Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:50:00.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

One-replacement and the label-less theory of adjuncts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Yosuke Sato
Yosuke Sato*
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The proper treatment of adjuncts has been a central issue in syntactic theory since the 1980s. In the X'-theoretic analysis in the Government and Binding (GB) Theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986), they were commonly treated as optional elements attached to an intermediate or maximal projection of the head they modify. However, this treatment has been shown to be no longer tenable in the more recent Bare Phrase Structure (BPS) Theory for several conceptual reasons (Chomsky 1995: ch. 4), which renders the status of adjuncts all the more puzzling. Recently, however, Hornstein and Nunes (2008) (henceforth H&N) have proposed a new theory of adjuncts that conforms to the precepts of the BPS. It proposes that adjuncts need not be labeled for purposes of syntactic computation in contrast to complements and specifiers, which require the result of concatenation to be labeled. This squib presents new evidence for H&N's theory from one-replacement.

Type
Squibs Notules
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 416 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, Carl L. 1978. Introduction to generative-transformational syntax. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy B. 1993. Topics in the syntax of nominal structure across Romance. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, ed. Belletti, Adrianna, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1994. On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In Paths towards universal grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, ed. Cinque, Guglielmo, Koster, Jan, Pollock, Jean-Yves, Rizzi, Luigi, and Zanuttini, Raffaella, 85–110. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36:315–332.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays in semantics and syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. Testing the reality of focus domain. Language and Speech 26:61–80.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert and Lightfoot, David. 1981. Introduction. In Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition, ed. Hornstein, Norbert and Lightfoot, David, 9–31. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert and Nunes, Jairo. 2008. Adjunction, labeling and bare phrase structure. Biolinguistics 2:57–86.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terrence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schein, Barry. 1993. Plurals and events. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard and Shih, Chilin. 1991. The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions. In Interdisciplinary approaches to languages: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, ed. Geogopoulos, Carol and Ishihara, Roberta, 565–593. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 1994. The structural location of the attribitive adjective. In Proceedings of the Twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Duncan, Erin, Farkas, Donka, and Spaelti, Phillip, 439–454. Standford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Teodorescu, Alexandra. 2006. Adjective ordering restrictions revisited. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Baumer, Donald, Montero, David, and Scanlon, Michael, 399–407. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and reason: An introduction to minimalist syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1968. Adjectives and nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar