Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T00:57:46.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coordination and Antisymmetry Theory: Some Evidence from Germanic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

John R. te Velde
John R. te Velde
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State UniversityDepartment of Foreign Languages and Literatures309 GUStillwater, OK 74078–1054 [forljrv@osunx.ucc.okstate.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A major recent development in minimalist syntactic theory concerns phrase structure. Kayne (1994) claims that all phrases are binary, asymmetric, and left-headed. The implications of this restrictive theory for coordination as a syntactic phenomenon are quite broad. Most significantly, coordination can no longer be represented as the union of symmetrical conjuncts; rather, conjuncts are projections of the conjunction, a head, and stand in an asymmetric relation to each other.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Fall 1996 , pp. 135 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E. and Sportiche, D.. 1994.Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25.195–220.Google Scholar
Brandt, M., Reis, M., Rosengren, I., and Zimmermann, I.. 1992. Satz, Satztyp und Illokution. Satz und Illokution, ed. by Rosengren, Inger, 1–90. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 257.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1994. Mittelfeldreport V. In Haftka (ed.), 79–96.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Freidin (ed.), 417–54.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1992. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. (MIT occasional papers in linguistics, 1.) Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Dougherty, R. C. 1970. A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures I. Language 46.850–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, R. C. 1971. A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures II. Language 47.298–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidin, Robert (ed.). 1991. Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel structures in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günter. 1988. Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1993. Minimal projection heads and optimality. Technical report #4, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Grootveld, Marjan. 1992. On the representation of coordination. Linguistics in the Netherlands, ed. by Bok-Bennema, Reineke and van Hout, Roeland, 61–73. Dordrecht: ICG Publications.Google Scholar
Haftka, Brigitta. 1994. Wie positioniere ich meine Position? Überlegungen zu funktionalen Phrasen im deutschen Mittelfeld. In Haftka (ed.), 139–60.Google Scholar
Haftka, Brigitta (ed.). 1994. Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation? Studien zu einem Interaktionsfeld von Grammatik, Pragmatik und Sprachtypologie. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina. 1994. Zur Koordination von V-2 Sätzen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 13.3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline and Kroch, Anthony. 1993. Verb movement and coordination in the Germanic languages. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 36.75–102.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric. 1994. Expletive replacement, verb-second and coordination. Linguistic Review 11.285–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 1983. Subjektlücken in Koordinationen. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 1990. Assumptions about asymmetric coordination in German. Grammar in progress: GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, ed by Mascaró, J. and Nespor, M., 139–97. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kayne, Robert. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. (Linguistic Inquiry monograph 25.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lang, Ewald. 1984. The semantics of coordination. Translated by Pheby, John. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. K. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21.589–632.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1992. Coordination and comparatives. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Muadz, H. 1991. Coordinate structures: A planar representation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1992. A null operator analysis of ATB gaps. Linguistic Review 9.1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eirikur. 1983. We need (some kind of a) rule of conjunction reduction. Linguistic Inquiry 13.557–61.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, Bernhard. 1994. Notes on the antisymmetry of syntax. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 1.111–28.Google Scholar
Ross, John. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, Gazdar, Gerald, Wasow, Thomas and Weisler, Stephen. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3.117–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie D. and Vikner, Sten. 1996. The verb always leaves IP in V2 clauses. Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax, ed. by Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi, 11–62. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1994. Subjects, adjuncts, and SOV-order in antisymmetric syntax. GAGL 37.227–46.Google Scholar
te Velde, John R. 1988. Coordination and German syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
te Velde, John R. 1992. Subject-object and coordinate asymmetries and the syntactic structure of German. Recent developments in Germanic linguistics, ed. by Lippi-Green, Rosina, 127–40. (Current issues in linguistic theory 93.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
te Velde, John R. 1994. Feature checking and Germanic verb-second: Comparing Yiddish, German and English. GAGL 37.247–63.Google Scholar
te Velde, John R. 1995. Coordinate ellipsis in German: Old problems from a new (minimalist) perspective. Germanic linguistics II: Classic and contemporary, ed. by Carr, Gerald F. and Rauch, Irmengard, 275–96. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thiersch, Craig. 1994. On some formal properties of coordination. Current issues in mathematical linguistics, ed. by Martin-Vide, Carlos, 171–80. (North-Holland linguistic series 56.) Amsterdam and New York: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa 1991. Parameters of phrase structure and V2 phenomena. In Freidin (ed.), 339–64.Google Scholar
van Oirsouw, Robert. 1987. The syntax of coordination. Beckenham, Kent: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 1994. Coordination, ATB and ellipsis. GAGL 37.291–329.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Across-the-board application of rules. Linguistic Inquiry 8.419–23.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin 1978. Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9.31–43.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin 1981. Transformationless grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 12.645–54.Google Scholar
Jan-Wouter, Zwart C.. 1991. Subject deletion in Dutch: A difference between subject and topics. Language and Cognition 1: Yearbook 1991 of the Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation of the University of Groningen, ed. by Kas, Mark, Reuland, Eric, and Vet, Co, 333–50. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Jan-Wouter, Zwart C. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar