Добірка наукової літератури з теми "History of linguistics, syntax, Generative Grammar"

Structuralism sought to introduce various kinds of autonomy into the study of language, including the autonomy of that study itself. The basis for this was the insistence on categorial autonomy, whereby categories are identified language-internally (whether in a particular language or in language generally). In relation to phonology, categorial autonomy has generally been tempered by grounding: the categories correlate (at least prototypically) with substance, phonetic properties. This is manifested in the idea of ‘natural classes’ in generative phonology, for instance. Usually, however, and particularly since Bloomfield, no such grounding (in meaning) has been attributed to syntax. This attitude culminates in the principle of the autonomy of syntax which was put forward in transformational-generative grammar. Such an attitude can be contrasted not merely with most pre-structural linguistics but also, in its severity, with other developments in structuralism. In present-day terms, the groundedness of syntax assumes that only the behaviour of semantically typical members of a category determines its basic syntax, and this syntax reflects the semantic properties; groundedness filters out potential syntactic analyses that are incompatible with this.

Summary Structuralism sought to introduce various kinds of autonomy into the study of language, including the autonomy of that study itself. The basis for this was the insistence on categorial autonomy, whereby categories are identified language-internally (whether in a particular language or in language generally). In relation to phonology, categorial autonomy has generally been tempered by grounding: the categories correlate (at least prototypically) with substance, phonetic properties. This is manifested in the idea of ‘natural classes’ in generative phonology, for instance. Usually, however, and particularly since Bloomfield, no such grounding (in meaning) has been attributed to syntax. This attitude culminates in the principle of the autonomy of syntax which was put forward in transformational-generative grammar. Such an attitude can be contrasted not merely with most pre-structural linguistics but also, in its severity, with other developments in structuralism. In present-day terms, the groundedness of syntax assumes that only the behaviour of semantically typical members of a category determines its basic syntax, and this syntax reflects the semantic properties; groundedness filters out potential syntactic analyses that are incompatible with this.

Summary The past 30 years have seen marked shifts in the generative grammarians’ view of the nature of linguistic competence. The rule-oriented period of early Transformational Grammar, which was ushered in by the publication of Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures in 1957, gave way a decade later to the principle-oriented period of Generative Semantics. By the mid-1970s, the rule-oriented Lexicalist framework had replaced Generative Semantics. Since around 1981, the principle-oriented Principles & Parameters approach is the one to which a majority of generative syntacticians hold allegiance. Each shift in the generativists’ view of the nature of competence has been accompanied by a revised view of how concepts derived from generative syntax might be applied to second language teaching. Since 1957, three different strategies for applying the theory have been propounded: the ‘mechanical’, the ‘terminological’, and the ‘implicational’, each of which has been instantiated during each period in the development of generative syntax. The paper closes with some speculative remarks about the feasibility of applying generativist theory to second language teaching.

Like those birds born to chirp, humans are born to parse; children are predisposed to assign linguistic structures to the amorphous externalization of the thoughts that we encounter. This yields a view of variable properties quite different from one based on parameters defined at Universal Grammar (UG). Our approach to language acquisition makes two contributions to Minimalist thinking. First, in accordance with general Minimalist goals, we minimize the pre-wired components of internal languages, dispensing with three separate, central entities: parameters, an evaluation metric for rating the generative capacity of grammars, and any independent parsing mechanism. Instead, children use their internal grammar to parse the ambient external language they experience. UG is “open,” consistent with what children learn through parsing. Second, our understanding of language acquisition yields a new view of variable properties, properties that occur only in certain languages. Under this open UG vision, specific elements of I-languages arise in response to new parses. Both external and internal languages play crucial, interacting roles: unstructured, amorphous external language is parsed and a structured internal language system results. My Born to parse (Lightfoot 2020) explores case studies that show innovative parses of external language shaping the history of languages. I discuss 1) how children learn through parsing, 2) the role of parsing at the two interfaces between syntactic structure and the externalization system (sound or sign) and logical form, 3) language change, and 4) variable linguistic properties seen through the lens of an open UG. This, in turn, yields a view of variable properties akin to that of evolutionary biologists working on Darwin’s finches; see section 7.

Summary This paper deals with the notions and terminology that figure in the syntactic works of Bloomfield, Fries, Hockett, Gleason, and early Chomsky. Notwithstanding Bloomfield’s commitment to constituent structure and his profound influence on syntactic research in the United States, constituency had a surprisingly peripheral role in such works as Fries (1952) “Immediate constituents” (is the last of its syntactic chapters) and notions of dependency structure a much more central role. Many false generalizations by descriptivists (e.g., treatments of Therer-insertion as inversion) result from a failure to consider complex expressions as constituents of the various constructions. Notwithstanding descriptivists’ denunciations and generativists’ endorsements of traditional grammar, it is the descriptivists whose syntactic category notions came closer to those of traditional grammar. The unusual category scheme of Fries did not deviate all that much from traditional schemes, and its innovations were not applied consistently. 1960s generative syntax shared with Fries’s approach a conception of gender features and referential indices in English as borne by Ns rather than by NPs, and a failure to treat inter- and intra-saentential anaphora uniformly. Gleason (1965) is the most honorable exception to the dismal quality of this era’s literature on parts of speech.

This article is concerned with null referential subjects in Old Swedish (ca. 1225–1526), and addresses the problem of why the scope for such subjects has been reduced during the history of Swedish. Within diachronic syntax it has been a common assumption that syntactic change is caused by changes in morphology. However, this study shows that deflexion only to a limited extent can explain the loss of null referential subjects in Old Swedish, since the most striking change in their use seems to take place during Early Old Swedish (ca. 1225–1375) before the loss of person agreement: whereas referential subjects could be omitted from verb-second main clauses and subordinate clauses in Early Old Swedish, in Late Old Swedish corresponding subjectless clauses are uncommon. Within the framework of generative grammar it is argued that this is an effect of changes in movement strategies to the subject position, [Spec, IP]: whereas movement to the subject position is syntactically determined in Modern Swedish, in Early Old Swedish the corresponding move is pragmatically determined. The study is based on a corpus of approximately 193,400 words, collected from 12 Old Swedish texts.

“Randy Harris has done a remarkable service to the intellectual world.” This is one of many positive reviews of Prof. Harris's work. Randy Allen Harris’ [1] Linguistic Wars. The book appeared in 1993 and even then challenged the academic world and theoretical linguistics, more precisely one of its branches, Noam Chomsky's generative grammar of the second half of the last century, which is an attempt to explain the concept of “human language”. “Randy Harris’ Linguistic Wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the Battle for Deep Structure [2] has been given new life with its updated 2021 edition. [3] It not only greatly expands our knowledge of language, it challenges all those interested in academic battles over knowledge, offered to us by some of the greatest minds in linguistics - the most influential American linguist and cognitive researcher Noam Chomsky and his talented colleagues and PhD students with whom he later diverged and entered into acrimonious controversy - George Lakoff [4], James McCauley [5], Paul Postal [6] and John Robert Ross. [7] They attempted to undermine his thesis of “deep structure” and did not accept the magister dixit principle. [8] They called themselves the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.” [9] In contrast to Chomsky and his theory, known as “standard” [10] or “universal grammar,” Lakoff and his colleagues put the emphasis on semantics and created a very influential current that caused a furor as generative semantics. They were convinced that the meaning of words should be considered abstractly, at the semantic level, rather than at the syntactic level. Their hypothesis was later called “generative semantics”, which also attracted many linguists from Europe. It gave rise to alternative cognitive linguistics, which links the understanding of language to the concepts of cognitive psychology. The language wars actually began in 1967 and raged through the 1970s. At the heart of the heated debate is the answer to the question of how to approach the relationship between syntax and semantics. It is remarkable how Randy Harris achieves his main goal of introducing the complex matter of trans¬formational grammar [11] to a general readership with incredible ease. The histories of several prominent linguists and the controversies in American theoretical linguistics are presented in a way that makes the book accessible not only to professionally burdened linguists and specialists in communication and rhetoric. It goes far beyond the academic corset of the scholarly community and turns this complex subject of the relationship between semantics and syntax into a fascinating account of the intellectual and academic debates, theories, and concepts that not only shook the scholarly community in the second half of the last century, but also had a profound impact on contemporary linguistics at the turn of the 21st century. This book details the development of some of the theories and their characteristics that have influenced contemporary theories of language. Randy Harris's book has one undoubted and very important quality. It is written in a very engaging style that allows even those with no particular background in linguistics to gain an insight into the most important linguistic theories with an accurate analysis of the influence and legacy of the charismatic Noam Chomsky, who was ultimately the victor in the so-called linguistic wars. His terms “deep structure” and “surface structure” [12] are part of the toolkit of the great scientific adventure in the study of human cognitive abilities. Chomsky is convinced that syntactic structures are not learned, but “mastered”. His main conclusion is that “grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning.” [13] Chomsky's monograph Syntactic Structures is one of the most significant studies of the 20th century. Years later, in 2015, a team of neuroscientists at New York University exclaimed, “Chomsky was right: We do have a “grammar” in our head.” [14] “Language is the strangest and most powerful thing that ever existed on this planet. All other, more mundane and less powerful things, like nuclear weapons, quantum computers, and antibiotics, would be literally unthinkable without language” [15], writes Randy Harris. In fact, his book is not just about the history of battles in the field of theoretical linguistics or how certain theories evolved. It is above all a clever and exciting account of the way we think. In places, Randy Harris demonstrates a subtle sense of humor about the “har¬monious” scientific community that makes the book very appealing. The implications of the bitter linguistic disputes over theories and their alternatives in the 1960s and 1970s continue to influence us today. They brought much new knowledge to the field, and Harris's book is proof of the evolution of the theories. The intellectual argument between scholars enjoying their theories changed approaches, rethought theories of syntax and semantics, became the occasion for new ideas, and the cause of theoretical fame for teacher and students. Randy Harris’s fascinating and highly erudite account of the language wars is a book not only about history but also about the future of history, about trends in the understanding of language and knowledge, and about revolu¬tionizing linguistic research. It goes far beyond an inventive and remarkably balanced scholarly chronicle, and makes an undeniable contribution to linguistic and communication studies. The book offers an original analysis of language and thought, of the beauty of deep structure, of generative semantics, of ethos and collapse, of the vicissitudes of linguistic warfare, and of the transition from the linguistics of the 20th century to that of the 21st. It is no coincidence that the ninth chapter of the new edition of the book is entitled Linguistics of the 21st Century. Harris aptly quotes Shakespeare and the dialogue in which Hamlet tells Polonius that a cloud resembles a camel, and then convinces him that it is a weasel and even a whale. [16] To Harris, language is too complex to reveal its secrets in one fell swoop to a linguist, “hawk” though he may be. [17] “I wouldn’t bet against Chomsky,” Harris writes with a certain firmness, and casually conjures the reader’s association with Chomsky’s theoretical cloud war, in which he, like Hamlet, is not just an angel surrounded by devils. The philosophy implicit in Hamlet’s fateful question of “to be or not to be” shines through in the dramatic history of linguistics and its wars described by Randy Harris. And this is one of the many reasons for one of the most accurate characterizations of his book that we can read in Science, the scholarly journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Back in 1994, it called the first edition “intellectual history crossed with Shakespearean history play.” [18] Its updated and expanded edition, nearly thirty years later, is a truly remarkable service to the intellectual world and yet another endorsement of Randy Harris’s linguistic Shakespeare¬anism. References and Notes [1] Prof. Randy Allen Harris teaches linguistics, rhetoric, and professional writing in the English department at the University of Waterloo, and researches a smattering of things mostly around the cognitive and computational aspects of rhetorical figures. [2] Harris, Randy Allen, The Linguistics Wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the Battle over Deep Structure, 2nd ed. (New York, 2021; online ed., Oxford Academic, 18 Nov. 2021), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199740338.001.0001, 2022. [3] Harris, Randy Allen, The Linguistics Wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the Battle over Deep Structure, 2nd edn (New York, 2021; online ed., Oxford Academic, 18 Nov. 2021), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199740338.001.0001, accessed 3 Aug. 2022. [4] Lakoff, G. (1968). Instrumental Adverbs and the Concept of Deep Structure. Foundations of Language, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 4–29. [5] McCawley, J. D. (1976). Notes from the Linguistic Underground. Print version: Notes from the Linguistic Underground. Leiden Boston: BRILL, 1976 9789004368538. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004368859. [6] Postal, P. M. (1972). The best theory. In S. Peters (Ed.), Goals of linguistic theory. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall. [7] Ross, J. R. (1972). Doubl-ing. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. (Vol. 1, pp. 157–186). New York: Seminar Press. [8] Това каза учителят (позоваване на безспорен авторитет). [This is what the teacher said (reference to unquestioned authority).] [9] Според Християнската есхатология тези четири конника на Апокалипсиса са предвестници на Страшния съд. [According to Christian eschatology, these four horsemen of the Apocalypse are harbingers of the Last Judgment.] [10] See. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. London: Mouton. [11] Early versions of Chomsky's theory can be called transformative grammar, and this term is still used as a collective term to include his subsequent theories. The theory is also known as transformational-generative grammar. [12] Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. [13] Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. [14] Chomsky Was Right, NYU Researchers Find: We Do Have a “Grammar” in Our Head. 07.12.2015. NYU. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2015/ december/chomsky-was-right-nyu-researchers-find-we-do-have-a-grammar-in-our-head.html. Retrieved on 16.08.2022. [15] Harris, R. A. (2021). The Linguistics Wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the Battle over Deep Structure, 2nd ed. (New York, 2021; online ed., Oxford Academic, 18 Nov. 2021), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199740338.001.0001, accessed 3 Aug. 2022., 1. [16] Harris, R. A. (2021). The Linguistics Wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the Battle over Deep Structure. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford Academic, 363. [17] Harris, R. A. (2021). The Linguistics Wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the Battle over Deep Structure. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford Academic, 363. [18] Berreby, D. (1994). Linguistics Wars. The Sciences, Vol. 34, Issue 1, January-February 1994. Bibliography Berreby, D. (1994). Linguistics Wars. The Sciences, 34(1). Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Harris, R. A. (2021). The Linguistics Wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the Battle over Deep Structure (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford Academic. doi:https://doi.org/10. 1093/oso/9780199740338.001.0001. Lakoff, G. (1968). Instrumental Adverbs and the Concept of Deep Structure. Founda¬tions of Language, 4(1), 4–29. McCawley, J. D. (1976). Notes from the Linguistic Underground. New York: Academic Press. Postal, P. M. (1972). The best theory. In Goals of linguistic theory. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs N.J. Prentice-Hall. Ross, J. R. (1972). Doubl-ing. Syntax and semantics, 1, 157–186. Shakespeare, W. (1998). (V. Petrov, transl.) Sofia: Zachary Stoyanov.

This special issue of Nordic Journal of Linguistics is dedicated to diachronic generative syntax in the North Germanic languages. With the introduction of generative grammar in the late 1950s the historical perspective became less prominent within linguistics. Instead, contemporary language, normally represented by the researcher’s own intuitions, became the unmarked empirical basis within the generative field, although there were some early pioneering studies in generative historical syntax (e.g. Traugott 1972). It was not until the introduction of the Principles and Parameters theory in the 1990s that diachronic syntax emerged as an important domain of inquiry for generative linguists. Since then, the study of syntactic change has added a temporal dimension to the overall enterprise to better understand the nature of variation in human language.

In this essay, I will examine some murky questions concerning the theory of A’-movement in Italian. I will focus on two main empirical problems: the behaviour of Criterial Subjects (Rizzi 2006) and the syntax of multiple wh-questions in Italian. Both these domain of inquiry pose some questions about the restrictions that A’-movement has to respect and the consequences that these restrictions have on the superficial form of languages. The aim of this study is to show that many idiosyncratic properties concerning these two empirical domains can be explained by a rather simple theory of syntactic computation. The general picture that will emerge is that the syntactic computation in many A’- constructions can be described as a quite simple device, which is limited by (rather) independent interface requirements (Chomsky 1995 and subsequent works) and by some structural characteristics of the left periphery (Rizzi 1997, Cinque & Rizzi 2008). Moreover, it will emerge that the syntactic computation can make use of different strategies to circumvent these restrictions. In Chapter 2, I will go through a long-standing problem concerning the position of subjects in a number of A’-constructions in Romance languages. I will show, that some puzzling restrictions on the position of subjects can be explained adopting two basic elements: a feature-based theory of locality (Starke 2001, Rizzi 2004, Abels 2012) and a quantificational theory of Criterial Subjects (Bianchi & Chesi, to appear). I will argue that it is possible to derive a wide empirical range of data in a number of Romance Languages, from these two basic ingredients. In Chapter 3, I will examine a rather neglected group of Italian constructions, namely Multiple wh-questions. I will show that Italian displays a rather complex behaviour with respect to these structures, much more complex than previously thought. The idea is that 6 the whole pattern of data can be derived by two simple restrictions on A’-constructions. On the one hand, Italian is restricted to have only one position for wh-phrases in the left periphery of the clause (Rizzi 1997); on the other hand, only a sub-class of wh-phrases can be interpreted without being moved, namely argumental wh-phrases (Reinhardt 1997, 1998). I will argue that these two well-known restrictions force the syntactic computation to employ different circumvention strategies, from which the complex pattern of data emerges. I will argue that coordination turns out to be a flexible tool that syntax employs to build multiple wh-questions in compliance with the restrictions mentioned above.

Thesis (MA (General Linguistics))--University of Stellenbosch, 2007.
This study focuses on the internal structure of the CP in Afrikaans. Rizzi’s (1997) Split-CP Hypothesis serves as the starting-point; however, careful consideration is also given to the more recent proposals of Beninca’ and Poletto (2004). The aim of the study is to determine whether the proposals of Rizzi (1997) and Beninca’ and Poletto (2004) provide an adequate framework for the description of the CP-domain in Afrikaans. The study is presented within the theoretical framework of Minimalist Syntax. Specific adaptations to the Split-CP Hypothesis are suggested throughout the course of the discussion in an attempt to make the Split-CP Hypothesis compatible with the facts of Afrikaans. Finally, attention is also given to three problematic issues in Afrikaans that require further investigation.

Orientador: Charlotte Marie Chambelland Galves
Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem
Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-06T20:46:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Cavalcante_SilviaReginadeOliveira.pdf: 705251 bytes, checksum: 03b5546f8db580f0ad6dbcc37df82172 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006
Resumo: A análise sincrônica da variação 0 j se com infinitivo em amostras de fala (NurcjRJ e Português Fundamental) e de escrita (jornais) do Português Brasileiro (PB) e do Português Europeu (PE) revela uma diferença no percentual do uso de se com infinitivo: PE apresenta uma média de 8% de presença de se nas amostras de fala e de escrita, ao passo que PB apresenta uma média de 25% e de .50% de se na fala e na escrita respectivamente. partir de tais resultados, esta tese procura entender a evolução diacrônica de se com infinitivo que dá lugar a esse uso diferenciado em PE e PB. Para isso, trata da variação 0 j se numa amostra de textos de autores portugueses nascidos entre os séculos 16 e 19, que compõem o Corpus Anotado do Português Histórico - Corpus Tycho Emhe. Nesta amostra, a média de se com infinitivo sofre uma mudança: até o século 18 (período do Português Clássico - PCI), há 20% de presença de se nas infinitivas; a partir do século 18 (Português Europeu), há 10% de presença de se nas sentenças infinitivas. A análise se fundamenta (a) no tipo de se que pode aparecer junto ao infinitivo: sepassivo, se-indefinido e se-impessoal (cj. Raposo e U riagereka 1996 e Martins 2003), e (b) na natureza de AGR não finito em PB e PE (cj. Moreira da Silva 1983, Galves 1993 e Figueiredo Silva 1996). Com base neste quadro teórico e nos resultados de um conjunto de mudanças ocorridas na gramática do PB, é possível argumentar a favor de que, enquanto no PE, um sistema em que AGR é forte, capaz de licenciar e identificar sujeitos nulos, aparecem o se-indefinido e o se-impessoal; no PB, um sistema de AGR fraco no traço [pessoa], o se é o se-impessoal e aparece para identificar o referente indeterminado da posição sujeito de infinitivo, em variação com os pronomes a gente e você. No PCI, diferentemente, aparece o se-passivo nas infinitivas. Com esses resultados, procuro contribuir para uma descrição mais acurada das diferenças paramétricas existentes entre PE e PB. Esses resultados, aliados às pesquisas desenvolvidas dentro do quadro teórico gerativista, contribuem para se postular que estamos diante de três gramáticas distintas: a do PCI, a do PE e PB
Abstract: The synchronic analysis of 0/ se variation in infinitival sentences in spoken and written dialects of both Brazilian and European Portuguese samples reveals a different rate of se: Brazilian Portuguese presents a higher rate of se in infinitival clauses than European Portuguese. Taking in consideration this difference, this dissertation tries to explain the diachronic evolution of se in infinitival clauses that causes this different usage in EP and BP. Thus, this research deals with the variation 0/ se in a sample of portuguese writers bom between the 16th and 19th centuries, which makes Tycho Brahe Parsed Corpus of Historical Portuguese - Tycho Brahe Corpus. In this sample, the avarage of se in infinitivals undergoes a change: up to the 18th century (the sq-called Classical Portuguese period), there is 20% of se in infinitivals: whereas from the 18th century on (European Portuguese), there is 10% of se in infinitival clauses. The analysis is based on (a) the kind of se that may appear with infinitive: passive-se, indefinite-se and impersonal-se (cf Raposo e Uriagereka (1996), Martins (2003)), and (b) the nature of non-finite AGR in BP and EP (cf Moreira da Silva (1983), Galves (1993) and Figueiredo Silva (1996)). Based on this theoretical framework and on the results of the changes undertaken on the grammar of BP, it is possible to argue that, in EP, with a rich AGR system, able to licence and identify null subjects, we find indefinite-se and impersonal-se. ln BP, a weak AGR system with regards to the [person] feature, there is only impersonal-se and this pronoun appears to identify the indeterminate referent to the subject position of the infinitive, in variation with the arbitrary pronouns a gente and você. ln Classical Portuguese, we find the passive-se in infinitival sentences
Tese (doutorado) - Univers
Doutor em Linguística

Orientador: Sonia Maria Lazzarini Cyrino
Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem
Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-21T04:51:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 TeixeiradeSousa_Lilian_D.pdf: 3506329 bytes, checksum: e5635d7c31b15e173507503856816bd4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012
Resumo: A negação sentencial no Português Brasileiro (PB) pode ser realizada através de três tipos diferentes de estruturas considerando o número e a posição de partículas negativas: [Neg V], [Neg V Não] e [V Não]. Essa distribuição é bastante rara nas línguas naturais, já que, geralmente, as línguas apresentam apenas uma estrutura para expressar negação sentencial e, algumas vezes, uma estrutura adicional com função discursiva. Alguns pesquisadores associam essa alternância de formas a um processo de mudança linguística conhecido como Ciclo de Jespersen (Schwegler 1991, Furtado da Cunha 1996), enquanto outros explicam a alternância em termos de estrutura informacional (Schwenter 2005; Cavalcante 2007, 2012). Neste estudo, buscamos descrever a ocorrência das estruturas na língua, através de testes de aceitabilidade e preferência, com o objetivo de formular uma análise dentro do quadro teórico da sintaxe gerativa que considerasse tanto as características distributivas quanto as possibilidades de interpretação dessas estruturas. Na literatura linguística é bastante recorrente a afirmação de que apenas a estrutura [Neg V] é livre de restrições sintáticas, o que tem servido de argumento para caracterizá-la como a negação padrão do PB. As outras duas formas, porém, apresentam fortes restrições sintáticas, não sendo ambas possíveis em perguntas-Qu ou em encaixadas temporais. Em nossa análise, verificamos que, além das diferenças entre forma padrão e formas marcadas, as estruturas [Neg V Não] e [V Não] apresentam distinções quando comparadas, por isso, as consideramos, assim como Biberauer & Cyrino (2009), como fenômenos diversos. [V Não], como observamos, não é possível em nenhum tipo de oração encaixada ou com o preenchimento de sujeitos não definidos ou ainda para veicular informação nova, estando restrita a contextos responsivos. [Neg V Não], por outro lado, não é compatível apenas com infinitivas ou encaixadas temporais e não apresenta restrições quanto ao tipo de sujeito e nem quanto ao tipo de informação, se nova ou dada. Também entoacionalmente as estruturas apresentam distinções, enquanto o não de [V Não] não é prosodicamente proeminente, o não final de [Neg V Não] pode ou não ser prosodicamente proeminente. Uma vez que tanto [Neg V] quanto [Neg V Não] podem veicular informação nova e dada, tratamo-las como negações semânticas. Considerando, entretanto, as restrições de [Neg V Não] em sentenças não temporalmente marcadas ou coocorrendo com conjunções subordinativas temporais, passamos a relacioná-la à categoria T. Tendo em vista, ainda, a incompatibilidade dessa estrutura em contextos narrativos, em que não há proposições, mas o sequenciamento de eventos, definimos essa estrutura enquanto um tipo de negação semântica com escopo sobre proposições em oposição à [Neg V], que teria escopo sobre situações. [V Não], por ocorrer unicamente em contextos responsivos e não ser capaz de licenciar itens de polaridade, é interpretada não como uma negação semântica, mas como uma estrutura com a função pragmática de foco. Do ponto de vista teórico, considerando a proposta de Fases, relacionamos a estrutura [Neg V] à fase V, [Neg V Não] à fase T e [V Não] ao CP, periferia à esquerda da fase T
Abstract: Sentential negation in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) may be accomplished through three different kinds of structures, considering the number and position of the negative particles: [Neg V], [Neg V Não] and [V Não]. This distribution is quite rare in natural languages, which usually feature only one structure to express sentential negation, with an optional structure to convey a discourse function. While some researchers have identified this alternation between forms with a process of linguistic change known as Jespersen's Cycle (Schwegler 1991, Furtado da Cunha 1996), some others explain this variation in terms of information structure (Schwenter 2005; Cavalcante 2007, 2012). In this study, we seek to describe the occurrence of these structures in BP by means of acceptability and preference tests, with the objective of formulating an analysis within the theoretical framework of generative syntax that would consider both distributive characteristics and possible interpretations of these structures. In the linguistic literature, it is frequently claimed that the [Neg V] structure is the only one devoid of syntactic restrictions. Such an idea has been presented as an argument for its character as the standard negation form in BP. On the other hand, the other two forms do have strong syntactic restrictions, once they are not both possible in wh-questions or in embedded time clauses. In our analysis we have noticed that, in addition to the differences between the standard form and the other ones, there is a distinction between the [Neg V Não] and [V Não] structures. Therefore we consider them to be separate phenomena, likewise Biberauer & Cyrino (2009a, 2009b): [V Não], as we have observed, is impossible in all kinds of embedded clause, with undefined subjects or even when conveying new information, as it is restricted to response contexts; [Neg V Não], on the other hand, is only incompatible with infinitive or embedded time clauses, and is unrestricted as to the type of subject or type of information conveyed, that is, whether new or given. These structures also contain intonational distinctions: while the 'não' in [V Não] is not prosodically prominent, the final 'não' in [Neg V Não] may or may not be prosodically prominent. Given that both [Neg V] and [Neg V Não] can convey both new and given information, they are treated as semantic negations. By taking into account that [Neg V Não] is not acceptable either in infinitival sentences or in sentences introduced by temporal conjunctions, we put forth that the second 'não' is merged in the T domain. Besides, given the incompatibility of this structure with narrative contexts in which there are no propositions but rather a sequence of events, we have defined this structure as a kind of semantic negation taking scope over propositions as opposed to [Neg V], which takes scope over situations. And because [V Não] occurs solely in the context of response and does not allow for polarity items, we have defined it not as a semantic negation, but as a structure marking pragmatic focus. From a theoretical standpoint, considering Phase Theory, we have related the [Neg V] structure to the V phase, [Neg V Não] to the T phase and [V Não] to the CP, the left periphery of the T phase
Doutorado
Linguistica
Doutora em Linguística

In recent years, attempts to simplify the grammatical mechanisms used in syntax have led to proposals to reduce the relationships between elements in a sentence to relations between heads and complements, doing away with free adjunction. For the analysis of modifying relations one consequence has been the rise of analyses that use the properties of selecting heads to stipulate unexpected syntactic behaviour, such as the use of light verbs to derive transparency in complex verb constructions. This thesis shows that such accounts are empirically inadequate and argues that the relationship between heads and adjuncts provides a more empirically-satisfactory model of modifying relations, such as complex verb constructions, than one restricted to the selection relation between heads and complements in the syntax. In support of the adjunct relation, I show how a modular approach to adjuncts in which the position of adjunction is licensed in the semantics and long-distance dependencies are licensed in the syntax can provide a more unified account of subextraction from two separate types of island configurations, viz. asymmetric subextraction from coordination and subextraction from participial adjuncts, either than analyses involving complementation in the syntax (Borgonovo and Neeleman, 2000; Fabregas and Jiménez-Fernández, 2016; Wiklund, 2007), or hybrid analyses mixing processing filters with syntactic licensing of long-distance dependencies (Truswell, 2009, 2011). The first part of the thesis shows that Chomsky’s (2000; 2001) phase theory gives rise to blackholes in the specifier positions of phases from which movement cannot take place. I provide a theoretical account in terms of feature-licensing, where blackholes are formed by the impossibility of licensing at least one unlicensed feature on a phase head, and show how this account derives the distinction between canonical adjuncts from which subextraction is not permitted and subextraction from single event constructions in which subextraction is permitted. The section speculatively concludes with a demonstration of how blackholes might provide a unified analysis of islandhood in general. The second part of the thesis concentrates on the empirical phenomenon of subextraction from coordination and participial adjuncts. I report the results of a series of judgement experiments run in parallel across two sets of constructions, coordination and participial adjuncts, in three languages, English, German and Norwegian. The aim was to test whether acceptability of subextraction from within coordination and participial adjuncts varied depending on the aspectual or grammatical type of matrix predicate. The results show that acceptability of subextraction does depend on the type of matrix predicate. The crucial factor is intransitivity, partially confirming the bias towards unaccusatives in subextraction from participial adjuncts observed informally in Borgonovo and Neeleman (2000); Fabregas and Jiménez-Fernández (2016); Truswell (2011) whilst providing evidence against theoretical accounts that rely primarily on unaccusativity (Borgonovo and Neeleman, 2000; Fabregas and Jiménez-Fernández, 2016), primarily on aspectual distinctions (Truswell, 2007b) or primarily on agentivity (Truswell, 2009, 2011). Interestingly, the hierarchy in acceptability between the four types of matrix predicates stays constant across all three languages, despite both pseudocoordination and subextraction from within participials being ungrammatical in German.

Questa tesi traccia la storia del concetto di parametro in Grammatica Generativa a partire dai primi sviluppi del modello a Principi e Parametri negli ultimi anni Settanta fino all’avvento del programma Minimalista (Minimalist Program, MP), esaminando il modo nel quale questa nozione è stata implementata sia durante che successivamente a questa transizione. L’analisi oggetto di questa tesi si sviluppa a partire dalla sistematizzazione della cosiddetta “teoria standard” della Grammatica Generativa, avvenuta in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965), fino agli ultimi sviluppi del MP. Il Capitolo I offre una panoramica della protostoria del concetto di parametro ponendo particolare attenzione ai fattori, sia teorici che empirici, alla base della formulazione di questa nozione in Chomsky (1981). I fattori teorici sono identificati con la distinzione tra adeguatezza descrittiva ed esplicativa e con la soluzione proposta da Chomsky al problema della povertà dello stimolo, mentre il fattore empirico consiste nel risultato delle indagini pre-parametriche operate da Rizzi e Taraldsen, le quali gettarono nuova luce sulla sistematicità della variazione linguistica. Nel Capitolo II sono esaminate le single formulazioni dei principali parametri proposti dalla Grammatica Generativa nel quadro della teoria della Reggenza e del Legamento (Government and Binding, GB) degli anni Ottanta. Sebbene i parametri in questione siano gli stessi che compaiono nella lista proposta da Rizzi (2014), nella prima parte di questo capitolo essi sono retrospettivamente classificati in base alla specifica proprietà sintattica alla quale farebbero riferimento secondo le correnti teorie minimaliste. Il Capitolo III si focalizza sul dibattito che, durante la prima decade degli anni Duemila, ebbe al suo centro proprio il concetto di parametro. Le prime due posizioni teoriche discusse sono l’approccio microparametrico di Kayne (2000, 2005), il quale si basa sul presupposto che la variazione parametrica è localizzata nel lessico, e quello macroparametrico di Baker (2001, 2008), basato invece sull’idea tradizionale che i parametri sono espressi sui principi. Questi due approcci teorici sono quindi confrontati con la critica di Newmeyer (2004, 2005), la quale ne evidenzia le carenze di carattere sia descrittivo che teorico. Questo capitolo si conclude con la presentazione del modello parametrico proposto da Roberts e Holmberg (2010), il quale supera le rispettive limitazioni dei modelli micro- e macro-parametrici combinando una prospettiva microparametrica basata sul lessico con l’idea che la variazione parametrica emergerebbe dall’interazione tra Grammatica Universale, dati linguistici di base e principi di terzo fattore (non specifici del linguaggio). I Capitoli IV and V tracciano un bilancio dei parametri della teoria GB che giocano tuttora un ruolo nella teoria generativa moderna. Il Capitolo IV esamina il parametro del soggetto nullo, il parametrio del movimento del verbo, il parametro della polisintesi e il parametro dell’opposizione tra movimento vs permanenza in situ dei sintagmi wh-, mentre il Capitolo V è dedicato alla storia del parametro testa-complemento. Se da un lato il soggetto nullo, il movimento del verbo e il fenomeno della polisintesi possono essere spiegati tramite il modello di Roberts e Holmberg, dall’altro si afferma che il movimento-wh e l’ordine testa-complemento riguarderebbero, come considerato da Berwick e Chomsky (2011), l’interfaccia articolativo-percettiva. Lo scenario che emerge da questa analisi sottolinea la duplice natura della variazione parametrica: sintattica e post-sintattica. Questa conclusione ci conduce ad una considerazione interessante relativamente alla dicotomia tra movimento di testa (X) e movimento di sintagma (XP): mentre il movimento di testa si osserverebbe unicamente nella sintassi in senso stretto, i sintagmi sarebbero invece soggetti a linearizzazione ad un livello post-sintattico.
This thesis traces the history of the concept of parameter in Generative Grammar, from the first steps of the Principles and Parameters model in the late 1970s to the advent of the Minimalist Program (MP), examining how this notion has been implemented both during and after this transition. The analysis carried out in this dissertation starts from the systematization of the so-called “standard theory” of Generative Grammar in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965) until the last developments of the MP. Chapter I offers an overview of the protohistory of the concept of parameter by focusing on the factors, both theoretical and empirical, at the basis of the systematic formulation of this notion in Chomsky (1981). The theoretical factors are identified with the distinction between descriptive and explanatory adequacy and Chomsky’s proposed solution to the so-called problem of the poverty of the stimulus. The empirical factor consists in the outcome of Rizzi’s and Taraldsen’s pre-parametric inquiries, which shed new light on the systematicity of linguistic variation. In Chapter II, I examine the individual formulation of the main parameters that were proposed in Generative Grammar within the Government-Binding (GB) Theory of the Eighties. While the parameters at issue are taken from the list that is proposed in Rizzi (2014), in the first part of the chapter they are retrospectively classified according to the specific syntactic property they would refer to in current minimalist theories. Chapter III focuses on the debate about the concept of parameter which took place during the first decade of the 21st century. The first two positions which are discussed are Kayne’s (2000, 2005) microparametric approach, which draws from the idea that parametric variation is located in the lexicon, and Baker’s (2001, 2008) macroparametric approach, which instead relies on the classical idea that parameters are expressed on principles. These two approaches are then confronted with Newmeyer’s (2004, 2005) criticism, which points out their descriptive and theoretical flaws. This chapter ends with the presentation of the parametric model proposed by Roberts & Holmberg (2010), which overcomes the limitations of micro- and macro-parameters by combining a lexically-based, microparametric view of linguistic variation with the idea that parametric variation is an emergent property of the interaction of UG, primary linguistic data, and third-factor considerations. Chapters IV and V evaluate the classical parameters of the GB Theory which still play a role in current generative theory. Chapter IV reviews the null subject parameter, the V-to-T movement parameter, the polysynthesis parameter, and the overt vs covert whmovement parameter, while Chapter V is devoted to the history of the head-complement parameter. While on the one hand null subject, V-to-T, and polysynthesis can be reconciled with Roberts & Holmberg’s theory, which is based on the assumption that the locus of parameters is the functional lexicon, on the other it is argued that wh-movement and head-directionality pertain to the A-P nterface, as envisioned by Berwick & Chomsky (2011). The picture emerging from this analysis highlights that the nature of parametric variation is twofold: syntactic and post-syntactic. This has an interesting consequence on the duality between head-movement and phrasal movement, as only in narrow syntax heads are observed to move, with XPs being linearized post-syntactically.

This thesis provides and discusses a comprehensive collection of empirical data that show that many languages of the world manifest long A-movement of the subjects of embedded finite clauses to the subject position (Hyperraising) or object position (Hyper-ECM) of the main clause. The main theoretical claim of the thesis is that all these instances of long A-movement leave behind resumptive pronouns and should therefore be analysed on a par with related Copy Raising and Copy ECM constructions. My thesis therefore demonstrates that resumption is not restricted to Abar movement contexts, but is also attested in A-movement constructions. Instead of the various language-particular analyses previously proposed in the literature, the thesis focuses on those aspects of long A-movement that all respective constructions in the different languages have in common and therefore provides a unified crosslinguisic analysis of long A-movement constructions. An important empirical generalisation, first noted by Ura (1994), which is empirically supported by the data discussed in this thesis, is that if a language has Hyperraising or Hyper-ECM, it is also a pro-drop language. On the basis of this generalisation, it is argued that Hyperraising and Hyper-ECM constructions involve the use of resumptive pro in the embedded subject position, while languages with Copy Raising and Copy ECM use overt pronouns. Apart from this difference, it is argued that these Amovement constructions are identical in all crucial respects. Furthermore, it is claimed that agreement inside the embedded finite clauses from which long A-movement takes place is indicative of the ability of embedded T to license nominative case on the embedded subject. Hence, no deviation from standard Minimalist assumptions is required. It is suggested that the role of the resumptive subject pronoun is to receive the case assigned by the probing T-head inside the embedded clause. It is also argued that it is the existence of a resumptive pronoun which causes the coreferential subject DP to be without case, which in turn creates a context in which long A-movement of this DP becomes both necessary and possible. This analysis is based on the idea that at first merge, the raised subject is merged with the null/overt resumptive pronoun in the embedded subject position to form one vii complex constituent (which is known in the literature as a „big? DP). While the pronoun remains in the embedded subject position to absorb the case in the embedded finite clause, the raised subject is attracted into the matrix subject position to absorb the case in the matrix clause.
Thesis (Ph.D.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2011

‘Scrambling’ languages allow arguments in a given sentence to be ordered in a variety of ways while leaving the grammatical roles of these arguments unchanged. West Germanic languages like German, Dutch, Yiddish, and West Flemish exhibit, to different extents, scrambling properties (Haider, 2006; Grewendorf, 2005; De Hoop, 2003). One well established assumption is that a prerequisite for scrambling is a rich (overt) case morphology: Grammatical relations need to be overtly marked on arguments in order for them to freely permute (Haider, 2006; Mahajan, 2003). Afrikaans, like other West Germanic languages, also allows a certain degree of flexibility (Molnárfi, 2002; Biberauer & Richards 2006; Conradie, 2007 Huddlestone, 2010). Generally, however, it is assumed to be much more rigid than a richly inflected language like German, in part because Afrikaans is the most morphologically ‘impoverished’ of all the West Germanic languages (Molnárfi, 2002; Biberauer & Richards, 2006; Huddlestone, 2010). In this thesis, I draw attention to certain double object constructions in Afrikaans that allow German-like flexibility without German-like morphology. Afrikaans allows the indirect and direct object of particular verbs to optionally invert their canonical order in finite embedded sentences without V-raising. I propose an analysis within a minimalist framework that accounts for the flexibility exhibited by these constructions.
Thesis (M.A.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2012.

This chapter follows the emergence of Generative Semantics from the Transformational Grammar developments codified in Noam Chomsky’s Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. It was on George Lakoff’s mind from before Aspects but it only achieved the rhetorical, sociological, and theoretical conditions to thrive with that codification. Generative Semantics looked like a natural extension of Transformational Grammar, rooting itself in the semantic subsoil of Deep Structure and aligning closely with Universal Grammar. But that subsoil quickly proved to be less fertile than it had seemed, so Generative Semantics imported concepts from logic and philosophy of language; and Universal Grammar proved less substantial than it had seemed, so Generative Semantics solidified it with a Universal Base hypothesis. The resulting model was an extraordinarily elegant theory in which language passed through a homogeneous system of rules from thought and meaning to structure and expression, but it contained multiple seeds, both attitudinal and technical, of a challenge to Chomsky’s work.

This chapter charts the rise of Noam Chomsky’s Transformational-Generative Grammar, from its cornerstone role in the cognitive revolution up to its widely heralded realization in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. That realization featured the development of an evocative concept, Deep Structure, a brilliant nexus of meaning and structure that integrates seamlessly with Chomsky’s companion idea, Universal Grammar, the notion that all languages share a critical, genetically encoded core. At a technical level, Deep Structure concentrated meaning because of the Katz-Postal Principle, stipulating that transformations cannot change meaning. Transformations rearrange structure while keeping meaning stable. The appeal of Deep Structure and Universal Grammar helped Transformational Grammar propagate rapidly into language classrooms, literary studies, stylistics, and computer science, gave massive impetus to the emergence of psycholinguistics, attracted substantial military and educational funding, and featured prominently in Chomsky’s meteoric intellectual stardom.

Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī, the most complete generative grammar of any language yet written, is based on a consistent set of principles and formal techniques, many of which have been adopted in modern linguistics. The grammar emerges solely from jointly maximizing empirical coverage and formal economy (Minimum Description Length). These twin imperatives determine its overall structure, its categories and levels of representation, its types of rules and constraints, and their application and interaction. Major economies are achieved by blocking, which organizes grammar into a vast network whose every rule or principle is defeasible by a more specific one, in a hierarchy that terminates in individual listed words. Economy dictates that featurally definable phonological classes are privileged, and that transparent sequential rule application is the default. I also review some Pāṇinian phonological principles which have not yet been adopted in linguistics.

The speech stream is divided up in chunks as it is being planned, delivered, and processed. Focusing on domains at the lower levels of prosodic complexity, in particular that of the phonological word, we trace the history of the scholarly study of prosodic chunking, contrasting two basic approaches. One, prominently espoused in generative grammar, sees prosodic grouping determined by surface-syntactic constituency, directly or mediated through a hierarchy of specifically prosodic units. For the other, with a substantial tradition behind it (here illustrated through a few landmark studies), prosodic grouping is rhythmically motivated, instantiating metrical patterns of prominence alternations rather than being dictated by the groupings of morphology and syntax.

The chapter has three parts. The first part is an introduction to the Mainland Scandinavian languages, with a brief sketch of their history, their relationship to the other Scandinavian languages, and their position among the North Germanic languages. Mainland Scandinavian is treated as one language, since it consists of a continuum of mutually intelligible dialects across Scandinavia. The second part is a presentation of the sources and the origin of the examples used in the book. They are taken from various sources, reference grammars, research literature, the internet, text corpora, and original research. The third part is a presentation of the theoretical background and the descriptive framework, which is generative grammar in its current version, known as ‘minimalism’.

Abstract In a drama unprecedented in LSA history, in 1970 the official candidate for the office of President was challenged and defeated. Dwight Bolinger allowed his name to be put in opposition to Martin Joos’s and received close to seventy percent of the votes. Two factors played major roles in this drama. On the one hand, Martin Joos’s behavior was becoming increasingly erratic. But there was more to the opposition to Joos than his unpleasant personality. It appears to be the case that most of the younger members of the LSA—sociolinguists and generative grammarians alike—voted overwhelmingly for Bolinger. I would say that for them Joos represented the post-Bloomfieldian establishment, which showed little interest in either linguistic variation or fleshing out the formal properties of universal grammar respectively. The fact that Bolinger himself was neither social variationist nor generativist was irrelevant.

Such is the onward march of things, that the history of french is a history of progressive standardization, normalization, and normativity. From the rules of orthography, grammar, syntax, and semantics to the gatekeeping of dictionaries and learned societies, on to the codifying poetics of linguistics, prosody, versification, gender inclusivity, and pronunciation, french amounts to no less than an apparatus of creative and critical blockage, poetical and political stoppage. No one, today, for instance, really, dreams of composing verses that look like this anymore....