Possessors, Articles and Definiteness

Schoorlemmer, Maaike

doi:10.1075/la.22.04sch

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Assume that Cl(itic) is attracted to definite D (see Cardinaletti 1998 andSchoorlemmer 1998 for this connection, albeit in different structural terms), such that syntax outputs a structure in which it is adjoined to this head (the first tree in (32)). The Lowering operation responsible for the distribution of Def affects D and will then automatically carry Cl along with Def when it applies.…”

Section: Bulgarian Dps and The Clitic/affix Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Movement Operations after Syntax

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop a theory of movement operations that occur after the syntactic derivation, in the PF component, within the framework of Distributed Morphology. The properties of syntactic movement have been studied extensively in linguistic theory, both in terms of locality conditions and in terms of the types of constituents affected (phrases, subparts of phrases, heads). Despite differences in particular analyses or frameworks, the locality conditions on movement operations are a central concern of current research. Here we address movement operations as well, but operations of a different type. In particular, we examine and analyze movement operations that occur after the syntactic derivation, in the PF component, and provide a theory that makes proposals concerning (a) the locality conditions on such movements, (b) the types of constituents they affect, and (c) the position of such operations in the sequential derivation from the output of syntax to phonologically instantiated expressions.From a somewhat abstract perspective, the fact on which we base our study is that not all structures and strings are the result of operations that occur exclusively in the syntactic component of the grammar; this observation stems from a body of prior research investigating the relationship between syntactic structure and phonological form. The observation covers two domains: one dealing with linear sequences that are syntactically opaque, the other with movement operations. In the first domain it has been demonstrated that the internal ordering of clitic clusters cannotWe would like to thank

show abstract

Section: Bulgarian Dps and The Clitic/affix Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Movement Operations after Syntax

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, the possessor relation is established via a dedicated projection within the extended nominal projection (cf. Alexiadou, 2003;Cinque, 1994;de Wit, 1997;Schoorlemmer, 1998;Szabolcsi, 1994 amongst others). In particular, we suggest the alienable possessor maps onto with the Specifier of a higher functional head, labelled here as Poss.…”

Section: Proclitics In the Nominal Domainmentioning

confidence: 95%

Temporal restrictions on personal pronouns: The composition of Blackfoot proclitics

Bliss

Gruber

2015

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Modernizing that theory within the context of valuation theory, we might say that genitive case is valued by D for the DP in its specifier position. Similarly, Schoorlemmer (1998) and Valois (1991) propose that nominals contain a genitive/possessor head, which licenses/checks genitive case at its specifier position.…”

Section: Nominalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case Distribution and Nominalization: Evidence from Finnish

Brattico¹,

Leinonen²

2009

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In many languages, case is distributed among many grammatical elements inside of argument DPs. This article shows that case distribution in Finnish is sensitive to certain nontrivial structural properties of those DPs. This makes it possible to use case distribution as a tool to investigate the internal structure of a variety of DPs, including nominalized clauses. It is argued, based on such new evidence, that (i) there exists a syntactic nominalizer head n within various kinds of nominal phrases, and that (ii) genitive argument DPs of nominalized clauses undergo raising analogous to the EPP‐triggered DP raising in finite clauses. Furthermore, these genitive arguments are base‐generated below the nominalizer head n. Implications involving recent theories of Agree, valuation, and phrasal movement are discussed.

show abstract

Possessors, Articles and Definiteness

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Movement Operations after Syntax

Movement Operations after Syntax

Temporal restrictions on personal pronouns: The composition of Blackfoot proclitics

Case Distribution and Nominalization: Evidence from Finnish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About