By Norbert Hornstein, Maria Polinsky
Average languages supply many examples of “displacement,” i.e. structures within which a non-local expression is necessary for a few grammatical finish. primary examples contain phenomena resembling elevating and passive at the one hand, and keep watch over at the different. notwithstanding each one phenomenon is an instance of displacement, they've been theoretically distinct. move ideas have generated the previous and officially very various construal ideas, the latter. The move idea of regulate demanding situations this differentiation and argues that the operations that generate the 2 structures are an analogous, the diversities bobbing up from the positions wherein the displaced components are moved. within the context of the Minimalist application, lowering the category of uncomplicated operations is methodologically prized. This quantity is a set of unique papers that argue for this method of keep watch over on theoretical and empirical grounds besides. The papers additionally advance and constrain the flow concept to account for novel phenomena from various languages.
Read or Download Movement Theory of Control (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today) PDF
Similar grammar books
Phi-features, similar to individual, quantity, and gender, current an extraordinary chance for syntacticians, morphologists and semanticists to collaborate on a study firm within which all of them have an equivalent stake and which all of them procedure with info and insights from their very own fields. This quantity is the 1st to try to collect those assorted strands and varieties of examine.
This ebook analyzes compliments and praise responses in clearly happening talk-in-interaction in German. utilizing dialog Analytic method, it perspectives complimenting and responding to compliments as social activities that are co-produced and negotiated between interactants. This research is the 1st to research the total complimenting series in the better interactional context, thereby demonstrating the interconnectedness of series association, turn-design, and (varying) function(s) of a flip.
The Grammar of Q places forth a singular syntactic and semantic research of wh-questions, one who relies upon in-depth examine of the Tlingit language, an endangered and under-documented language of North the US. a massive end result of this new strategy is that the phenomenon classically dubbed "pied-piping" doesn't really exist.
"Language is essentially a device for verbal exchange, but many textbooks nonetheless deal with English grammar as easily a collection of principles and proof to be memorised by way of rote. This new textbook is made for college students who're annoyed with this technique and would prefer as a substitute to appreciate grammar and the way it really works. Why are there destiny tenses in English?
Additional resources for Movement Theory of Control (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)
If this is correct, the relevant question is not why there is no raising within DPs but rather what determines the syntactic shape of the non-finite complement in nominals? For example, why is it that gerunds are permitted with likely and certain but infinitival complements are not? One possible answer is the following. Assume that there really is an operation that converts a CP into a TP in raising predicates, as in (58) above, and that this is blocked inside nominals for some reason yet to be determined.
Assume that there really is an operation that converts a CP into a TP in raising predicates, as in (58) above, and that this is blocked inside nominals for some reason yet to be determined. Then we expect that base generated TPs should be able to support movement. Gerunds are TPs, not CPs. Thus, they should permit movement. If this Norbert Hornstein & Maria Polinsky is on the right track, then the absence of infinitival complements supporting raising is perhaps not too surprising. The problem now becomes why there are nominals like attempt and desire that allow infinitival control complements?
Gerunds are TPs, not CPs. Thus, they should permit movement. If this Norbert Hornstein & Maria Polinsky is on the right track, then the absence of infinitival complements supporting raising is perhaps not too surprising. The problem now becomes why there are nominals like attempt and desire that allow infinitival control complements? With this question in mind, it is interesting to note that the ability to take gerundive but not infinitival complements extends to control nominals. (64) a. b.