Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T03:43:33.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subject requirement and predication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

T. A. Åfarli  and
K. M. Eide
T. A. Åfarli
Affiliation:
INL, NTNU, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway. E-mail: tor.aafarli@hf.ntnu.no
K. M. Eide
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, NTNU, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway. E-mail: kristin.eide@hf.ntnu.no.
Get access

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that the subject requirement or Extended Projection Principle (EPP) is naturally derived from predication, not in the standard syntax-based manner of Rothstein (1983), Chomsky (1986) or Heycock (1991), but in a full-blooded semantic manner within the selective mentalist Grammar Semantics of Bouchard (1995). We propose that the EPP is the effect of a basic proposition-forming operation of natural language, which is induced by a predication operator (Bowers 1993). On our analysis, insertion of an expletive in the subject position or raising to the subject position are therefore ultimately analysed as semantically motivated processes, triggered by the operation of proposition formation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , June 2000 , pp. 27 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

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

Arnauld, A., & Nicole, P. 1996 [1662]. Logic or the Art of Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Åfarli, T. A. 1992. The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 1993. The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591–656.Google Scholar
Buroker, J. V. 1994. Judgement and Predication in the Port-Royal Logic. In Kremer, E. J. (ed.), The Great Arnauld and Some of His Philosophical Correspondents. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 3–27.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1985. Formal Semantics and the Grammar of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 417–443.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G., & Turner, R. 1988. Semantics and Property Theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 261–302.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In Chomsky, N. (ed.), The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995, 167–217.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 1998. Som-Predicatives: Exploring the Predication Operator. In Haukioja, T. (ed.), Papers from the 16th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Turku: Department of Finnish ando General Linguistics of the University of Turku, 64–74.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M., & Åfarli, T. A. 1999a. The Syntactic Disguises of the Predication Operator. Studia Linguistica 53, 155–181.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M., & Åfarli, T. A. 1999b. Semantically Charged Syntax and the Construction of Meaning. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Volume 6.1, 111–126.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1879. Begriffsschrift (Chapter I). In Geach, P. & Black, M. (eds), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege (3rd edition). Oxford: Blackwell, 1980.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. 1986. A Theory of Category Projection and Its Applications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Groat, E. 1995. English Expletives: A Minimalist Approach. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 354–365.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. 1991. Layers of Predication: The Non-Lexical Syntax of Clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. 1985. On Semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–593.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1993. Lectures on Minimalist Syntax. University of Connecticut Working Papers in Linguistics, Occasional Papers, Issue 1.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1995. Case and Expletives Revisited: On Greed and Other Human Failings. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 615–633.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1994. Reference and Proper Names. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609–665.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1995. The Minimalist Program. In Webelhuth, G. (ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, 349–382.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M., & Pullum, G. K. 1988. Expletive Noun Phrases in Subcategorised Positions. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 635–670.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. 1983. The Syntactic Forms of Predication. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1983. Subjects across Categories. The Linguistic Review 2, 285–312.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1974. Subject and Predicate in Logic and Grammar. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 1994. Dependent Nexus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar