Accord, Chaines Impersonnelles Et Variables

1983 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Yves Pollock
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Morphological Properties ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
General Constraint ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Assignment Rule ◽  
French And English ◽  
Government Binding

The present paper has two intimately connected goals; It aims at contributing to Chomsky's "Government Binding Theory" and also at providing a fairly detailed comparative analysis of French and English impersonal constructions. Its contribution comes under the guise of (a) an Agreement Theory (see section 2), (b) a general constraint on impersonal chains (see (72)) and (c) a new nominative Case assignment rule: it is suggested that in French and Italian (but not in English) "ergative verbs" (in Burzio (1981) 'sense) can assign nominative Case to their "object". Furthermore, as has become standard in recent comparative work in the GB framework, the paper attempts to isolate the parameters that are responsible for the minimally distinct properties of the constructions under investigation. It is shown here that they can be traced back to the interplay of a Case parameter, the morphological properties of expletive elements (il vs there) and the properties of Universal Grammar.

The acquisition of preposition stranding by second language learners and parametric variation

1985 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul van Buren ◽  
Michael Sharwood Smith
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Target System ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Pilot Studies ◽  
Preposition Stranding ◽  
Government Binding

This paper discusses the application of Government Binding Theory to second language acquisition in the context of a project which is looking into the acquisition of preposition stranding in English and Dutch. The bulk of the discussion focuses on the theoretical problems involved. Firstly, the potential value of Government Binding Theory in principle is considered both in terms of the formulation of linguistic questions per se and also in terms of more specifically acquisitional questions having to do with the speed and order of acquisition. Secondly, some results in the pilot studies conducted so far in Utrecht are examined with respect to the theoretical usefulness of the framework adopted. The potential of the framework to generate sophisticated linguistic research questions is found to be undeniable. The acquisitional aspects need to be elaborated and adapted to cope with the special features of second, as opposed to first, language acquisition. This involves an elaboration of scenarios to be investigated: one in which the learner's initial assumption is that the unmarked setting of a given parameter of Universal Grammar holds for the target system, one in which the settings of parameters shared by the target and native systems are assumed to be identical, the second being a 'cross linguistic' scenario. These possibilities are considered in the light of the nature of evidence derived from the input and in the light of a set of possible learning strategies derived from the scenarios. The scenarios, the types of evidence and the strategies are spelled out in terms of the specific problem of preposition stranding in Universal Grammar, in Dutch and in English.

The Syntax of Adverbials

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-109
Author(s):  
Thomas Ernst
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Analysis ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
The Right ◽  
Government Binding ◽  
Main Factor

After explicit phrase structure rules were abandoned in government–binding theory, some account of the distribution of adverbials became necessary. This review surveys two current theories. The first, often called the scopal theory, posits that the main factor is semantics: In general, adverbials can appear wherever they cause no violation of semantic well-formedness. Purely syntactic and morphological factors play a role, but it is a relatively minor one. Though the scopal theory predicts a significant range of adverbial distribution correctly, much of its underlying semantic analysis remains to be developed in explicit terms. The second theory discussed in this review, the cartographic theory, takes syntax as central, proposing that adverbials are individually licensed by dedicated functional heads, arranged in a rigid hierarchy by Universal Grammar. This approach has some empirical successes but also a number of problems; thus, the scopal theory is more likely to represent the right direction.

scholarly journals Chomsky's Universal Grammar: A Case of Its Concepts of Government/Binding Theory

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 210
Author(s):  
Y M Harsono
Keyword(s):  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Binding

The purpose of this paper is to see the universality of the Government/Binding Theory in its concepts of government, the pro-drop parameter, and binding theory. Three languages English, Indonesian, and Javanese are analyzed based on the three concepts. From the analysis it is concluded that in some cases language is universal, but in some other cases every language is specific.

scholarly journals شرۆڤەكردنى ڕستەى زمانى كوردى لە ڕوانگەى تيۆرى دەسەڵات و بەستنەوەدا

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 128
Author(s):  
Abubakir Omar Qadir
Keyword(s):  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Turning Point ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Empty Categories ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Theta Role ◽  
Government Binding ◽  
Principles And Parameters

This study tries to analyze the Kurdish language, using Chomsky’s (1981) Government Binding theory, which is by itself regarded as a turning point in Chomsky’s Transformational Generative Grammar related to Universal Grammar. This approach will answer the diversity occurs in different languages according to Principles and Parameters. First, Universal Grammar and its principles have been mentioned in this study. Later on, interpretations are given to the sub-theories of GB with which sentences in central Kurdish are analyzed. Besides, the level and method of the theory a long with the optional and obligatory movements are shown. Interpretations are given to different cases of noun phrase. The difference between grammatical case and theta role is indicated through examples.Again, indicating economy in expression, movement and null-constituents whose places can be filled by PRO/ pro are discussed. The distribution of pronouns to personal and demonstrative which refer back to the empty categories reveals the activeness of Kurdish as a pro-drop language.

Rethinking Verb Second and Nominative case assignment

2020 ◽  
pp. 575-593
Author(s):  
Ermenegildo Bidese ◽  
Andrea Padovan ◽  
Alessandra Tomaselli
Keyword(s):  
Heritage Language ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Verb Second ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Spreading Model ◽  
Traditional Argument ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Finite Verb

Cimbrian is a German(ic) VO heritage language that does not display the linear V2 restriction: the DP subject can show up before the finite verb together with other constituents, while German-like verb-subject inversion only obtains with clitic pronouns. In recent literature on Cimbrian, pronominal subject inversion has been taken as a traditional argument in favour of mandatory V-to-C movement (assuming a split-C configuration). Building on this assumption, the syntax of the enclitic expletive subject, -da/-ta, (which shows up whenever the DP subject does not raise in the C-domain) makes the Cimbrian data particularly relevant, since it casts light on the correlation between V2 and Nominative case licensing. The stance in this chapter is that Nominative case in Cimbrian is assigned by C—as generally assumed for Germanic V2 languages—but in an idiosyncratic way: (i) it applies within the C domain, i.e. FinP; (ii) expletive -da/-ta absorbs Nominative case and acts as a defective goal with respect to the ‘low’ subject. On the basis of the feature-spreading model in Ouali (2008), the phasal head C in Cimbrian is taken to ‘KEEP’ its relevant ϕ‎- and T-features, to assign Nominative case in [Spec,FinP], and to triggering mandatory V-movement.

Some Remarks on the Government-Binding Theory and Anaphors

1983 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milan Bilý
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
The Self ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Binding

The Government-Binding theory cannot account for reflexives in Slavic languages. We may guess that the more a language differs from English with its quite rigid word-order, the worse are the predictions made by the theory.One cannot exclude Slavic reflexives as non-anaphors in a non-arbitrary way while keeping the spirit of Chomsky et al. The Slavic reflexives behave “as they ought to” in tensed clauses, too. An attempt to exclude them would also be another step on the self-destructive path that started by excluding the Japanese reflexives in order to cope with the facts clashing with the Government-Binding theory. Many interesting cases of English reflexives would also have to be ignored for the sake of the theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document