4 Universal 20 without the LCA

Abels, Klaus; Neeleman, Ad

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199553266.003.0004

Cited by 86 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 175 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…moving a constituent from which NP has already been extracted. This result is further supported by Abels and Neeleman (2006) who, in the context of a more general argument against Kayne's (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom, derive the above typology while weakening Cinque's structural assumptions to allow for base-generated rightward items. Despite this change, their analysis must disallow remnant movement too.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…Remnant movement will still be absent from most attested word orders because it produces suboptimal alignment configurations. This is a welcome property when considering -as discussed in Abels and Neeleman (2006) -that a ban on remnant movement appears empirically non-viable due to the many syntactic analyses that appear to require it. For example, Abels and Neeleman (2006) propose the sentence below as possible evidence for remnant movement of VP.…”

Section: Encoding Derivations Into Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a welcome property when considering -as discussed in Abels and Neeleman (2006) -that a ban on remnant movement appears empirically non-viable due to the many syntactic analyses that appear to require it. For example, Abels and Neeleman (2006) propose the sentence below as possible evidence for remnant movement of VP. Other analyses involving remnant movement cited by Abels and Neeleman (2006) include den Besten and Webelhuth (1987), Kayne (1998), Müller (1998), Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000), Nilsen (2003).…”

Section: Encoding Derivations Into Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the Ungrammaticality of Remnant Movement in the Derivation of Greenberg's Universal 20

Steddy

Samek-Lodovici

2011

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose an analysis that derives Cinque's (2005) typology of linear orders involving a demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun through four Optimality Theory constraints requiring leftward alignment of these items. We show that remnant movement is ungrammatical whenever it produces universally suboptimal alignments, compared with remnant-movement-free structures. Any movement is permitted, but only the best alignment configurations surface as grammatical. We also show that Cinque's original analysis must encode the structural derivations of all attested orders as parametric values of the associated languages. Our analysis need not make similar structural stipulations, as the different attested structures emerge from constraint reranking.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Encoding Derivations Into Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Encoding Derivations Into Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the Ungrammaticality of Remnant Movement in the Derivation of Greenberg's Universal 20

Steddy

Samek-Lodovici

2011

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As always, there are alternative ways of accounting for such orders (see, e.g., Abels & Neeleman 2009). Nevertheless, a layered underlying representation is the key to explaining such facts on any account I am aware of.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How (not) to derive a *ABA: The case of Blansitt’s generalisation

Caha

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I provide an account for the so-called Blansitt’s generalisation (Blansitt 1988). The generalisation says that in the linear sequence DATIVE—ALLATIVE—LOCATIVE, only adjacent functions may be marked the same. In previous work (Bobaljik 2012; Starke 2009; Caha 2009), analogous *ABA patterns have been encoded by the so-called feature cumulation. Feature cumulation means that the amount of features characteristic for individual categories monotonically grows in the order given in any such sequence. However, Blansitt observes that in the case of datives, allatives and locatives, the allative (which is in the middle) tends to be composed of the dative and the locative, so the account based on cumulation does not work. The present paper thus argues for a different representation of the underlying categories, namely as containing (abstractly) the features A, AB and B respectively (following in part Bobaljik & Sauerland 2017). I refer to this as the “overlapping” decomposition. When such a decomposition is combined with the Superset Principle (Starke 2009), it yields both the *ABA restriction and the observed syncretism and containment patterns. I further argue that this is a non-trivial result, since traditional underspecification approaches face significant challenges in deriving the *ABA pattern on the basis of the overlapping decomposition. This article is part of the Special Collection: *ABA

show abstract

“…DP/NP-internal movements are subject to a well-known restriction: only projections that contain N can be displaced. For instance, it is possible to move N(P), or the constituent comprising N and Adj, but it is not possible to move Adj on its own (see Cinque 2005 andNeeleman 2009 for an exhaustive list of the movements that are allowed and disallowed by this restriction). Georgi & Müller (2010) show that if DP/NP internal movements are modeled with reprojection, then this pattern is predicted.…”

Section: The Pros and Cons Of This Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to head movement: A critical assessment

Dékány

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heads can be spelled out higher than their merge-in position. The operation that the transformationalist generative literature uses to model this is called head movement. Government and Binding posited that the operation in question involves adjunction of a lower head to a higher head in narrow syntax. It has been noted early on, however, that this approach is highly problematic because head-adjunction violates several well-motivated constraints on syntactic structures.This overview article surveys the problems raised by the adjunction approach as well as the recent alternative analyses that were suggested in its stead in the Minimalist program. It evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives, discusses to what extent they are able to eliminate the problems raised by the adjunction analysis, and also points out the new problems that they give rise to.

show abstract

4 Universal 20 without the LCA

Cited by 86 publications

References 175 publications

On the Ungrammaticality of Remnant Movement in the Derivation of Greenberg's Universal 20

On the Ungrammaticality of Remnant Movement in the Derivation of Greenberg's Universal 20

How (not) to derive a *ABA: The case of Blansitt’s generalisation

Approaches to head movement: A critical assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About