When Movement Must Be Blocked: A Reply to Embick and Noyer

Hankamer, Jorge; Mikkelsen, Line

doi:10.1162/0024389052993664

Cited by 67 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other alternatives, based on competition between larger objects (words, phrases, and sentences as opposed to Vocabulary items) and different notions of what it means to be (un)grammatical, do not make the correct predictions. Lexicalist approaches to blocking, as inspired by Poser's (1992) work and as formalized by Andrews (1990) and by Hankamer and Mikkelsen (2005), stumble because single words are (sometimes) not constituents from the point of view of the functional structure of sentences, arising instead from the syntactic manipulation of heads (via head raising, merger, and Local Dislocation). Recognizing this problem with the narrow lexicalist account of blocking, Bresnan (2001) has proposed that blocking involves an OT competition at the sentential level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A reviewer notes that an account might be formed along semantic lines, whereby the output of Rule D is of the wrong type to combine with nouns; we defer discussion of such a possibility in the absence of a fleshed-out proposal. 27 Hankamer and Mikkelsen (2005) note the existence of various Ns that do not allow affixation with D, something that is not unexpected under the Local Dislocation approach (cf. the discussion of comparative/superlative formation in the next section).…”

Section: Dp/npmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The interaction is like the one schematized above in our introduction to generalized Poser 25 The lexicalist treatment with Poser blocking is presented in Mikkelsen 2002. In Hankamer andMikkelsen 2005, the authors consider a nonlexicalist alternative as well. For present purposes, what is important is the claim that this is a test case for something like generalized Poser blocking.…”

Section: Danish Definitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While Poser blocking makes the correct prediction for prenominal adjectives, it does not predict any kind of left-right asymmetry in the prevention of synthetic definite noun formation. Hankamer and Mikkelsen (2005) discuss this component of Poser blocking with reference to postnominal PPs. On the standard assumption that these are attached to an NP as in (79) Structurally, a theory in which words express nodes predicts that cases like this should behave just like the above cases with prenominal adjectives.…”

Section: Danish Definitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(80) a. gris-en med blå pletter pig-DEF with blue spots 'the pig with blue spots' 26 This raises the question of why an AP can never be associated with a DP that is headed by the output of Rule D. Hankamer and Mikkelsen (2005) state that it is because Rule D's output heads a DP, and APs attach to NPs. It should be noted that their approach requires additional assumptions to rule out (i) with the structure (ii)-b.…”

Section: Dp/npmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Architecture and Blocking

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We discuss theoretical approaches to blocking effects, with particular emphasis on cases in which words appear to block phrases (and perhaps vice versa). These approaches share at least one intuition: that syntactic and semantic features create possible ''cells'' or slots in which particular items can appear, and that blocking occurs when one such cell is occupied by one form as opposed to another. Accounts of blocking differ along two primary dimensions: the size of the objects that compete with one another (morphemes, words, phrases, sentences); and whether or not ungrammatical forms are taken into consideration in determining the correct output (relatedly, whether otherwise wellformed objects are marked ungrammatical by competition). We argue that blocking in the sense of competition for the expression of syntactic or semantic features is limited to insertion of the phonological exponents of such features (the Vocabulary items of Distributed Morphology) at terminal nodes from the syntax. There is thus no blocking at the word level or above, and no competition between grammatical and ungrammatical structures. The architectural significance of these points is emphasized throughout the discussion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dp/npmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Danish Definitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Danish Definitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dp/npmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Architecture and Blocking

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Article Doubling

Lekakou

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter deals with the doubling of the definite and indefinite article. After a brief introduction to the syntactic and semantic function of (in)definite articles and to the relevance of doubling for syntactic and semantic research, I review the main instantiations of each type of phenomenon. I deal with definite doubling as it is attested in North Germanic languages, in Modern Greek, and in Hebrew. Doubling occurs in these varieties predominantly when adjectival modification is involved; it is obligatory in Hebrew and in certain Northern Germanic languages, and optional in Greek, where it incurs semantic effects related to the restrictive interpretation of the adjective. In the case of Hebrew and Northern Germanic, the debate has revolved around the choice between head movement and phrasal movement within a determiner phrase (DP) analysis of nominals and around the status of the doubling elements; for Hebrew, the idea of a concord relation between the doubling elements has also been exploited. In the case of Greek, major points of controversy have been whether doubling involves an underlying predicative structure and a DP‐internal focus projection. Indefinite doubling is much less widespread cross‐linguistically. It is known to occur in some dialectal variants of Swedish and Norwegian, where it can be argued to involve a predication structure. A different instance of indefinite doubling occurs in Bavarian in the presence of quantificational elements. In this final case, doubling is argued to involve non‐identical elements. The suggestion is made that indefinite doubling as such does not exist at all.

show abstract

Blocking Effects

Embick,

Benz,

Paparounas

2023

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This entry provides an overview and synthesis of grammatical approaches to blocking effects : informally, cases in which the ungrammaticality of one word (or phrase) is attributed to the existence of another. The primary focus concerns the scope of competition for grammaticality. While discussions of blocking are often directed at particular parts of the grammar (e.g. derivational morphology) the larger set of questions raised by (putative) blocking effects has the potential to distinguish predictions made by major theoretical movements like the Minimalist Program and Optimality Theory, precisely because of the different roles they attribute to competition. This review of theories of blocking is oriented towards larger questions of this type. It also examines the apparent absence of blocking: cases in which it looks as if one form should (all else being equal) block another, yet both exist. Observations to this effect appear in early and influential accounts of blocking, where they have underappreciated theoretical consequences concerning how the ‘paradigm space' associated with words and phrases is structured. A key theme throughout the entry is whether the phenomena that have been described as blocking effects are derivative of one grammatical (or extragrammatical) mechanism, or several. While the authors conclude that the latter view is correct, part of their argument is that the focus on unity is less important than the question of what evidence for (or against) competition in a given domain would look like in the first place.

show abstract

When Movement Must Be Blocked: A Reply to Embick and Noyer

Cited by 67 publications

References 23 publications

Architecture and Blocking

Architecture and Blocking

Article Doubling

Blocking Effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About