1 / 66

7( ± 2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right Cristiano Chesi chesi@media.unisi.it CISCL -

7( ± 2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right Cristiano Chesi chesi@media.unisi.it CISCL - University of Siena http:// www.ciscl.unisi.it Nanzan University, 20 February 2007 Siena, 13 February 2007. Outline. Ov erview of a (directional) M inimalist Grammar

elana
Download Presentation

7( ± 2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right Cristiano Chesi chesi@media.unisi.it CISCL -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 7(±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right Cristiano Chesi chesi@media.unisi.it CISCL - University of Siena http:// www.ciscl.unisi.it Nanzan University, 20 February 2007 Siena, 13 February 2007

  2. Outline • Overview of a (directional) Minimalist Grammar • 7(±2) arguments for a preferential directionality FORMAL • (Un)motivated intermediate steps and successive cyclicity • Growing complexity EMPIRICAL • Strong islands as nested phases • Extractions from strong islands: parasitic gaps and connectedness • Criterial Vs. S-selected targets for movement • Intermediate Constituency • Preference for move • Clause boundedness: Scrambling Vs. Heavy NP-shift • QR, Lefteness and the right-roof-constraint 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  3. Completeness of the Structural Description (SD) unique and complete: all instances present in the sentence appear in the chain: <x, tx0,tx1 ... txn-1, txn> partial: only the relevant element (a segment, at best) of the “chain” is accessed at any step: step 1: x; step 2: tx0(x = tx0); ... step n: txn(txn-1 = txn); Principle/rules ordering irrelevant: any order would postulate the same traces and discard ungrammatical options strictly defined: unless we define extra backtracking options, postulating a wrong movement would prevent the derivation from retrieving correct SDs Relation among elements absolute: any relational property among elements in the chain is valid within a single SD relative: any relational property is valid only within a relevant lapse of time τn(at τn: <txn, txn-1>), then further operation (valid at τn+1) would not have access anymore to the single constituents that established this relation Nature of the constraints filters on the unique resulting representation (e.g. case filter) constraints on operation application (such as shortest move) Processing implications None rigid order predicted (potentially, this could have direct implications for processing) A preliminary opposition: Derivations Vs. Representations 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  4. (Top-to-bottom) Minimalist Grammars: formalism Stabler’s (1997) formalization of a Minimalist Grammars, MG (Chomsky 1995) as a 4-tuple {V, Cat, Lex, F} such that: V is a finite set of non-syntactic features, (PI) where P are phonetic features and I are semantic ones; Cat is a finite set of syntactic features, Cat = (baseselectlicensorslicensees) where base are standard categories {comp, tense, verb, noun ...}, select specify a selection requirement {=x | x base} licensees force phrasal movement {-wh, -case ...}, licensors satisfy licensee requirements {+wh, +case ...} Lex is a finite set of expressions built from V and Cat (the lexicon); F is a set of two partial functions from tuples of expressions to expressions {merge, move}; 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  5. (Top-to-bottom) Minimalist Grammars: formalism Example of a toy Minimalist Grammar: V = P = {/what/, /did/, /you/, /see/}, I = {[what], [did], [you], [see]} Cat = base = {D, N, V, T, C} select = {=D, =N, =V, =T, =C} licensors {+wh}, licensees {-wh} Lex = { [-wh D what], [=V T did], [D you], [=D =D V see], [=T +wh C ] } F = {merge, move} such that: merge (X, Y) = [X X Y] (if and only if [=FX] and [F Y]) move (X, Y) = [[X Y X] W, tY] (if [+gX] and [-gY] with W possibly null, without any selecting/selector feature g in W) 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  6. (Top-to-bottom) Minimalist Grammars: derivation • merge ([=D =D V see], [-wh D what]) → [see =D V see, -wh what] • merge ([D you], [=D V see, -wh what]) → [see you, [see V see, -wh what ]] • merge ([=V T did], [see you, [seeV see, -wh what ]]) → ([did T did, [see you, [see see, -wh what ]]] • merge ([=T +wh C ], [didT did, [see you, [see see, -wh what ]]]) → ([C +wh C , [diddid, [see you, [see see, -wh what ]]]]) • move ([C+wh C , [diddid, [see you, [see see, -whwhat ]]]]) → [C What C , [diddid, [see you, [see see, twhat ]]]] [C ] [+wh C ] [-wh what] [T did] [=T +wh C ] [=V T did] [V see] [D you] [=D V see] [-wh D what] [=D =D V see] 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  7. Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi2004) Performance tasks Parsing Generation Flexibility (interface conditions) Competence Structure Building Operations (merge, move, phase) Features Structures(semantic + syntactic/abstract + phonetic features →lexicon ) Economy conditions Universals Parameterization 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  8. Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi2004) Performance tasks Parsing Generation Parsing problemgiven a grammar G, a finite set of phonological features  (grouped by words) and a precedence total order among them, find the relevant set of lexical items Lex, compatible with  and the set of dominance relations D among  features associated to in Lex, if possible, if not reject the input. Generation problemgiven a grammar G, a finite set of semantic features and a finite set of dominance relations D among them, find the relevant set of lexical items Lex and the correct linearization among  features associated to in Lex, if possible, if not reject the input 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  9. Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi2004) Performance tasks Parsing Generation Flexibility Competence Structure Building Operations (merge, move, phase) Features Structures(semantic + syntactic/abstract + phonetic features →lexicon ) Economy conditions Universals Parameterization 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  10. Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi2004) Features Structures(semantic + syntactic/abstract + phonetic features →lexicon ) 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  11. Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi2004) 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  12. Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi2004) Performance tasks Parsing Generation Flexibility Competence Structure Building Operations (merge, move, phase) Features Structures(semantic + syntactic/abstract + phonetic features →lexicon ) Economy conditions Universals Parameterization 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  13. X dominance: X → A Y Y → B C B Y A B B C A precedence: <A, B, C> C B Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi2004) Structural Description I(dentifiers) = {A,B,C} (immediate) P(recedence) = {<A,B>, <B,C>} (immediate) D(dominance) = {B<A, B<C} Long Distance Relation two non-empty elements enter a long distance relation (thus forming a discontinuous constituency relation) when a dominance relation but no precedence relation is defined between them. Universals Linearization Principle(inspired by LCA, Kayne 1994) if A < B, then either a. <A, B> if B is a complement of A (that is, A selects B), or b. <B, A> if B is a functional projection of A 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  14. Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi2004) Performance tasks Parsing Generation Flexibility Competence Structure Building Operations (merge, move, phase) Features Structures(semantic + syntactic/abstract + phonetic features →lexicon ) Economy conditions Universals Parameterization 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  15. Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi2004) MOVE top-down oriented function which stores an un-selected element in a memory buffer and re-merges it at the point of the computation where the element is selected MERGE binary function (sensitive to temporal order) taking two features structures and unifying them. Structure Building Operations (merge, move, phase) PHASE PROJECTION is the minimal set of dominance relations introduced in the SD based on the expectations triggered by each select feature of the currently processed lexical items 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  16. V ... (left periphery) V V V F1 V ... Functional Sequence (licensor features) Fn V V head Selected Phase(s) (select features) Memory Buffer Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi2004) MOVE Linearization Principle (inspired by Kayne’s LCA) if A immediately dominates B, then either a. <A, B> if A selects B as an argument, or b. <B, A> if B is in a functional specification of A e.g. “the boy kissed the girl” PHASE [+T kiss] [=s =o kiss] the boy [=s =o kiss] kissed [=okiss] V <the boy> the girl the boy Memory Buffer 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  17. Memory Buffer F1 Memory Buffer head Fn S1 Slast Memory Buffer Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi2004) Sequential Phase Nested Phase Vs. F1 Fn head S1 Slast Memory Buffer Success Condition: the memory buffer must be empty at the end of the phase orelse its content is inherited by the memory buffer of the next sequential phase (if any) 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  18. Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi2004) • In a nut shell: • Every computation is a top-down derivation divided into phases. • A phase gets closed when the last selected complement of its head is processed; this last projected complement constitutes the next sequential phase. • All unselected constituents are instead nested phases: they are processed while the superordinate phase has not been closed yet. • The Move operation stores an unselected element found before (i.e. on the left of) the head position in the local memory buffer of the current phase, and discharges it in a selected position if possible; if not, when the phase is closed the content of the memory buffer is inherited by that of the next sequential phase. 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  19. Argument 1 - Teleological movement & successive cyclicity From bottom to top • Whoi do you believe [tithat everybody admires ti]? • Every intermediate step in a bottom-to-top derivation has to be triggered blindly by purely Formal Features (FFs). Crucially movement cannot touch the relevant wh- feature which triggers the last step of the wh- chain: • [+FF C] everybody admires [-FF -WH who]? • [[-WH who] C] everybody admires? 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  20. Argument 1 - Teleological movement & successive cyclicity From bottom to top • How many -FF should a wh- element bear to trigger recursive successive cyclic movement? • 1 feature 1 move (deletion)... but then recursive successive cyclicity would need an infinite number of formal features (this is in contrast with the finitary nature of the lexicon) • 1 feature many moves (no deletion)... but then you will always send an “uninterpretable” feature to LF 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  21. Who do Lic. you Sel. V Argument 1 - Teleological movement & successive cyclicity Top-down who= 1st Nested Phase (DP) Matrix Phase (CP) you= 2nd Nested Phase (DP) that= Selected Phase (CP) believe you <you> who <who> that who Memory Buffer (Matrix Phase, CP) everybody admires <who> Whoi do you believe [twhothat everybody admires twho]? 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  22. Argument 1 - Teleological movement & successive cyclicity A note on Japanese: successive cyclicity (1) a. [Dare-ga [John-ga Bill-ni atta to] omotteimasu ka]? who-NOM J.-NOM B.-DAT met that think Q 'Who thinks that John met Bill?' b. [[John-ga Bill-ni atta to]1[dare-ga t1omotteimasu ka]]? J.-NOM B.-DAT met that who-NOM think Q 'Who thinks that John met Bill?' atta to omotteimasu 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  23. Argument 1 - Teleological movement & successive cyclicity A note on Japanese: (apparent) successive cyclicity (2) a. [CP Dare-nii anata-wa [CP Mary-ga [CP John-ga [CP Sue-ga ti atta to] itta to] shinnjiteiru to] who-DAT you-TOP M.-NOM J.-NOM S.-NOM met that said that believe that omotteimasu ka]? think Q ‘Who do you think that Mary believes that John said that Sue met?’ b. [CPBill-ni anata-wa [CP Mary-ga [CP John-ga [CP Sue-ga ti atta to] itta to] shinnjiteiru to] omotteimasu ka]? c. [CPBill-ni-wa Sarah-ga [CP Mary-ga [CP John-ga [CP Sue-ga ti atta to] itta to] shinnjiteiru to] omotteimasu]. ‘Bill, Sarah thinks that Mary believes that John said that Sue met’ 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  24. ...-ga ...-ga Sue-ga atta to Argument 1 - Teleological movement & successive cyclicity A note on Japanese: (apparent) successive cyclicity Bill-ni-wa Matrix Phase (CP) Sarah-ga Nested Phases (CPs) V omotteimasu S.-ga B.-ni B.-ni S.-ga (1) c. [CP Bill-ni-wa Sarah-ga [CP Mary-ga [CP John-ga [CP Sue-ga ti atta to] itta to] shinnjiteiru to] omotteimasu] ‘Bill, Sarah thinks that Mary believes that John said that Sue met’ 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  25. Argument 2 - Growing complexity Top-down Bottom-to-top Vs. head Fx Phase 1 Phase 2 Slast edge Phase 2 head Phase 2 Phase 1 n= number of nested phases possible relations per phase = 2n(k-1) k= elements in a phase possible relations per phase = 2k-1 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  26. Lic. Sel. Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands Left-branching islands: *Whoi did [close friends of ei] become famous ? Matrix Phase (CP) who= 1st Nested Phase (DP) Who G1 = 2nd Nested Phase (DP) did close friends of e <who> become G1 V famous <G1> who <who> Memory Buffer (Matrix Phase, CP) 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  27. Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands A note on Japanese: complex NPs and adjuncts behave like islands... (3) a.Nani-oi [John-ga [CP Mary-ga ti katta to] omotteru] no? what-ACC J. -NOM M. -NOM bought that think Q? ‘Whati , John thinks that Mary bought ti ?’ b.??Nani-oi [John-ga [NP [IPejti katta] hitoj ]-o sagasiteru] no? what-ACC John-NOM bought person-ACC looking-for Q? ‘Whati , John is looking for [the person that bought ti ]?’ c.?Nani-oi [John-ga [PP Mary-ga tikatta kara] okotteru] no? what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought since angry Q? ‘Whati , John is angry [because Mary bought ti]?’ (Saito & Fukui 1998) 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  28. Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands A note on Japanese: ... but no asymmetry seems to exist between extraction from a subject or an object! (4) a.?Nani-oi [John-ga [NP [IP Mary-ga tikatta] koto]-o mondai-ni siteru] no. what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought fact-ACC problem-into making Q ‘Whati , John is making an issue out of [the fact that Mary bought ti].’ b.?Nani-oi [John-ga [CP [NP [IP Mary-ga tikatta] koto]-ga mondai-da to] omotteru] no. what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought fact-NOM problem-is that think Q ‘Whati , John thinks that [the fact that Mary bought ti ] is a problem.’ (Saito & Fukui 1998) 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  29. Sequential Phase Memory Buffer F1 Fn head S1 Slast Mem. Buffer F1 head Mem. Buffer Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands A note on Japanese: how comes that subjects are not islands? [=ga Fn ] head (ga) prediction: case-markedpreverbal phases could behave as selected phases 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  30. Nested Phase Memory Buffer Memory Buffer F1 F1 head Fn C1 Clast head C1 Clast Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands Right-branching island: ??[Those boring old reports]i , Kim went to lunch [without reading ei]. Fn prediction: right-hand adjuncts can be nested phases 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  31. Memory Buffer Memory Buffer F1 F1 head Fn C1 Clast head C1 Clast Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands Right-branching island: ??[Those boring old reports]i , Kim went to lunch [without reading ei]. Nested Phase [=x Fn ] X prediction: right-hand adjuncts can be nested phases 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  32. nani-o Nani-o ... okotteru ... kara Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands A note on Japanese: adjuncts are islands (?) (3) c.?Nani-oi [John-ga [PP Mary-ga tikatta kara] okotteru] no? what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought since angry Q? ‘Whati , John is angry [because Mary bought ti]?’ (Saito & Fukui 1998) 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  33. Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands Complex NPs: (5) ?* [Which book]i did John meet [NP a child [CP who read ei]] Matrix Phase (CP) Which book did John Last Selected Phase (DP) meet J. V J. <which> which which a child Memory Buffer (Matrix Phase, CP) Nested Phase (CP) who read 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  34. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) (5)a. * [Which famous playwright]i did [close friends of ei] become famous ? b. ? [Which famous playwright]i did [close friends of ei] admire ei ? (Kayne 1983) (6) a. * Who did [my talking to ei] bother Hilary? b. √ Who did [my talking to ei] bother ei ? (Pollard & Sag 1994) (7) a. * Whoi did you consider [friends of ei] angry at Sandy? b. √ Whoi did you consider[friends of ei] angry at ei ? (Pollard & Sag 1994) 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  35. eX eX eX Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) • Left branch constituents are islands for extraction • A legitimate gap on a right branch can “rescue” an illegitimate gap inside a left branch X 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  36. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) Kayne’s Connectedness Condition (Kayne 1983) A.Y is a g-projection of X iff i. Y is an ( X' ) projection of X or of a g-projection of X, or ii. X is a structural governor and Y immediately dominates W and Z, where Z is a maximal projection of a g-projection of X, and W and Z are in a canonical government configuration: B.W and Z (Z a maximal projection, and W and Z immediately dominated by some Y) are in a canonical government configuration iff a.V governs NP to its right in the grammar of the language and W precedes Zb. V governs NP to its left in the grammar of the language and Z precedes W C. The g-projection setG of a category  is defined as follows (where  governs  ): a. ,  = a g-projection of     Gb.  G andb'.  dominates  and  does not dominate     G 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  37. n Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) D.Connectedness Condition Let 1 ... j, j+1 ... n be a maximal set of empty categories in a tree T such that j, j is locally bound by .Then {} (Gj) must constitute a subtree of T.    1 - all the maximal projections in the path between the gap and its binder are on a right branch or 2 - a path terminating in a left branch is connected to a legitimate path of right branches 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  38. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) (5) a. *  Which famous playwright did 1 1 close G1 1 friends 1 1 e of 1 famous become 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  39. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) (5) b.  Which famous playwright did 1 1 close G1 1 friends 1 1 e of 1 e admire 2 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  40. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) (5) b. 2 2  2 Which famous playwright did G2 1 1 close G1 1 friends 1 1 2 e of 2 1 2 e admire 2 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  41. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) (8)*a person who you admire e because [close friends of e] became famous  who you because 1 admire e 1 close 1 friends 1 1 G1 e of famous became 1 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  42. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) (8)*a person who you admire e because [close friends of e] became famous 2  who 2 2 you because G2 2 2 1 admire e 2 1 close 1 friends 1 1 G1 e of famous became 1 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  43. Lic. Sel. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) (5.b) ?Whoi did [close friends of ei] admire ei ? G= Matrix Phase (CP) Who who= 1st Nested Phase (DP) did G1 = 2nd Nested Phase (DP) close friends of e <who> admire G1 V <G1> <who> who who Memory Buffer (Matrix Phase, CP) 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  44. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) (8) *... Who you admire e because [close friends of e] became famous G= Matrix Phase who= Nested Phase Who you= Nested Phase because= Nested Phase G1 = Doubly-nested Phase you admire who because you V <who> <you> who close friends of _ <who> became famous Memory Buffer (Matrix Phase, CP) 1 who 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  45. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) Summary of the proposed analysis (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) the Connectedness Condition can be recast in derivational terms, by assuming: (a) a top-to-bottom derivation divided in phases (b) a “storage” conception of the Move operation (c) a distinction between sequential and nested phases (corresponding to branches on the recursive vs. non-recursive side of the tree). (d) The content of the memory buffer of a phase can only be inherited by thenext sequential phase, and not by a nested phase. (e) Parasitic gaps exploit the possibility of “parasitically” copying the content of the buffer of a matrix phase into the buffer of a nested phase. (f) Parasitic copying, however, cannot empty the matrix memory buffer, whence the necessity of another (“legitimate”) gap within the matrix phase itself (or within a phase that is sequential to the matrix one). 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  46. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) Problems for Kayne’s account 1 - Connectedness Condition does not subsume right hand adjunct islands... but see (11): (9) a. ??[Those boring old reports]i , Kim went to lunch [without reading ei]. b. √ [Those boring old reports]i , Kim filed ei [without reading ei]. (10) ?[A person]i that they spoke to ei[because they admire ei] (11)a. Who did you go to Girona [in order to meet e]?(Pollard & Sag 1994, Haider 2003) b.This is the blanket that Rebecca refuses to sleep [without e]. c. How many of the book reports did the teacher smile [after reading e]? 2 - Complex NPs block connectedness... but complex subjects do not (13): (12)?* Which book did John meet [NP a child [CP who read t]] (13)a. * A person who [people that talk to ei ] usually have money in mind b. ? A person who [people that talk to ei ] usually end up fascinated with ei 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  47. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) An attempt to find a solution (Longobardi 1985) 1 - Longobardi strengthens the notion of g-projection, by addinga proper government requirement: a non properly governed maximal projection is a boundary to the extension of g-projections. Then, by definition, subjects and adjuncts are not properly governed: thus, the adjunct islandis assimilated to the subject island, much as in Huang’s (1982)Condition on Extraction Domains. 2 - He must modify his definition of proper government so that the relative clause counts as properly governed; but then, the Complex NP Island Constraint must be stipulated as a separate constraint on extraction. Notice that the Complex NP Island Constraint did not follow from Kayne’s originalConnectedness Condition since it applies to the right branch(cf. Kayne 1984, n. 5) 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  48. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) (14.a) ??[Those boring old reports]i , Kim went to lunch [without reading ei].  Those boring old reports Kim G 1 1 went without 1 to PRO lunch 1 1 reading e 1 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  49. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) (14.b) [Those boring old reports]i , Kim filed ei [without reading ei]. 2  2 Those boring old reports 2 Kim G 1 2 2 1 filed without e 1 2 PRO 1 1 reading e 1 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

  50. Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006) (15) b.?  A person who 1 1 usually people 1 end up that G 1 fascinated e 1 talk with e 1 1 e to 2 1 7 (±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. Chesi

More Related