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
3 - Two Families of Questions
from Part I - The Computational Component
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2018
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
It has long been known that clauses without overt subjects (especially infinitival clauses) do not act like full clauses with respect to a wide variety of phenomena, such as WH-island exemption (observed by Ross (1967)). Postal (1974) introduced the notion ‘quasi-clause’ for some such cases and later Rizzi (1982) developed a comprehensive theory of ‘restructuring’. There is now a large literature on this topic. Only sporadically mentioned are situations where a bound pronominal subject makes a complement clause similarly permeable. A hint of this can be found in Sloan (1991) for ‘family of question’ readings and Kayne (1998) for quantifier interactions. I examine these phenomena and suggest an explanation in terms of phase theory..
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences , pp. 58 - 76Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Agüero-Bautista, Calixto. 2007. Diagnosing cyclicity in sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 413–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1970. On complementizers: Towards a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6: 297–321.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1993. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 1: 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1955. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. and MIT, Cambridge, Mass. [Revised 1956 version published in part by Plenum, New York, 1975. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In Goals of linguistic theory, ed. Peters, Paul Stanley, 63–130. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Felser, Claudia. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114: 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki and Speas, Margaret. 1986. Specifiers and projection. In MIT working papers in linguistics 8, 128–172.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas and Lasnik, Howard. In press. How to neutralize a finite clause boundary: Phase theory and the grammar of bound pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry. 49, 3.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1983. Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 223–249. [Reprinted in Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.]Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 187–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard and May, Robert. 1990. Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: Reply to Baltin. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 103–122.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235–289. [Reprinted in Lasnik, Howard, Essays on restrictiveness and learnability, 198–255. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990.]Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Uriagereka, Juan (with Cedric Boeckx). 2005. A course in minimalist syntax: Foundations and prospects. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1988. Ambiguities of quantification and wh: A reply to Williams. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 118–135.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1978. A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. Jay Keyser, Samuel, 113–158. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1980. Violations of the wh-island constraint and the Subjacency condition. Journal of Italian Linguistics 5: 157–195.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. [Published as Infinite syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986.]Google Scholar
Sloan, Kelly. 1991. Quantifier-wh interaction. In MIT Working Paper in Linguistics 15, 219–237.Google Scholar
Sloan, Kelly and Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. What does “everyone” have scope over? Paper presented at the Generative Linguists in the Old World (GLOW) Conference. Budapest.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1981. Bounding nodes in French. The Linguistic Review 1: 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. On government. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1986. A reassignment of the functions of LF. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 265–299.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1988. Is LF distinct from S-structure? A reply to May. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 135–146.Google Scholar