Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:06:02.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indeterminacy in syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

David Lightfoot
David Lightfoot*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I shall illustrate here the importance of syntactic ‘blends’ for a transformational conception of syntax and, in the light of this, I shall show that if one accepts the theory of syntax outlined in Chomsky (1965), one must discard the celebrated deep structure distinction advocated there for easy and eager and the rule of Tough- Movement.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , Fall 1974 , pp. 150 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1974

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

Chomsky, Noam 1964 Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton & Co. [Janua linguarum, Series Minor, 38.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph 1970 Root and structure-preserving transformations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T. Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph 1972 A reformulation of certain syntactic transformations. In Peters, Stanley, ed., The Goals of Linguistic Theory, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Pp. 21–62.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray 1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara 1972 Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar. In Rodman, Robert, ed., Papers in Montague Grammar, Los Angeles: UCLA, Dept. of Linguistics. Pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David 1970 The two verbs begin . In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S., eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham: Ginn & Co. Pp. 107–119.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul 1970 On coreferential complement subject deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 1.439–500.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul 1971 Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston [Transatlantic Series in Linguistics.]Google Scholar
Postal, Paul & Ross, John 1971 i Tough-Movement si, Tough-Deletion no! Linguistic Inquiry 2.544–546.Google Scholar
Ross, John 1967 On the cyclic nature of English pronominalisation. In To Honor Roman Jakobson I, The Hague: Mouton & Co. [Janua Linguarum, Series Major, 31.] Pp. 1669–82.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert, Schachter, Paul & Partee, Barbara Hall 1973 The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart at Winston.Google Scholar