Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:54:28.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nominal inflection and the nature of functional categories1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Andrew Spencer
Andrew Spencer
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistics, University of EssexColchester CO4 3SQ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is a widespread assumption within the Government–Binding theory as it has developed from the Barriers model (Chomsky 1986) that functional categories, that is, categories which play a role in establishing dependencies between parts of a sentence, as opposed to lexical categories, should be represented as heads projecting X-bar phrases. I shall refer to this as the Full Functional Projection Hypothesis (FFPH), stated informally in (1). (i) Full Functional Projection Hypothesis Any morphophonosyntactic formative which corresponds to a functional category in a given language is syntactically the head of a maximal projection.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , September 1992 , pp. 313 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

REFERENCES

Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1985). The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. LIn 16. 373–416.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. & Hale, K. (1990). Relativised minimality and pronoun incorporation. LIn 21. 289–297.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1988). On the parallelism between compounds and constructs. Yearbook of Morphology 1. 45–66.Google Scholar
Börjars, K. (1992). One (more) reason why we need morphology. Paper read at Morphologica 5, Krems.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1989). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In I. Laka & A. Mahajan (eds.), Functional heads and clause structure (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10). 43–74.Google Scholar
Einarsson, S. (1945). Icelandic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feoktistov, A. P. (1966). Erzjanskij jazyk. Jazyki Narodov SSSR 3. 177–198. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, C. (1991). A and A′ agreement. Lingua 85, 135–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, S. (1990). About Agr(P). LIn 21. 551–577.Google Scholar
Kanerva, J. (1987). Morphological integrity and syntax: evidence from Finnish possessive suffixes. Lg 63. 498–521.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1989). Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In Benincá, P. (ed.), Dialect variation and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kovedjaeva, E. I. (1968). Lugovo-vostočnyj marijskij jazyk. Jazyki Narodov SSSR 3. 221–240. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
Lewis, G. (1967). Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J. (1990). Sentential negation, relativised minimality and the aspectual status of auxiliaries. The Linguistic Review. 7 183–231.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-I. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. LIn 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Rivero, M.-L. (1990). The location of nonactive voice in Albanian and Modern Greek. LIn 21. 135–144.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. (1990). Autolexical syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Speas, M. (1991). Functional heads and inflectional morphemes. The Linguistic Review 8. 389–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (forthcoming). Review of Sadock (1990). JL.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (1983/1984). The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3. 89–102.Google Scholar
Szín, E. (1981). Kurs vengerskogo jazyka, 2nd edn.Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. (In Russian.)Google Scholar