A Companion to Chomsky. Группа авторов
35 of this volume) for further discussion.
6 6 It should be pointed out that Hankamer (1973) argued that the constraint in question was universal, but given cross‐linguistic variability in sluicing, that cannot be the case.
7 7 In the early stages of transformational grammar (Chomsky 1965), it was postulated that an evaluation metric helps the learner decide which grammar, amongst different ones which can all provide structural descriptions for the available primary linguistic data (PLD), is the optimal one. In terms of the evaluation metric, the core grammar is an optimal system.
8 8 This should not be taken to suggest that Fodor was committed to language being either a peripheral system or uninvestigable. Essentially, Fodor took for granted that the language faculty was essentially a database. See Allott and Smith (Chapter 34) for much discussion.
9 9 In GB, a fundamental difference is introduced between case and Case, where the latter denotes what is called abstract Case; a syntactic Case feature which is not phonologically realized. An example would be Sara and John in (i), Sara is assumed to have abstract nominative Case whereas John has abstract accusative Case – despite there being no morphological marking of case.Sara loves John.Abstract Case was first proposed by Vergnaud (1977) and further developed by Chomsky (1981). Note also that the literature typically distinguishes between Case assignment and Case checking, a difference we set aside here, but see Lasnik (2008, 24) for an overview and a historical perspective.
10 10 Evidence that this movement is necessary comes from facts about where adverbs and negation are placed. Semantically they modify the entire verb phrase, so they are inserted above the VP in the structure. Since the subject needs to precede the adverb, not follow it, as it would have if it did not move to SpecTP.(i)She often likes him.She does not like him.
11 11 Implementations differ in terms of how this is done technically. Chomsky (1993) proposed covert movement at LF, whereas others have argued that there is displacement overtly of the object, but that the verb moves even higher (so as to precede the object on the surface) (Postal 1974, Lasnik and Saito 1991, Koizumi 1995, and much later work).
12 12 Setting aside higher functional material such as tense, and also any internal projection involving they and cake.
13 13 Rothman (2009b, 156) defines a heritage language and a heritage speaker as follows:A language qualifies as a heritage language if it is a language spoken at home or otherwise readily available to young children, and crucially this language is not a dominant language of the larger (national) society. […] [A]n individual qualifies as a heritage speaker if and only if he or she has some command of the heritage language acquired naturalistically […] although it is equally expected that such competence will differ from that of the native monolinguals of comparable age.
References
1 Adger, D. 2003. Core Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2 Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3 Alexiadou, A., and E. Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: word order, verb‐ movement and EPP‐checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539.
4 Alexiadou, A., and T. Lohndal. 2016. Editorial: The Grammar of Multilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology, doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01397.
5 Alexiadou, A., and T. Lohndal. 2018. Units of language mixing: A cross‐linguistic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01719.
6 Arad, M. 2003. Locality Constraints on the Interpretation of Roots: The Case of Hebrew Denominal Verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737–778.
7 Baker, M. 2008. The microparameter in a microparametric world. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation, edited by T. Biberauer, 351–374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8 Benmamoun, E., S. Montrul, and M. Polinsky. 2013. Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 39: 129–181.
9 Boeckx, C. 2006. Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10 Boeckx, C. 2013. Syntactic Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11 Boeckx, C., and J. Uriagereka. 2006. Minimalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, edited by G. Ramchand and C. Reiss, 541–573. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12 Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense, Volume 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13 Borer, H. 2005b. Structuring Sense, Volume 2: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14 Borer, H. 2013. Structuring Sense, Volume 3: Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15 Brame, M. K. 1976. Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax and Semantics. New York: Elsevier.
16 Chomsky, N. 1955. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms. Harvard University and MIT. [Revised version published in part by Plenum, New York, 1975].
17 Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
18 Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, edited by R. A. Jacobs, and P. S. Rosenbaum, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.
19 Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, edited by S. Anderson, and P. Kiparsky, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
20 Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.
21 Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
22 Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
23 Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
24 Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building 20, edited by K. Hale, and S. J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
25 Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
26 Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.
27 Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by M. Kenstowicz, 1–50. Cambridge: MIT Press.
28 Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structure and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, edited by A. Belletti, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29 Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.
30 Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion =Language?, edited by H‐M. Gärtner, and U. Sauerland, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
31 Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, edited by C. Otero, R. Freidin, and M‐L. Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32 Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.
33 Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of