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
5 - Phasehood and Romance Adverbial Because-Clauses
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
A Mood distinction that disambiguates the two readings of because-clauses under negation in Romance (indicative/subjunctive) serves as grounds to defend the claim that because-clauses in the scope of negation cannot be considered adjuncts. In Romance languages like French or Spanish, because-clauses in the scope of negation are in the subjunctive. Evidence from Negative Polarity Items and from other sources suggests that the CP of causal adverbial clauses in the subjunctive is not a (strong) phase. Causal adverbial clauses should be considered dependent clauses, in accordance with Larson´s (1988, 2004) theory of rightward adverbs.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences , pp. 99 - 113Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Alexiadou, Artemis. 1994. “Issues in the syntax of adverbs,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Borgonovo, Claudia. 2001. “Mood and focus,” in Quer, Josep, Schoten, Jan, Scorreti, Mauro, Sleeman, Petra, and Verheugd, Els (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2001: Selected Papers from Going Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–30.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa and Downing, Laura. 2012. “Prosodic domains do not match spell out domains,” McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 22 (Winter): 1–14.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework,” in Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by phase,” in Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. “Beyond explanatory adequacy,” in Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On phases,” in Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos, and Zubizarreta, María-Luisa (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. “Causal relations,” Journal of Philosophy 64: 691–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovi-Sorin, Carmen. 2001. “Head-to-head Merge in Balkan subjunctives and locality,” in Rivero, María-Luisa and Ralli, Angela (eds.), Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 44–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure Preserving and Local Transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander and Horvath, Julia. 1984. “The GB theory and raising in Rumanian,” Linguistic Inquiry 15: 348–353.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2004. “The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalization,” in Coene, Martine, de Cuyper, Greet, and D'Hulst, Yves (eds.), Current Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics. Antwerp: University of Antwerp, 61–90.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia and Avesani, Cinzi. 1997. “The role of prosody in disambiguating potentially ambiguous utterances in English and Italian,” in Botinis, Antonis, Kouroupetroglou, G., and Carayiannis, G. (eds.), Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications. Athens: ESCA/University of Athens, 189–192.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, Paula. 2000. “Prosodic disambiguation in English and Italian,” in Botinis, Anonis (ed.), Intonation. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 87–96.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan and Thompson, Sandra. 1973. “On the applicability of root transformations,” Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465–497.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2007. “Separating ‘focus movement’ from focus,” in Karimi, Simin, Samian, Vida, and Wilkins, Wendy (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 108–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. “Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out,” Linguistic Review 34: 137–167.Google Scholar
Johnston, Michael. 1993. “Because-clauses and negative polarity licensing,” in Kathol, Andres (ed.), Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 93. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 163–174.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1981. “On certain differences between French and English,” Linguistic Inquiry 12: 349–371.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, Paula. 1986. “Romance subjunctive clauses,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, Paula. 2009. “What can the subjunctive disjoint reference effect tell us about the subjunctive?” Lingua 119: 1788–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika and Selkirk, Elizabeth. 2007. “Phase theory and prosodic spellout: the case of verbs,” The Linguistic Review 24(2–3): 93–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the double object construction,” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard 2004. “Sentence-final adverbs and ‘scope’,” in Wolf, M. and Moulton, K. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 34. UMASS: GLSA, 23–43.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1975. “On the semantics of negation,” in Hockney, D., Harper, W., and Freed, B. (eds.), Contemporary Research and Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics, The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4. Dordrecht: Springer, 279–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padilla, José A. 1990. On the Definition of Binding Domains in Spanish. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther. 2004. “Tense, case and the nature of syntactic categories,” in Guéron, Jacqueline and Lacarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 495–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard 2007. “The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features,” in Karimi, Simin, Samian, Vida, and Wilkins, Wendy (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 262–294.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2006. “Phonological phrasing in Spanish,” in Colina, Sonia and Martinez Gil, Fernández (eds.), Optimality Theoretical Advantages in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–60.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. Negative and Positive Polarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quer, Josep 2005. “Subjunctives,” in Evaraert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Hen (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 660–684.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1956. “Quantifiers and propositional attitudes,” The Journal of Philosophy 53(5): 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa and Geber, Dana. 2003. “Quirky subjects and person restrictions in Romance: Romanian and Spanish,” Cahiers Linguistiques D'Ottawa 31: 53–66.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery,” in Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussou, Anna. 2001. “Control and raising,” in Rivero, María-Luisa and Ralli, Angela (eds.), Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 74–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawada, Miyuki and Larson, Richard. 2003. “Presupposition and root transformations in adjunct clauses,” in Wolf, M. and Moulton, K. (eds.), NELS 34: Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. UMASS: GLSA, 517–528.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. “On derived domains in sentence phonology,” Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth 1995. “Sentence prosody: intonation, stress and phrasing,” in Goldsmith, John (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge: Blackwell, 550–569.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth 2005. “Comments on intonational phrasing in English,” in Frota, Sónia, Vigário, Marina, and Freitas, M. João (eds.), Prosodies: With Special Reference to Iberian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 11–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Laura. 2009. “Mood selection in Romance and Balkan,” Lingua 119: 1859–1882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1984. “On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects,” Linguistic Inquiry 15: 103–130.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther and Uriagereka, Juan. 1992. “Indicative dependents,” ms., University of Massachusetts and University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. “On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases,” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 219–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan and Gallego, Angel. 2007. “Subjunctive dependents,” XVII Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Girona, June 13–15, 2007.Google Scholar
Uribe-Extebarria, María. 1994. “Interface licensing conditions on negative polarity items,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by