A Null Operator Analysis of Atb Gaps

Munn, Alan

doi:10.1515/tlir.1992.9.1.1

Cited by 74 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Elsewhere (Munn 1992(Munn , 1993 I have argued that the general unavailability of exceptional exceptional government supports a different structure for coordination, one in which the Boolean phrase is adjoined to the first conjunct, as in (42) Johnson (1988) uses this fact to argue that gerunds are CPs, but his arguments are dubious, given the large amount of evidence to the contrary (see Reuland 1983, Abney 1987, Munn 1991. 23 In the works cited I present two other arguments for the adjoined BP structure.…”

Section: Exceptional Governmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

First Conjunct Agreement: Against a Clausal Analysis

Munn

1999

Linguistic Inquiry

Self Cite

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aoun, Benmamoun, and Sportiche (1994) propose that first conjunct agreement in Arabic is derived from clausal conjunction. This article shows that the clausal account of first conjunct agreement is empirically inadequate because it fails to distinguish clearly between syntactic and semantic agreement. It argues that an analysis of coordination as adjunction proposed in Munn 1992, 1993 accounts both for the Arabic facts and for the fact that first conjunct agreement is dependent on head government. It also shows that there are asymmetries between governed agreement and specifier-head agreement that are independent of coordination, lending support to a unified analysis of first conjunct agreement in terms of government or its equivalent.

show abstract

Section: Exceptional Governmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

First Conjunct Agreement: Against a Clausal Analysis

Munn

1999

Linguistic Inquiry

Self Cite

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In (38b), if which books about herself were allowed to be reconstructed into the parasitic gap, (38b) would be grammatical, contrary to fact. The contrast above has been taken as supporting evidence for the claim that parasitic gaps are traces of null operator movement, which is independent of the movement in the matrix clause (Munn (1992), Chomsky (1986a) Mary 2 read t 3 ? Since the parasitic gaps are traces of null operator movement, not traces of wh-movement in the matrix clause, it follows that parasitic gaps are not workable as reconstruction sites.…”

Section: Puzzlementioning

confidence: 90%

Parasitic Gaps Under Multiple Dominance

Kasai

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The idea is that the conjunction head agrees with the specifier and hence it is this element that determines the agreement on the verb. In subsequent work (Munn 1992(Munn , 1993(Munn , 2000 Munn has actually deviated from an X-bar structure for coordination, but he still retains the asymmetric relationship. I will briefly discuss his more recent analysis at the end of this section.…”

Section: X-bar Theory and Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In (15b), however, the specifier of the conjunction phrase must be stipulated to be on the right, contrary to all other specifiers. Munn (1992Munn ( , 1993Munn ( , 2000 argued for an adjunction analysis of coordination, in which the conjunction phrase is an adjunct to a conjunct. This is compatible with other types of structures in strictly head-final languages as well, where such adjuncts are typically left-adjoined.…”

Section: X-bar Theory and Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(I am using Johannessen's, rather than Munn's labeling, to make comparison easier.) (Munn 1992(Munn , 1993(Munn , 2000 Small Conjunct Analyses are not compatible with X-bar Theory because they allow conjuncts to be non-maximal projections. Besides the other reasons cited above, this is an important theory-internal argument for the alternative, ellipsis accounts.…”

Section: X-bar Theory and Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Coordination in Optimality Theory

Gáspár¹

1999

Nordic Journal of Linguistic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This dissertation provides an analysis of coordination within a restricted version of Optimality Theory (OT), operating exclusively with alignment and faithfulness constraints. It is shown that this version of OT, which does not assume the existence of syntactic structure, is capable of handling coordination phenomena that have been problematic for previous structureless accounts, while at the same time also avoids the problems encountered by structure-based theories trying to fit coordination into models developed to account for structures occurring elsewhere.It is standardly assumed in OT that syntactic structure conforming to X-bar Theory axioms is imposed on all the candidates generated from the input by the structure building component of the grammar. I reject this view and contend that it is by eliminating from the grammar historically inherited axioms about X-bar Theory or even the central notion of phrases that we can unlock the real power of OT: the violable constraints that make up the evaluation system are solely responsible for the grammar and grammatical differences between languages.I show how such an assumption, originally conceived in Newson (2000b), can predict basic word order patterns and can also account for topicalization as well as coordination in a wide variety of language types. As syntactic OT in general, and alignment OT in particular are relatively novel developments within linguistic research, the basic principles of the theory are still being formed. I show that the originally assumed family of predicate alignment constraints alone is not capable of accounting for a variety of data such as SOV language pattern as well as topicalization and focalization in a variety of languages, and introduce a second family of alignment constraints. Contrary to the predicate alignment constraints, which establish the position of an element with respect to its predicate (or, more generally, functor), first and last constraints sanction the placement of elements to the beginning and the end of 2 the string, respectively. The interaction of these constraints with each another and with the functor alignment and the faithfulness constraints provides a powerful grammar.The coordinative conjunction is argued to be a functor, taking the predicates of the propositions it conjoins as its arguments. As a functor, the functor constraints originally developed for the predicate-argument relationship are relevant for the conjunction-conjunct alignment relationship as well.Central to the analysis of ellipsis is the claim that ellipsis is not only characterized by phonological absence, but by syntactic absence as well. Essentially, ellipsis is treated as a semantic phenomenon: it is up to the semantic component of the grammar to reconstruct elided material missing from all other levels of grammatical description.In the framework adopted semantic interpretation is based on the input of the optimality system. Thus the input is the foundation of ellipsis phenomena -as much as it contains gaps for material that surface ...

show abstract

A Null Operator Analysis of Atb Gaps

Cited by 74 publications

References 0 publications

First Conjunct Agreement: Against a Clausal Analysis

First Conjunct Agreement: Against a Clausal Analysis

Parasitic Gaps Under Multiple Dominance

Coordination in Optimality Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About