scholarly journals Locality constraints in nominal evaluation times

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 938
Author(s):  
Maura O'Leary

The temporal arguments of VPs and adverbs must be locally coindexed with the nearest time abstraction above them (Percus 2000). In contrast, nouns, which also have time arguments, have been noted to have multiple available evaluation times (Enç 1981), often coinciding with the topic time (e.g. Musan 1995, Tonhauser 2002, Keshet 2008) or utterance time (O’Leary 2017, O’Leary & Brasoveanu 2018). I argue that we can explain the possible temporal interpretations of nouns in a way that makes their behavior consistent with that of VPs and adverbs by positing an analogous locality constraint and making a simple appeal to quantifier raising. I additionally propose that the need for a locality constraint on the coindexing of temporal arguments extends to all predicates introducing novel referents.

2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Syrett ◽  
Jeffrey Lidz

We revisit the purported locality constraint on Quantifier Raising (QR) by investigating children's and adults' interpretation of antecedent-contained-deletion (ACD) sentences, where the interpretation depends on the landing site targeted by QR out of an embedded clause. When ACD is embedded in a nonfinite clause, 4-year-old children and adults access both the embedded and the matrix interpretations. When ACD is embedded in a finite clause, and the matrix interpretation is generally believed to be ungrammatical, children and even some adults access both readings. These findings allow for the possibility that the source of QR's reputed locality constraint may instead be extragrammatical, and they provide insight into the development of the human sentence parser.


Linguistica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 253-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artur Stepanov ◽  
Manca Mušič ◽  
Penka Stateva

In this work, we aim to clarify the empirical paradigm that bears on two aspects of syntactic locality in Slovenian. First, building on previous work, we investigate how robustly Slovenian observes the syntactic locality constraint precluding constituent sub-extraction out of subject noun phrases. Second, we ask whether Slovenian allows Left Branch Extraction in interrogative and non-interrogative sentences. To elucidate both issues, we conducted a magnitude estimation study, the results of which support our previous claim that there is a subject island effect in Slovenian. Furthermore, our results suggest that Slovenian disallows Left Branch Extraction, in contrast with some other Slavic languages. We also discuss theoretical consequences of our empirical findings.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (20) ◽  
pp. 146-155
Author(s):  
Hien Luong Nong Thi

In recent years, teaching English has become a compulsory subject at schools, colleges and universities. That is the reason why teaching and learning English effectively play a crucial role in the development of educational system. However, students seem to be weak in communicative skills due to they are lack of English vocabulary knowledge. The aim of this paper is to seek out the evidence to prove that teaching games is very helpful in the language classroom because this method helps to improve and increase students’ vocabularies. The results show that language games not only enhanced students’ lexical knowledge but also made the lesson more enjoyable, students became motivated in learning English and had plenty of interactions with teachers and classmates. The study suggests that before employing games in the language classroom, teachers should choose appropriate materials, levels, contexts, topic, time allowance for games.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-78
Author(s):  
Victor Junnan Pan

This paper examines the derivation of two types of A′-dependencies — relative clauses and Left-Dislocation structures — in the framework of Minimalist Program based on Mandarin data. Relatives and LD structures demonstrate many distinct syntactic and semantic properties when they contain a gap and a resumptive pronoun respectively. A thorough study of the relevant data reveals that when a gap strategy is adopted, island effects and crossover effects are always observed, irrespective of whether the relevant gap is embedded within a relative clause or within an LD structure; on the contrary, when the resumptive strategy is adopted, a sharp distinction is observed between these two structures. A resumptive relative clause gives rise to island effects and crossover effects systematically; by contrast, a resumptive LD structure never gives rise to these effects. In the Minimalist Program, island effects and crossover effects are not exclusively used as diagnostic tests for movement since the operation Agree is also subject to locality constraints. I will argue that a relative clause containing either a gap or an RP and an LD structure with gap are derived by Agree and they are subject to the locality condition whereas a resumptive LD structure is derived by Match that is an island free operation and it is not subject to the locality constraint. Multiple Transfer and multiple Spell-Out are possible in an Agree chain, but not in a Matching chain. The choice of the derivational mechanism depends on the interpretability of the formal features attached to the Probe and to the Goal in the relevant A′-dependencies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 103-118
Author(s):  
Samir Khalaily

Abstract This paper presents an analysis of a Palestinian Arabic negation-associated exclusive construction featuring the contrastive focus marker illa ‘but’, with theoretical implications for the syntax of negation, negative polarity item licensing, and the categorical status of the root in sentential syntax. It analyzes illa-phrases as constituents licensed by a c-commanding sentential negation (Neg), and illa as a grammatical device encoding contrastiveness. A crucial source for the exclusive semantics of the construction comes from a silent bass ‘only’ immediately following illa that constitutes a syntactic ‘shield’ against Neg scope. Rather than taking an in-situ focus-interpretation approach (cf. Rooth 1985, 1992), we argue for two covert movements at the syntax-semantics interface: quantifier raising of illa-phrases to the designated specifier of polarity Phrase followed by Polarity-to-Focus-raising of Neg. This creates the right syntactic configuration for the truth conditional import of both operators and captures the ‘classical’ thought that focus-sensitive exclusive operators like only quantify over propositional alternatives.


2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hadas Kotek

Abstract In wh-questions, intervention effects are detected whenever certain elements – focus-sensitive operators, negative elements, and quantifiers – c-command an in-situ wh-word. Pesetsky (2000, Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) presents a comprehensive study of intervention effects in English multiple wh-questions, arguing that intervention correlates with superiority: superiority-violating questions are subject to intervention effects, while superiority-obeying questions are immune from such effects. This description has been adopted as an explanandum in most recent work on intervention, such as Beck (2006, Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14. 1–56) and Cable (2010, The Grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford University Press), a.o. In this paper, I show instead that intervention effects in English questions correlate with the available LF positions for wh-in-situ and the intervener, but not with superiority. The grammar allows for several different ways of repairing intervention configurations, including wh-movement, scrambling, Quantifier Raising, and reconstruction. Intervention effects are observed when none of these repair strategies are applicable, and there is no way of avoiding the intervention configuration – regardless of superiority. Nonetheless, I show that these results are consistent with the syntax proposed for English questions in Pesetsky (2000, Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) and with the semantic theory of intervention effects in Beck (2006, Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14. 1–56).


1972 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert William Fogel

The Program Committee prepared for the thirty-first Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association in a somewhat unorthodox way. In recent years it has been the custom first to choose a central theme for the conference, and then to solicit only those papers which amplify the theme. This year the program committee decided to forego the attempt to produce a unified set of essays. Instead we wrote to approximately 250 members of the Association and other scholars in the United States and abroad, inviting suggestions for papers without preconditions as to topic, time period, or methodology. Over 150 papers were proposed, from which the committee chose 15. All but one of these are published here. Herbert Gutman's, “Marriage Licenses and Registers Among Freed Men and Women, 1865–1866: New Light on the Family and Household Conditions of Slaves and Free Blacks,” will be published at a later date.


2003 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 149-175
Author(s):  
Ayumi Matsuo

This paper reports results from a series of experiments that investigated whether semantic and/or syntactic complexity influences young Dutch children’s production of past tense forms. The constructions used in the three experiments were (i) simple sentences (the Simple Sentence Experiment), (ii) complex sentences with CP complements (the Complement Clause Experiment) and (iii) complex sentences with relative clauses (the Relative Clause Experiment). The stimuli involved both atelic and telic predicates. The goal of this paper is to address the following questions. Q1. Does semantic complexity regarding temporal anchoring influence the types of errors that children make in the experiments? For example, do children make certain types of errors when a past tense has to be anchored to the Utterance Time (UT), as compared to when it has to be anchored to the matrix topic time (TT)? Q2. Do different syntactic positions influence children’s performance on past-tense production? Do children perform better in the Simple Sentence Experiment compared to complex sentences involving two finite clauses (the Complement Clause Experiment and the Relative Clause Experiment)? In complex sentence trials, do children perform differently when the CPs are complements vs. when the CPs are adjunct clauses? (Lebeaux 1990, 2000) Q3. Do Dutch children make more errors with certain types of predicate (such as atelic predicates)? Alternatively, do children produce a certain type of error with a certain type of predicates (such as producing a perfect aspect with punctual predicates)? Bronckart and Sinclair (1973), for example, found that until the age of 6, French children showed a tendency to use passé composé with perfective events and simple present with imperfective events; we will investigate whether or not the equivalent of this is observed in Dutch.  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document