Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- 1 Deriving Multiple “Object” Constructions
- 2 Verbal Complex Formation and Overt Subjects in Infinitivals in Spanish
- 3 Two Families of Questions
- 4 Context-Sensitive Aspects of Constituent Negation
- 5 Phasehood and Romance Adverbial Because-Clauses
- 6 No-Choice Parameters, Phi-Features, and the Structure of DP
- Part II Interfaces
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
6 - No-Choice Parameters, Phi-Features, and the Structure of DP
from Part I - The Computational Component
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2018
By
Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- 1 Deriving Multiple “Object” Constructions
- 2 Verbal Complex Formation and Overt Subjects in Infinitivals in Spanish
- 3 Two Families of Questions
- 4 Context-Sensitive Aspects of Constituent Negation
- 5 Phasehood and Romance Adverbial Because-Clauses
- 6 No-Choice Parameters, Phi-Features, and the Structure of DP
- Part II Interfaces
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
Summary
This paper builds on two strands of earlier work. The first is the notion of “no-choice parameter” as it has been developed in recent work by Biberauer, Holmberg, Roberts & Sheehan (2014) and Biberauer, Roberts & Sheehan (2014). The second is a general proposal concerning the nature of Agree, involving two principal ideas: (i) that Agree always involves incorporation in the sense of Roberts (2010a), and (ii) that many cases of variable binding arise through Agree. Next, the proposal for the structure of DPs put forward in Roberts (to appear) is introduced. These strands are brought together to give an account of the existence of φ-features in natural language as a kind of no-choice parameter.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences , pp. 114 - 136Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A.. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E.. 2001. ‘The Subject-in-Situ Generalization and the Role of Case in Driving Derivations.’ Linguistic Inquiry 32: 192–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. & Stavrou, M.. 2007. The Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazalgette, T. 2015. ‘Algorithmic Acquisition of Focus Parameters.’ PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N.. 2011. ‘The Biolinguistic Program: The Current State of its Evolution and Development.’ In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, ed. Sciullo, A. M. Di & Boeckx, C.. 19–41. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2015. ‘The Limits of Syntactic Variation: An Emergentist Generative Perspective.’ Invited talk given at the Workshop on Language Variation and Change and Cultural Evolution (Centre for Linguistics History and Diversity, York University, 13 February 2015).Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I.. 2010. ‘Subjects, Tense and Verb Movement.’ In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, ed. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 263–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I.. 2015. ‘The Clausal Hierarchy, Features and Parameters.’ In Beyond Functional Sequence: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 10, ed. Shlonsky, Ur. 295–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I.. 2017. ‘Parameter Setting.’ In The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, ed. Ledgeway, A. & Roberts, I.. 134–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A. & Roberts, I. G.. 2014. ‘A Syntactic Universal and Its Consequences.’ Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 169–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 2010. Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M.. 2014. ‘Complexity and Comparative Syntax: The View from Modern Syntactic Theory.’ In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, ed. Newmeyer, F. J. & Preston, L. B.. 103–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 2014. ‘No-choice Parameters and the Limits of Syntactic Variation.’ In Proceedings of WCCFL 31, ed. Santana-LaBarge, Robert E.. 46–55. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. & Gallego, A.. 2008. ‘Clitic-Climbing by Long-Distance Agree.’ Talk given at Meeting Clitics: Workshop on Explanatory Proposals of Clitics, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Brugè, L. 1994. ‘Alcune considerazioni sulla sintassi del dimostrativo in spagnolo.’ Ms., Universities of Padua and Venice.Google Scholar
Brugè, L. 1996. ‘Demonstrative Movement in Spanish: A Comparative Approach.’ University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 1–53.Google Scholar
Brugè, L. 2002. ‘The Positions of Demonstratives in the Extended Nominal Projections.’ In Functional Structure in DP and IP, ed. Cinque, G.. 15–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugè, L. & Giusti, G.. 1996. ‘On Demonstratives.’ Paper presented at the 19th GLOW Colloquium, Athens. GLOW Newsletter 36: 24–5.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M.. 1999. ‘The Typology of Structural Deficiency: A Case Study of the Three Classes of Pronouns.’ In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, ed. van Riemsdijk, H.. 145–235. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1995. ‘Variability of Impersonal Subjects’. In Quantification in Natural Languages, ed. Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A. & Partee, B. H.. 107–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1998. ‘Reference to Kinds across Languages.’ Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. ‘Derivation by Phase.’ In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael. 28–53. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. ‘Three Factors in Language Design.’ Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008. ‘On Phases.’ In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos & Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 133–66. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2005. ‘Deriving Greenberg's Universal 20 and Its Exceptions.’ Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 315–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corver, N. & van Koppen, M.. 2010. ‘(Dis)harmonic Variation, the Definite Article and NPE in the Dutch Dialects’. Paper presented at the Workshop on Disharmony in Nominals, Linguistics Association of Great Britain Annual Meeting, Leeds University, September 2010.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M. 2009. ‘On the Nature and Distribution of Successive Cyclicity.’ Talk given at the 40th Conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS), MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 2008. ‘The Order of Demonstrative, Numeral, Adjective and Noun: An Alternative to Cinque.’ Talk given at Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Orders, Newcastle University, May.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. 1978. ‘The Verbal Complex V’-V in French.’ Linguistic Inquiry 9: 151–75.Google Scholar
Fox, D. 2002. ‘Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement.’ Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, C., Guardiano, C. & Longobardi, G.. 2008. ‘Three Fundamental Issues in Parametric Linguistics.’ In The Limits of Syntactic Variation, ed. Biberauer, T.. 109–42. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. ‘The Categorial Status of Determiners.’ In The New Comparative Syntax, ed. Haegeman, L.. 95–124. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2001. ‘The Birth of a Functional Category: From Latin ille to the Romance Article and Personal Pronoun.’ In Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, ed. Cinque, Guglielmo & Salvi, Giampaolo. 157–71. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2002. ‘The Functional Structure of Noun Phrases: A Bare Phrase Structure Approach.’ In Functional Structure in DP and IP, ed. Cinque, G.. 54–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, K. & Panagiotidis, P.. 2005. ‘An Anti-locality Approach to Greek Demonstratives.’ In Contributions to the 30th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, ed. Brugè, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W. & Turano, G.. 243–63. Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C. 2010. ‘Demonstratives and the Structure of the DP: Crosslinguistic Remarks’. Paper presented at the Workshop on Disharmony in Nominals, Linguistics Association of Great Britain Annual Meeting, Leeds University, September 2010.Google Scholar
Höhn, G. 2017. ‘Non-Possessive Person in the Nominal Domain’. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2010. ‘Null Subject Parameters.’ In Parametric Variation: The Null Subject Parameter, ed. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 88–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2013. ‘Why There Are No Directionality Parameters.’ In Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Order, ed. Biberauer, T. and Sheehan, M.. 219–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D.. 1982. ‘Variables and the Bijection Principle.’ The Linguistic Review 2: 139–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohndal, J.-T. & Uriagereka, J.. 2017. Third-Factor Explanations and Universal Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, ed. Roberts, I.. 114–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1994. ‘Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form.’ Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–65.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1996. The Syntax of N-Raising: A Minimalist Theory. Utrecht: OTS Working Papers.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2008. ‘Reference to Individuals, Person, and the Variety of Mapping Parameters.’ In Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management, ed. Müller, H. Høeg & Klinge, A.. 189–211. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2010. Lecture series on DP-structure. University of Cambridge, November 2010.Google Scholar
Manzini, M.-R. 2012. Review of I. Roberts, Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation and Defective Goals. Language 88: 212–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1996. ‘On the Scope of Verb-Movement in Irish.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 47–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panagiotidis, P. 2000. ‘Demonstrative Determiners and Operators: The Case of Greek.’ Lingua 110: 717–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. ‘Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP.’ Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Richards, M. 2008. ‘Defective Agree, Case Alternations, and the Prominence of Person.’ In Scales, ed. Richards, M. & Malchukov, A. L.. 137–61. Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2005. Principles and Parameters in a VSO Language: A Case Study in Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010a. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010b. ‘A Deletion Analysis of Null Subjects.’ In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, ed. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 58–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2012a. ‘Macroparameters and Minimalism: A Programme for Comparative Research.’ In Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change, ed. Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sândalo, F. & Avelar, J.. 320–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2012b. ‘Phases, Head-Movement and Second-Position Effects.’ In Phases: Developing the Framework, ed. Gallego, Angel. 385–440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2017. ‘The Final-Over-Final Condition in DP: Universal 20 and the Nature of Demonstratives.’ In The Final-over-Final Condition: A Syntactic Universal, ed. Sheehan, M., Biberauer, T., Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A.. 151–86. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. & Roussou, A.. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, N. 2003. ‘Demonstrative Position in Michif.’ Canadian Journal of Linguistics 48: 39–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. & Whitehead, A. N.. 1910–13. Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. 1997. ‘The Emergence of the D-system in Romance.’ In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, ed. van Kemenade, A. & Vincent, N.. 149–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, A. 1992. Wh-in-Situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1981. ‘Argument Structure and Morphology.’ The Linguistic Review 1: 81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar