under which the indexing and interpretive procedures are unified along with the binding conditions themselves (Chomsky 1993, Chomsky and Lasnik 1993). Consider the following three conditions (where D is the relevant local Domain):3 (2) A: If a is an anaphor, interpret it as coreferential with some Ccommanding phrase in D.

C. Why is branching relevant? d. Why doesn't A C-command the first branching node dominating A, but instead C-commands only categories dominated by the first branching node? e. Why must A not dominate B? f. Why must A not equal B? Thus we see that one of the most fundamental unifying relations is expressed as a purely stipulated representational definition. The hypothesis we will advance is that the properties of C-command just noted are not accidental but are intimately related. First, we believe it is fundamental, pervasive, and persistent because it is a natural syntactic relation.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.92 of 5 – based on 7 votes