WH-movement in English and Persian within the Framework of Government and Binding Theory

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fariba Abedi ◽  
Ahmad Moinzadeh ◽  
Zohreh Gharaei
Keyword(s):  
Binding Theory ◽  
Government And Binding Theory

scholarly journals Wh-P and the Intervention Effect of negation

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-36
Author(s):  
Aiqing Wang
Keyword(s):  
Head Position ◽  
Focus Position ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Late Archaic ◽  
Intervention Effect ◽  
Functional Projection ◽  
Inverted Order ◽  
Government And Binding Theory ◽  
Archaic Chinese ◽  
The Government

Following the Government and Binding theory mainly developed by Chomsky (1981, 1982, 1986), I explore wh-P and the Intervention Effect of negation in Late Archaic Chinese (LAC). I propose that the inverted order of wh-P in LAC is generated via PP inversion followed by the separate preposing of wh and P. The wh-complement raises to [Spec, PP] and further moves to the specifier position of a functional projection. If the wh-PP is base-generated preverbally, the preposition moves to the head position of the functional projection directly; if the wh-PP is base-generated postverbally, the preposition must first incorporate to a V0 and then move to the head position of the functional projection through excorporation. In terms of the Intervention Effect, wh-arguments and adverbials that usually move to the Low focus position below negation are subject to a blocking effect caused by negation, so these wh-phrases have to land in the High focus position above negation which is expected to accommodate ‘high’ adverbials exclusively. I argue that the Intervention Effect in LAC is a consequence of Q-binding as feature movement of [wh], interacting with fronting into the hierarchy of clause-internal positions driven by [Focus] feature.

scholarly journals Ontological Knowledge-base for English Syntactic Grammar using Government and Binding Theory

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (16) ◽  
pp. 43-39
Author(s):  
Manpreet SinghSehgal ◽  
Twinkle Sehgal ◽  
Manjeet Singh
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Base ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Government And Binding Theory

scholarly journals Nominative and Accusative Cases in English and Urdu: A Comparative Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-377
Author(s):  
Faiza Zeb
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Elementary Level ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Case Theory ◽  
Parts Of Speech ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Government And Binding Theory ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
The Government

Languages show variations in terms of their syntactic patterns. Their comparison reveals the effective strategies to explore and illustrate the difficulties that language learners may come across in the course of acquiring any new language. This study aims at the exploration of nominative and accusative properties in English and Urdu with the help of Chomsky’s Case theory as first introduced within the boundaries of the Government and Binding theory in 1981. It effectively presents the properties of any nouns in order to be declared as either nominative or accusative cases in any languages. Along with the case theory, the researcher has used qualitative and further the descriptive and content analysis approach as applied to the few English sentences taken from the New Headway Workbook by Liz and John Soars, meant for language learners at Elementary level. The study presents the thorough analysis of few English sentences and their Urdu translations to highlight similarities and differences as present in English and Urdu nominatives and accusatives in relation to other parts of speech as these properties haven’t been explored by the previous researches instead the focus has been on ergativity in Urdu.

scholarly journals Reconsidering prepositions and Case assignment in the text of Revelation 4 and 5

2004 ◽  
Vol 60 (1/2) ◽  
Author(s):  
S.J.P.K. Riekert
Keyword(s):  
Binding Theory ◽  
Book Of Revelation ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Government And Binding Theory ◽  
The Government ◽  
Structural Case ◽  
Point Of Departure ◽  
Genitive Case

In order to describe the government by prepositions in the book of Revelation in terms of the Government and Binding Theory, it is imperative that the sub-theory of Case assignment be considered. With the latter as point of departure one may describe, i) the shifts from autothematic and structural Case to oblique Case, ii) the use of prepositions with oblique Case instead of the structural genitive Case, and( iii) the peculiarities of the Case and case assignment of the preposition [foreign font omitted], as found in Revelation 4 and 5.

‘Core’ and ‘Periphery’ in Historical Perspective

1992 ◽  
Vol 19 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 317-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Joseph
Keyword(s):  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
The Core ◽  
Theoretical Status ◽  
Government And Binding Theory

Summary This article traces the changing fortunes of Chomsky’s concepts of ‘core’ and ‘periphery’, from the beginnings of Government and Binding Theory in the late 1970s to the incipient minimalism of the early 1990s. Ten different characterizations of core and periphery are found in Chomsky’s work of the period, which alternatively questions the need for the distinction and promotes it to central theoretical status. Core and periphery are found to pertain to several different conceptual and phenomenological levels: universality, systematicity, typology, and historicity. Furthermore, they covertly recapitulate some of the oldest dichotomies of linguistic thought: nature/convention, analogy/anomaly, synchronic/diachronic, and marked/unmarked. The conclusions reached support recent changes in the theory which greatly reduce the prominence of the core/periphery distinction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document