Bare Phrase Structure and Specifier-less Syntax
K. JayaseelanBiolinguistics
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
It is pointed out that “specifiers” render the algorithm of projection overly complex. This consideration lends support to Starke’s (2004) reanalysis of specifiers as phrasal heads that project their own phrases — which makes phrase structure a simple sequence of head-complement relations. It is further pointed out that if head-complement relations are represented using dominance in place of sisterhood, to reflect the essentially asymmetrical nature of Merge (Chomsky 2000), a non-branching (partially linear) phrase structure tree is obtained that very naturally eliminates labels and projections. A simple Spell-Out rule then provides a linear ordering of the terminal elements. The linear tree preserves all the major results of antisymmetry.
Related papers
Syntactic structure without projection Labels
Ms., Dokkyo University, 2004
It has been taken for granted that the structure formed of lexical items needs to be represented by a label that has no phonetic content such as NP and V'. This is true also in the bare phrase structure theory proposed in Chomsky (1994) and pursued in subsequent work, where projection labels are eliminated by the use of lexical items; lexical items used as labels are not pronounced at all. There are at least two advantages of using a projection label in representing a syntactic structure: (i) it expresses constituency, and (ii) linear order is derivable by a simple algorithm. (i) is straightforward. The algorithm mentioned in (ii) is to ignore all projection labels and pronounce only terminal nodes from left to right. An exception is Kayne's (1994) ingenious attempt to deduce linear order from the configurational properties of a sentence; still, it crucially depends on non-terminal nodes that lack phonetic values.
On directionality of phrase structure building
2014
Minimalism in grammatical theorizing (Chomsky 1995) led to simpler linguistic devices and a better focalization of the core properties of the structure building engine: a lexicon and a free (recursive) phrase formation operation, dubbed Merge, are the basic components that serve in building syntactic structures. Here I suggest that by looking at the elementary restrictions that apply to Merge (i.e., selection and licensing of functional features), we could conclude that a re-orientation of the syntactic derivation (from bottom-up/right-left to top-down/left-right) is necessary to make the theory simpler, especially for long-distance (filler-gap) dependencies, and is also empirically more adequate. If the structure building operations would assemble lexical items in the order they are pronounced (Phillips 1996; Chesi 2004, 2012), on-line performance data could better fit the grammatical model, without resorting to external “performance factors.” The phase-based, top-down (and, as a consequence, left-right) Minimalist Grammar here discussed goes in this direction, ultimately showing how strong Islands (Huang 1982) and intervention effects (Gordon et al. 2001, Gordon et al. 2004) could be better explained in structural terms assuming this unconventional derivational direction.
Minimal C-structure: Rethinking Projection in Phrase Structure
Proceedings of the LFG’17 Conference, 2017
This paper addresses the formal properties of constituent structure (c-structure). We demonstrate inadequacies in the formalization of traditional X-bar theory by Bresnan (2001) and Bresnan et al. (2016), and in the alternative proposal of Marcotte (2014). We propose " minimal c-structure " as a new approach to phrase structure within Lexical-Functional Grammar, which almost entirely eliminates non-branching nodes, and neatly captures the distinction between projecting and non-projecting words. Our proposal is fully formalized , and has been successfully tested by an XLE implementation.
Bare Phrase Structure, Label-less Trees, and Specifier-less Syntax: Is Minimalism Becoming a Dependency Grammar?
Due to the programmatic nature of Minimalism, there are of course many directions that it can take. This paper demonstrates that one trend in Minimalism is steering toward Dependency Grammar (DG): bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax are all aspects/developments of/within Minimalism that are steering toward a dependency-based (as opposed to a constituency-based) understanding of syntax and grammar. With this trend in mind, a version of Merge is introduced that completes the development. This version generates dependency-based structures in a strictly left-to-right manner, i.e. in the manner that all natural language is spoken and processed. The particular innovation that makes this concept of Merge possible is the catena. The catena is a novel unit of syntactic analysis that is unique to dependency-based structures. A number of empirical considerations support catena-based left-toright Merge, e.g. garden path sentences, restrictions on center embeddings, aspects of coordinate structures, subject-auxiliary inversion, the distribution of pronouns, etc.
The cartography of syntactic structures
The Structure of Cp and IP: The Cartography of …, 2004
Introduction Syntactic structures are complex objects, whose subtle properties have been highlighted and elucidated by half a century of formal syntactic studies, building on a much older tradition. Structures are interesting objects of their own, both in their internal constitution and in their interactions with various grammatical principles and processes. The cartography of syntactic structures is the line of research which addresses this topic: it is the attempt to draw maps as precise and detailed as possible of syntactic configurations. Broadly construed in this way, cartography is not an approach or a hypothesis: it is a research topic asking the question: what are the right structural maps for natural language syntax? Answers may differ, and very different maps may be, and have been, proposed, but the question as such inevitably arises as a legitimate and central question for syntactic theory. If it is a virtual truism that cartography can be construed as a topic and not as a framework, it is also the case that cartographic studies have often adopted certain methodological and heuristic guidelines, and also certain substantive hypotheses on the nature of syntactic structures, which form a coherent body of assumptions and a rather well-defined research direction; we will try to illustrate some ideas and results of this direction in the present chapter. If structures have, in a sense, always been central in generative grammar, the idea of focusing on structural maps arose around the early nineties, following a track parallel to and interacting with the Minimalist Program. Perhaps the main triggering factor was the explosion of functional heads identified and implied in syntactic analyses in the first ten years of the Principles and Parameters framework. One critical step was the full-fledged extension of X-bar theory to the functional elements of the clause (Chomsky 1986) as a CP-IP-VP structure; and the observation that other configurations, e.g. nominal expressions, were amenable to a hierarchical structure with a lexical projection embedded within a functional structure (such as Abney's DP hypothesis, Abney 1987). These advances provided a natural format for the study of the structure of phrases and clauses as hierarchical sequences of the same building block, the fundamental X-bar schema (or, later, elementary applications of Merge); the lowest occurrence of the building block typically is the projection of a lexical category, e.g. a noun or a verb, and this element is typically completed by a series of
Minimal phrase structure: a new formalized theory of phrase structure
Journal of Language Modelling
Elementary Syntactic Structures: Prospects of a Feature-Free Syntax, Cedric Boeckx
Journal of Linguistics, 2015
Primitive computations in phrase construction
2009
The Minimalist Program in current linguistic theory seeks to explain linguistic structure in terms of economy principles, under the assumption that the human language faculty is a perfect system that performs only enough work to satisfy interface requirements. We consider processing costs as a property of syntactic computation and propose that these principles of economy may be met by the availability of alternative operations, each favorable in different circumstances. We characterize the basic Merge operation as a collection of three nested operations that apply to three corresponding levels of nested syntactic data types. In this framework, we provide an analysis of coordinate structure that uses a goal of minimizing processing cost to explain a number of peculiar characteristics of coordination, including the Coordination of Likes Constraint, the Coordinate Structure Constraint, and apparent case and agreement violations.
On pure syntax (uncontaminated by information structure)
P. Brandt und E. Fuss, Hgg., Form, Structure and …, 2006
Word order correlates with distinctions of information structure, and Günther Grewendorf's work has contributed much to our understanding of what the pertinent regularities are in German and other languages such as Italian or Japanese, and it has also shaped our understanding of how these regularities are linked to grammar. constitutes one of the first concrete proposals of capturing the impact of informational distinctions on German word order. Sabel (1994, 1999) developed one of the most detailed models of word order variation in the middle field. Grewendorf has also contributed substantially to recent developments concerning the left periphery of clauses, based on the view that categories like focus and topic are directly represented in the syntax. proposed that there are Topic and Focus heads situated in the higher functional layers of the clauses, and that the specifiers of these heads host topic and focus phrases, respectively -if not already in the surface representation, then at least at LF. Rizzi's view has been elaborated for b).
The X-Bar Theory of Phrase Structure
Language, 1990
X-bar theory is widely regarded as a substantive theory of phrase structure properties in natural languages. In this paper we will demonstrate that a formalization of its content reveals very little substance in its claims. We state and discuss six conditions that encapsulate the claims of X-bar theory: Lexicality-each nonterminal is a projection of a preterminal; Succession-each X n+1 dominates an X n for all n ≥ 0; Uniformity-all maximal projections have the same bar-level; Maximalityall non-heads are maximal projections; Centrality-the start symbol is a maximal projection; and
Related topics
Related papers
A graph-theoretic reanalysis of bare phrase structure theory and its implications on parametric variation
Linguistics and Phonetics, 2002
This paper attempts to offer a minimalistic theory of syntactic structure from a graph-theoretic point of view with special emphases on elimination of category and projection labels and the Inclusiveness Condition. A syntactic structure is regarded as a graph consisting of the set of lexical items, the set of relations among them and nothing more. Operations of internal and external MERGE are redefined as applying on graphs. It is claimed that head-initial and head-final languages share basic syntactic graphs and operations and that differences in their phonetic realizations such as the positions of heads and wh-phrases are deduced from the natural extension of traversals of graphs, which are extensively studied in graph theories. A major consequence of the theory is its explanation for the correlations between the headparameter values, on the one hand, and the types of wh-movement and word order freedom, on the other: head-initial languages such as English exhibit overt wh-movement and position their specifiers in a fixed position due to their downward traversal, while head-final languages like Japanese are subject to the upward traversal and hence do not raise wh-phrases obligatorily and their word orders are relatively free.
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax
The Modern Language Journal, 1967
§ 2.J. Syntactic features 75 § 2.J.I. The problem 75 § 2.J.2. Some formal similarities between syntax and phonology 79 § 2.J.J. General structure of the base component 84 § 2.J+ Context-sensitive subcategori%tJtion rules 90 § 3. AN ILLUSTRATIVE FRAGMENT OF THE BASE
An Order-Free Representation of Syntactic Structure and the Head-Parameter
A given piece of data can be represented in a number of ways, and the choice depends on what task should be performed on that data. It is well-known in computer science that if an appropriate data structure is chosen, the algorithms to be used to carry out the task often become relatively obvious.
Eliminating Mismatches: Phrase structure and coordination at the syntax-semantics interface
In this paper we will argue that coordination and subordination as usually understood do not coincide univocally with parataxis and hypotaxis; rather, coordinating conjunctions appear in more than one configuration. Concretely, we will propose that there are (at least) two basic phrase markers available to be assigned to a string of the kind [X and Y], which correspond to Type 2 and Type 3 dependencies. Crucially, if both possibilities are available in the computational system, there is no need to invoke a Syntactic Structure / Conceptual Structure mismatch (Culicover and Jackendoff, 1997) to account for the properties of OM sentences and other cases of so-called ‘subordination’ in coordinated structures: we just need to abandon the aprioristic assumption that lexical coordination equals syntactic parataxis (see also Schmerling, 1975). Special thanks are due to Susan Schmerling, with whom I have collaborated on many of the ideas presented here.
An inquiry into minimalist phrase structure
1999
This thesis takes as its starting point the proposal in Kayne (1994) that all syntactic structures are underlyingly spec-head-complement, and that they are right-branching. I will investigate this proposal taking data from English degree constructions, namely result clauses and comparatives. A comparison will be made between these constructions and English VPs, on which the majority of the phrase structure debate in the literature has been based. The evidence for left-branching and for right-branching in VPs will be considered, and similar evidence sought for degree constructions. We will see that VPs have a mostly right-branching structure, although left-branching structures are required in restricted circumstances. Also reason and manner adjuncts are argued to be right-adjoined to the VP node, a conclusion that is reinforced by considering the constituency of VP adjuncts and some PP sequences noted by Jackendoff (1973). In degree constructions too, we argue that both left-branching and right-branching structures are necessary. My conclusion will be that Kayne's proposal is too strong, even though it is ideal from the perspective of a minimalist approach to syntax.
Neither Unified Nor Free: Some Inconsistencies in Problems of Projection (2016, Studies in Modern Grammar 91)
Studies in Modern Grammar, 2016
This paper examines the validity of the two claims advocated in Chomsky (2014) and address some inconsistencies in these claims. One claim concerns the proposed unification of the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) and the Empty Category Principle (ECP) under the labeling theory Chomsky advances in the paper. This paper shows that the EPP and the ECP are not in fact given a unified account under labeling theory as proposed but rather they are still approached by the two independent principles, i.e. the EPP by labeling and the ECP by the Phase Impenetrability Condition. The other claim that this paper investigates is on the proposal that the operation Merge can apply freely in relation to other operations in the syntax. This paper shows that at least in certain cases, the timing of the application of Merge cannot be free but should instead be constrained, especially in relation to the operation of Labeling Algorithm.
Five reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right
In this paper I will summarize five arguments supporting an explicit formalization of a minimalist grammar which is derivational and directional: derivational since constituents and dependencies are built dynamically, piecemeal, using structure building operations such as merge and move in a phase-tailored computation; directional in the sense that these structure building operations operate strictly from left-to-right as proposed by Colin Phillips (1996, 2003) and top-down (Chesi 2004). This directionality issue is obviously the main difference with respect to standard minimalist approach 1. * I am grateful to the audience of the Joint Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition at Nanzan for suggestions and remarks. Special thanks go to
Phrasc Structure in Minimalist Syntax
1995
This thesis is a study of clause architecture within a theory of generative grammar.!t discusses four major syntactic hypotheses that have crucial bearing on the design ol' phrase structure: the Agreement-based Case theory, the internal subject hypc)thesis (ISE), the uniform three-level X-bar theory, and a hypothesis about string vacuous head movement. In Chapter 2 through Chapter 4, I discuss object positions In three typologically and genztidl y different languages, i.e. English, Zarma, and Japanese, and argue that they all possess Object Agreement P5rases (AGRoP). A consideration of learnabili ty suggests that the presence of AGRoP in these languages, particularly in Japanese, is not learnable from the data available to children. Thus, i t is highly likely thnt UG is so construed that every language has AGR (?'HE UNIVEKSAL AGR HYPO1'HESIS). In Chapter 5, I turn to subject positions. There is corlflicting evidence regarding the base-position of the external argument...
Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax
Journal of Japanese Linguistics
This thesis is a study of clause architecture within a theory of generative grammar. It discusses four major syntactic hypotheses that have crucial bearing on the design of phrase structure: the Agreement-based Case theory, the internal subject hypothesis (ISH), the uniform three-level X-bar theory, and a hypothesis about string vacuous head movement. Young Masa). Old Masa supervised my B.A. thesis, and sent me to the Ohio State University, where I met Shigeru Miyagawa, J.J. Nakayama, and Peter Culicover, who became the committee members of my M.A. thesis. Shigeru and Peter convinced me to come to MIT despite my initial resistance. I also learnt a lot from Toshio Gunshi, Akio Kamio, Yoshiko Matsumoto, Charles Quinn, and Shelly Quinn. Finally, and most importantly of all, I wish to thank my parents, Toshiharu and Shizuka Koizumi, for continued moral and financial support.
Mirrors and Microparameters: Phrase Structure beyond Free Word Order, David Adger, Daniel Harbour, Laurel J. Watkins. Cambridge University Press (2009), xiv + 190 pp., Price: £60, ISBN: 9780521517560
Lingua, 2010
NEG girl 3S-arrive.NEG 'the girl didn't arrive' Lingua 120 (2010) 2311-2318 1 The aspect and negation suffixes are in complementary distribution in Kiowa (p. 65). The authors 'take [this] to be an oddity that arises in the morphology, meaning that both categories are properly represented in the syntax' -but E ´. Kiss (2002:131), basing herself on Hungarian, presents NegP as a structural alternative to AspP, the two being syntactically and semantically complementary. 2 Tone marks are suppressed in my Kiowa examples since nothing in this review depends on the tonal phonology of the language; see the book for details, also regarding the glossing conventions, esp. regarding the agreement markers (Table 1 on p. 16).
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.