<i>Syntactic Structures</i> Redux

Freidin, Robert

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9612.2004.00004.x

Cited by 19 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Through this loss, English changes from a language of the German or French type to a language with the characteristic features of Modern English. In Modern English, finite tense marking must be licensed on a main verb through a mechanism other than V-to-I; this phenomenon is typically referred to as Affix Hopping (AH) (see Chomsky 1957 and, for recent reappraisals, Bobaljik 1995, Lasnik 1999, and Freidin 2004). 6 Do -support, on this general view, marks the position of I 0 when it is not immediately adjacent to the verb and hence cannot appear on it through AH.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rise and Fall of Constructions and the History of EnglishDo-Support

Culicover

2008

J Ger Ling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do-support is a unique characteristic of English. Many languages other than English have do-periphrasis but not English-type do-support. This raises the obvious question: What is special about English? The goal of this paper is to provide an account of English do-support that explains why do-support, with its attendant properties, is found uniquely in English. I review the classical derivational approaches to do-support and argue that they do not satisfactorily capture the generalizations. I suggest an alternative, non-derivational account of contemporary dosupport that makes crucial use of constructions. Finally, I propose an account of the history of do-support in English that characterizes the changes in terms of the content and scope of constructions. The rise of do-support can be understood as a consequence of the contraction and re-specialization of particular constructions in the wake of welldocumented changes in the overt morphological system of the language. for discussion, insight, advice, encouragement, and all manner of assistance. I am also grateful to an anonymous referee for a number of useful comments and suggestions. I am solely responsible for the errors that remain. 2 Culicover

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rise and Fall of Constructions and the History of EnglishDo-Support

Culicover

2008

J Ger Ling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this section, I will start with the early generative account by Chomsky (1957) and then move to Pollock (1989), Lasnik (1999), andFreidin (2004) before fitting in the Adger and van Gelderen approaches discussed in section 2. I also outline how this approach fits a cartographic one.…”

Section: The Features Of Affix-hopmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is this selection to which I turn now and for which (18) provides an update using interpretable and uninterpretable features. Freidin (2004) relies on selection and I will formulate this insight in terms of features. I suggest there is checking by the uninterpretable aspect features of the functional head have with the interpretable features on left, as in (19), where (20a) shows the unvalued state and (20b) the valued one.…”

Section: Modal Perfect Progressive Passivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Approaches to affix-hop, such as Lasnik (1999) and Freidin (2004), focus on the mechanisms of the analysis as given in Chomsky (1957), in particular the stranded affix in T, the linear order of the various auxiliaries and the negative element, the absence of main verb movement in English, and the appearance of do. I will emphasize bringing interpretable and uninterpretable features and feature checking into this picture.…”

Section: Elly Van Gelderenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Features and affix-hop

Gelderen¹

2016

Acta Linguistica Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper, I review how formal features are currently regarded and used in the Minimalist Program. Although features are the cornerstone in Minimalism, they are used in many different and conflicting ways. Features may seem particularly relevant to affix-hop because the affix has to be checked against a higher verb or auxiliary. Chomsky's (1957) analysis of affix-hop has the affix connected with an auxiliary, e.g., the -en of have-en, move to a verb on its right, as in have see-en. This analysis is one of the high points of early generative grammar but, with each new instantiation of the generative model, it has needed adjustments and the phenomenon is still debated. I will elaborate on a proposal made in van Gelderen (2013) who argues that interpretable tense, mood, or aspect are in a low position being probed by the relevant uninterpretable features in a high position. This view I claim is consistent with data from change and acquisition. I also discuss the implications of this reliance on features for learnability and Universal Grammar.

show abstract

“…English do-support has been an important topic of research since Chomsky 1957. The perhaps dominant view of English do holds that it is inserted by an operation of DO-SUPPORT, a last-resort mechanism that applies to save a stranded tense/agreement affix (Chomsky 1957; for recent discussion see Lasnik 1995, Freidin 2004. This insertion takes place in a number of contexts-with negation, in subject-auxiliary inversion, in emphatic (or verum focus) contexts, and when the main verb is missing because of ellipsis or displacement of the VP.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English locative inversion and do -support

Bruening¹

2010

lan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Locative inversion in English (under the bridge lived a troll) is ungrammatical in all of the contexts where do-support applies: subject-auxiliary inversion, sentential negation, emphasis or verum focus, VP ellipsis, and VP displacement. Importantly, it is ungrammatical in these contexts whether do-support applies or not: it is ungrammatical with other auxiliaries, and it is also ungrammatical in nonfinite clauses of these types, where do-support never actually applies. This indicates that all of these contexts have something in common, and that cannot be disruption of adjacency between tense/agreement and the verb because there is no such disruption with other auxiliaries or in nonfinite contexts. These facts therefore argue against the standard last-resort theory of do-support, which holds that it is inserted to save a stranded tense/agreement affix, and for a theory like that of Baker 1991. In this theory, VPs have corresponding SPECIAL PURPOSE ([SP]) VPs, and do heads a [SP] VP. All of the contexts for do-support have in common the featural specification [SP]. Locative inversion involves a null expletive subject, the licensing of which is blocked by a non-[SP] context. All of this argues for a view of syntax with languageparticular licensing constraints, features, and rules, within a range of variation proscribed by universal grammar.*

show abstract

Syntactic Structures Redux

Cited by 19 publications

References 6 publications

The Rise and Fall of Constructions and the History of EnglishDo-Support

The Rise and Fall of Constructions and the History of EnglishDo-Support

Features and affix-hop

Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English locative inversion and do -support

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About