Mirror Theory: Syntactic Representation in Perfect Syntax

Brody, Michael

doi:10.1162/002438900554280

Cited by 177 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here we concentrate on this particular instantiation, just with the intend of keeping our exposition somewhat simpler and more accessible. 19 To support our conjecture, it should also be mentioned here that Kobele [10] pointed out, how in a different framework, namely, mirror theoretic grammars (MTGs) developed in [10] as a formalization of the syntactic theory proposed in [2], it is possible to define an (unrestricted) MTG deriving the language {a 2 n | n ∈ IN}. In fact, MTGs in their unrestricted version can be seen as strongly related to the MG-type Kobele considers in [11] exactly in the way they allow for feature percolation-though, in place of percolation from specifiers to heads, we are concerned with percolation from complements to (selecting) heads in the MTG-case-and the corresponding kind of percolation is employed to derive {a 2 n | n ∈ IN} by an MTG.…”

supporting

confidence: 58%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Note on the Complexity of Constraint Interaction: Locality Conditions and Minimalist Grammars

Gärtner

Michaelis

2005

Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Locality Conditions (LCs) on (unbounded) dependencies have played a major role in the development of generative syntax ever since the seminal work by Ross [22]. Descriptively, they fall into two groups. On the one hand there are intervention-based LCs (ILCs) often formulated as "minimality constraints" ("minimal link condition," "minimize chain links," "shortest move," "attract closest," etc.). On the other hand there are containment-based LCs (CLCs) typically defined in terms of (generalized) grammatical functions ("adjunct island,""subject island,""specifier island," etc.). Research on LCs has been dominated by two very general trends. First, attempts have been made at unifying ILCs and CLCs on the basis of notions such as "government" and "barrier" (e.g. [4]). Secondly, research has often been guided by the intuition that, beyond empirical coverage, LCs somehow contribute to restricting the formal capacity of grammars (cf. [3, p. 125], [6, p. 14f]). Both these issues, we are going to argue, can be fruitfully studied within the framework of minimalist grammars (MGs) as defined by Stabler [25]. In particular, we are going to demonstrate that there is a specific asymmetry between the influence of ILCs and CLCs on complexity. Thus, MGs, including an ILC, namely, the shortest move condition (SMC) have been shown to belong to the mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms by Michaelis [14]. The same has been shown in [16,18] for a revised version of MGs introduced in [26], which includes the SMC and an additional CLC, namely, the specifier island condition (SPIC). In particular [14] and [16,18] show that, in terms of derivable string languages, both the original MG-type and the revised MG-type constitute a subclass of the class of linear context-free rewriting systems (LCFRSs) in the sense of [28,29], and thus, a series of other formalism classes all generating the same class of string languages as LCFRSs. Here we will demonstrate that removing the SMC from the revised MG-version increases the generative power in such a way that the resulting formalism is not mildly context-sensitive anymore. This suggests that intuitions to the contrary notwithstanding, imposing an LC as such, here the SPIC, does not necessarily reduce formal complexity. This work has been carried out partially funded by DFG-grant. Thanks to two anonymous referees for valuable comments on a previous version of this paper.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 58%

“…on the assumption that more minimal dependencies could have been formed between α and β, and/or β and γ. On the other hand containment-based LCs (CLCs) exist such as given in (2).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Note on the Complexity of Constraint Interaction: Locality Conditions and Minimalist Grammars

Gärtner

Michaelis

2005

Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 Note that in (26) we are following Ramchand (see also Brody 2000) in the proposal that single exponents materialise sets of adjacent heads -through spanning. More about this and its consequences for the materialisation of result locations in our constructions will come later.…”

Section: The Structure Of Aktionsart In a First Phase Syntaxmentioning

confidence: 96%

Extraction from gerunds and the internal syntax of verbs

Fábregas

Jiménez-Fernández²

2016

Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an analysis of transparent gerunds in Spanish, as in ¿Qué llegó [silbando qué] Juan? 'What arrived [whistling what] Juan?', using a decomposition of Aktionsart in a series of syntactic heads. A traditional analysis of these secondary predicates as adjuncts would undermine well-established syntactic principles restricting movement and extraction. We argue that these transparent gerunds should be analyzed as syntactic constituents merged as part of the syntactic projections associated with Aktionsart. More precisely, they qualify as RhemePs -assuming Ramchand's First Phase Syntax system -thus allowing their arguments to be extracted. Well-attested differences between Spanish and English gerunds will be explained in our analysis by proposing that the Spanish gerund projects as PathP (given it carries a path preposition), whereas English gerunds are simply RhemeP (lacking any sort of preposition).

show abstract

“…It is not clear to me that this is formulable without loosing some of the key insights of Platzack's approach. I am less sure about what predictions Brody's (2000) Mirror Theory might make. In particular, it remains unclear to me how phrasal movement of part of the head-complement structure would interact with the principle Mirror.…”

Section: Summary: Why Non-movement Is Better Than Movementmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Chomsky himself proposes that head movement might be largely a PF operation, on the basis that it does not appear to show LF effects. Other recent implementations, including those proposed by Brody (2000), Hale & Keyser (2002), Harley (2004Harley ( , 2013, Platzack (2013), and Zwart (2001) are still properly syntactic, but do not rely on head movement being derived by the operation Move. 5 3.2.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Verb phrase movement as a window into head movement

LaCara

2016

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Since Chomsky (2001) suggested that head movement might be a PF operation, there has been debate about the proper place of head movement in the grammar. The interaction of verb movement with verb phrase fronting can shed light on how and when head movement occurs. This paper looks at cases where verb phrase fronting generates two copies of the verb (as in Portuguese or Hebrew), one in the fronted vP and one in an inflectional position, showing how a PF approach to head movement can explain this pattern while addressing some potential problems in other languages.

show abstract

Mirror Theory: Syntactic Representation in Perfect Syntax

Cited by 177 publications

References 3 publications

A Note on the Complexity of Constraint Interaction: Locality Conditions and Minimalist Grammars

A Note on the Complexity of Constraint Interaction: Locality Conditions and Minimalist Grammars

Extraction from gerunds and the internal syntax of verbs

Verb phrase movement as a window into head movement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About