Generative Semantics, Generative Morphosyntax

Abstract

Abstract. “GSGM” builds no syntactic structures; rather, semantics and morphosyntax are both generative and run in parallel, and so have no need of mediating syntactic structure. In this environment, positing different modes of embedding for NPs and clauses, as in Williams 2003, affords new minimal accounts of movement, scope, agreement, and the bounds on them. Syntax/morphosyntax is instantiated as a single parameterized function (“Combine”). Combine derives both mirroring and nonmirroring structure, as any theory must, but in distinctive “size‐relative” patterns determined by its parameters.

Multidomination and the coherence of anaphors

“…The surface has the constituency in (9), but the semantic constituency is (which (N''', [V 1]''')), and Combine is responsible for the discrepancy between the two. There are many problems to be solved here -how do islands arise, how does pied-piping work, etc., see Williams (2003Williams ( , 2010Williams ( , 2011 for proposals. Also, what kinds of things can the Combine function do?…”

“…The part that will make this solution hard to swallow for some is that "which book" in (1) is not an interpreted constituent; it is rather a purely morphosyntactic constituent, with no more claim to mirror meaning that "think'll" has in "Who do you think'll go". As I have detailed this mode of derivation elsewhere (Williams 2011(Williams , 2010(Williams , 2003(Williams , 1998, here I will only present the essential components that implement a MD theory of movement without the fishiness.…”

“…Again, see the works cited for a specific proposal about how Combine is parameterized for different outcomes. If Combine is the only syntactic/morphosyntactic operation, then one could say that syntax/morphosyntax is the science of how the surface of language fails to mirror the meaning, and that the parameters governing Combine are the channels of language variation (see Williams (2011) for further discussion). The narrow point here is that the mode of derivation illustrated in (8) avoids the interpretive problems that arise in MD and copy theories of movement like Fox's, Johnson's, and Engdahl's.…”

The fundamental left–right asymmetry in the Germanic verb cluster

“…In particular, the 3-4-1-2 and 4-3-1-2 orders create difficulties for these theories. A more radical approach avoiding the need for movement motivated strictly by considerations of word order might be based on Williams (2011Williams ( , 2013, who incorporates something like Bach's (1987) 'wrap' operation from categorial grammar into the derivation. For the moment, movement seems to be the best tool to approach the facts.…”

Case vs. positions in the locality of A-movement

“…For this reason, I will refer to this line of account as position-based. A number of authors have argued that the Ban on Improper Movement in (4) should be generalized (e.g., Müller & Sternefeld 1993;Williams 2003;2013;Abels 2007;Neeleman & van de Koot 2010;Müller 2014a;b;Keine 2016;to appear), but most of these generalizations likewise make crucial reference to syntactic positions and therefore preserve the position-based nature of the account.…”