The constraint approach, on the other hand, derives these generalizations from more primitive notions of the theory, and may therefore highlight the linguistic properties that are really at stake. In short, it should be possible in principle to ground the simple syntactic constraints proposed in the discussion above, whereas it is much less likely that this is possible with the more complex filters. Secondly, the constraint but not the filter approach makes very precise predictions about what types of natural languages are possible.
Thirdly, the constraint approach but not the filter approach provides us with a general format for approaching other word order phenomena, as well as with the means to express directly that certain movements or the lack thereof are motivated by properties of the interpretive articulatory-perceptual and conceptual-intentional components of the grammar.
And last but not least, the following section will show that the constraint approach leads to new questions which could not arise under the traditional approach. This contrast is related to a difference in verb movement between Icelandic and Danish. In order to account for this, we first have to provide an analysis of V-to-I.
The constraints that we will use for this are given in The third constraint, NOLEXM, is adapted from Grimshaw and goes back at least to Pollock : its role is to block movement of main verbs, while still allowing movement of auxiliary and modal verbs, and it is used to account for the fact that in English V-to-I is restricted to modal and auxiliary verbs, that is, cannot apply to main verbs; see the discussion of 10 above.
The second and the third types are languages with V2 in main clauses only. Fortson and Dewey This type is instantiated by Icelandic. This results in languages that normally have V-to-I with auxiliary and modal verbs only. When the former outranks the latter, V-to-I is restricted to auxiliary and model verbs in all contexts: English is an example of this type. Let us now return to the question why Danish has the pattern in 26a without pronominal object shift and embedded V-to-I, rather than that in 26b with pronominal object shift and embedded V-to-I. I asked why Peter read it never This question can now be answered by having a better look at the subrankings independently established so far.
We have seen that the subranking in 23b , repeated here as 27a , correctly accounts for the following two facts: Danish only has pronominal object shift and pronominal object shift is blocked in complex verb construction by the non-finite main verb. When we assume that Danish has the ranking in Tableau 7, where the dashed lines indicate that the constraints cannot be ordered yet on the basis of the data discussed so far, we will get the desired result. The latter which can be identified with the type of object movement identified for English by Johnson, , and Lasnik, a: ch. Since I do not have the space here to discuss short object shift, I refer the reader to Broekhuis for detailed discussion.
Furthermore, I have shown by means of a discussion of the interaction between object shift and verb movement that the postulation of an optimality-theoretic evaluation also leads to new questions due to the fact that constraints proposed for different empirical domains may interact in unexpected ways. The leading idea of the framework is that, in order to arrive at a descriptively and explanatorily adequate theory, restrictions must be placed both on the syntactic derivation and the resulting syntactic representations.
This has been given shape by assuming a framework in which aspects of the minimalist program MP and optimality theory OT are combined. More specifically, it was claimed that representations created by some version of the computational system of human language CHL from MP are evaluated in an optimality theoretic fashion, as indicated in Figure 1, repeated below. The frameworks mainly differ in that they provide different answers to the question what determines whether the movements that are allowed by the Last Resort Condition actually do take place in a given language L.
Syntax of Dutch: Nouns and Noun Phrases - Volume 1
In MP it is commonly assumed that movement is forced by the presence of an EPP-feature, and since certain movements, like Icelandic object shift, only apply under certain well-defined conditions, the question is raised what determines the distribution of the EPP-features. As a result of this, many imaginable derivations are blocked by the inviolable conditions on the operations of CHL, so that the number of candidates in the candidate set is very small, and the candidates in this set can differ in well-defined ways only.
Derivations and Evaluations 17 This has led to the conjecture that there are not only a limited number of syntactic constraints, but also a limited number of constraint types. In order to establish these types, I have assumed that the evaluator is actually a hypothesis about the interface conditions postulated in MP, and, consequently, that the constraints fall into two main classes: 28 The syntactic constraints in CON are of two basic types: a CHL constraints b Interface PF and LF constraints The CHL constraints can be further divided in two families of constraints, viz, economy constraints, which disfavor the operation of CHL to apply, and EPP constraints, which favor them.
The ranking of these constraints determine whether a certain operation normally does or does not take place. The effects of the weak and strong rankings in 29 can be overruled by the interface PF and LF constraints. These constraints seem to be more varied in nature, and it is still an open empirical question how many of these constraints there actually are. Dekkers, F. Van der Leeuw and J. Van de Weijer eds Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boeckx, C. Linguistic Inquiry Broekhuis, H.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik Chomsky, N. Freidin ed. Principles and parameters in comparative syntax. Kenstowicz ed. Ken Hale.
- IUTAM Symposium on Advances in Mathematical Modelling of Atmosphere and Ocean Dynamics: Proceedings of the IUTAM Symposium held in Limerick, Ireland, 2–7 ... 2000 (Fluid Mechanics and Its Applications)?
- Bestselling Series.
- Combinatorial Group Theory: Presentations of Groups in Terms of Generators and Relations.
- Download Derivations And Evaluations Object Shift In The Germanic Languages 2008;
- Top Authors.
A life in Language Belletti ed. Structures and beyond Linguistic Inquiry 8: Costa, J. Dekkers, J.
On the syntax of subjects and complementizers, Doctoral dissertation, HIL dissertations Den Dikken, M. The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics Dewey, T. Diesing, M. Eisner, J. Engels, E. Broekhuis and R. Vogel eds Optimality theory and minimalism: a possible convergence? Linguistics in Potsdam Fortson , B.
VTLS Chameleon iPortal حدث خطأ في الاتصال
Oxford: Blackwell. Fox, D. Grimshaw, J. Derivations and Evaluations 19 Holmberg, A. Holmberg, A. Studia Linguistica Johnson, K. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 9: Kayne, R. Koeneman, O. Hartmann and L. Lasnik, H. Legendre, G. Van de Weijer eds Optimality theory, phonology, syntax and acquisition Oxford, Oxford University Press. McCarthy, J.
- Saponins Used in Traditional and Modern Medicine!
- Abstract Convex Analysis (Wiley-Interscience and Canadian Mathematics Series of Monographs and Texts).
- Download Derivations And Evaluations Object Shift In The Germanic Languages !
- Modeling, Rationality, Morality, and Evolution (Vancouver Studies in Cognitive Science, vol. 7)!
- Derivations and Evaluations!
Hirotani, N. Hall Coetzee and J. Legendre, J.
Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver
Grimshaw and S. Vikner eds Optimality-theoretic syntax Pesetsky, D. Archangeli and T. Langendoen eds Optimality theory. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis and D. Pesetsky eds Is the best good enough? Pollock, J. Rizzi, L. Belletti and L. Rizzi eds Parameters and functional heads. Essays in comparative syntax.
Samek-Lodovici, V. Sells, P. Baltin and C. Collins eds Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Vikner, S. Corver and H. Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-Order phenomena Everaert and H. Vogel, R. Linguistics More specifically, it is claimed that representations created by a simplified version of the computational system of human language CHL are evaluated in an optimality theoretic fashion by taking recourse to a very small set of output constraints.
AB - This study shows that Scandinavian object shift and so-called A-scrambling in the continental Germanic languages are the same, and aims at providing an account of the variation that we find with respect to this phenomenon by combining certain aspects of the Minimalist Program and Optimality Theory. Standard Derivations and evaluations. Studies in generative grammar.
Broekhuis, H , Derivations and evaluations. Studies in generative grammar, vol.