Effects of Short-Term Storage in Processing Rightward Movement

Ackema, Peter; Neeleman, Ad

doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0355-1_8

Cited by 80 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, nothing essential in this work hinges on this view of syntax and the proposed conflict-base approach is also compatible with the rightward movement operations defended in Büring & Hartmann (1997) and Ackema & Neeleman (2002).…”

Section: Properties Of Competing Structuresmentioning

confidence: 79%

Prosody–Syntax Interaction in the Expression of Focus

Samek-Lodovici

2005

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosodic and syntactic constraints conflict with each other. This is particularly evident in the expression of focus, where the best position for main stress does not necessarily match the best syntactic position for the focused constituent. But focus and stress must match, therefore either stress or the focused constituent must renounce their best position violating either the syntactic or the prosodic constraints responsible for them.This study argues that human language addresses this tension in optimality theoretic terms and that different focus paradigms across different languages reflect different rankings of a shared invariant set of syntactic and prosodic constraints. In particular, only an optimality analysis can account for the focus paradigm of Italian while keeping a prosodic analysis of main stress in accord with the last two decades of phonological research. The analysis extends naturally to focus paradigms in English, French, and Chichewa (including Chichewa's non-culminant sentences, i.e. sentences lacking a single main stress), making no appeal to language specific parametric devices.Overall, the conflicting nature of prosodic and syntactic constraints gives rise to a complex crosslinguistic typology from a single set of universal constraints while keeping interface conditions to an absolute minimum.

show abstract

Section: Properties Of Competing Structuresmentioning

confidence: 79%

Prosody–Syntax Interaction in the Expression of Focus

Samek-Lodovici

2005

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One aspect of the language faculty that is uncontroversially sensitive to linear order is the parsing process. Ackema and Neeleman (2002) and Abels and Neeleman (2013) suggest that the ban on rightward head movement might find an explanation in this. If parsing involves immediate structure assignment (see Gorrell 1995) and movement is dealt with using a fillerdriven strategy (see Phillips and Wagers 2007), it follows that there is a fundamental difference between leftward and rightward movement: the former involves insertion of a trace while the structure is being built, while the latter involves insertion of a trace in an already built structure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

AP Adjacency as a Precedence Constraint

Belk

Neeleman

2017

Linguistic Inquiry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attributive APs precede certain other categories (PPs, genitive DPs, and so on), when the noun precedes both (Giurgea 2009, Adger 2012. This observation may suggest an analysis in terms of X-bar-style 'structural layering'. However, such an account faces several problems: (i) in languages with PP-AP-N order, scrambling of the AP is permitted, (ii) in languages with AP-N-PP order or PP-N-AP order, there is evidence that the AP can c-command the PP, as well as the other way around, and (iii) in languages with N-AP-PP order, the AP can take scope over the PP, as well as the other way around, arguably as a consequence of a structural ambiguity. We therefore develop an alternative analysis based on a striking parallel between the syntax of attributive APs and that of objects: while OV languages systematically allow adverbs to intervene between object and verb, VO languages tend to require verb-object-adverb order. This aspect of verbal syntax is familiar and can be captured in terms of a well-known linear constraint: Case Adjacency (Stowell 1981; Janke and Neeleman 2012). We propose that this constraint has a nominal counterpart that ensures N-AP adjacency in noun-initial structures. Thus, this instance of NP/VP parallelism has its source in parallel constraints, rather than parallel structural layers.Keywords: AP adjacency, PP peripherality, Attribution, Case Adjacency Parallels between nominal and verbal structuresSimilarities between nominal and verbal grammar have been a theme in generative research since at least Lees 1960. Lees observed that clauses like the army destroyed the city and nominalizations like the army's destruction of the city display certain syntactic and semantic parallels. For example, the event denoting word is preceded in both structures by an agentive phrase and followed by a patient. Moreover, both structures seem to allow passivization (as in the city was destroyed by the army and the city's destruction by the army).Perhaps the most influential account of such parallels is given in Chomsky 1970. In this paper, Chomsky introduces X-bar theory, an abstract system of projection that applies to both

show abstract

“…The pattern in (3) permits a simple analysis based on mirroring through variation in linearization (see Ackema and Neeleman 2002; for an earlier antisymmetric account, see Cinque 1996). Three assumptions are necessary.…”

Section: Universal 20 Symmetricmentioning

confidence: 99%

PP-over-V meets Universal 20

Neeleman¹

2017

J Comp German Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has proven hard to force a decision between rival analyses of Universal 20. This is because new typological data are scarce, and the number of syntactic tests applicable in the noun phrase is relatively small. I therefore consider a related set of facts that involve language-internal word order variation in the verb phrase. I first show that the pattern of grammatical and ungrammatical orders in Dutch verb phrases containing three PPs closely matches the pattern of attested and unattested orders in the noun phrase. I then use the distribution of the particle pas 'only' to argue that PP extraposition results from variation in the linearization of sister nodes. This means that the symmetric account of Universal 20 in Abels and Neeleman (Syntax 15:25-74, 2012) extends to the Dutch data, but the antisymmetric account in Cinque (Linguist Inquiry 36:315-332, 2005) does not.

show abstract

Effects of Short-Term Storage in Processing Rightward Movement

Cited by 80 publications

References 16 publications

Prosody–Syntax Interaction in the Expression of Focus

Prosody–Syntax Interaction in the Expression of Focus

AP Adjacency as a Precedence Constraint

PP-over-V meets Universal 20

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About