Heycock, C. and Kroch, A. S. (1993). Verb movement and the status of subjects: implications for the theory of licensing. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, 36:75--102.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....the formalism predicts the possibility of functional categories coinciding. For example, it should be possible to have a node which represents both the maximal I and the maximal C projection. Such ideas have also been proposed previously in the literature: Bayer and Kornfilt, 1989; Rizzi, 1990; Heycock and Kroch, 1993; Thiersch, 1993) Heycock and Kroch give particularly compelling evidence for such merged projections using conjunctive constructions in German. Categorial features 8 are introduced by heads. Since the notion of head is no longer defined structurally (i.e. in terms of the X 0 schema) I ....

.... projections actually contain nodes labeled I or C (though they project to VP nodes) Thus, the analysis of English proposed in this thesis, according to which tensed lexical verbs in English introduce categorial features [ V, I] is not available to Hegarty, and a formulation of the analysis of Heycock and Kroch (1993) of German conjunction, given his assumptions, would have to mirror their notion of projection deletion explicitly. There are some smaller differences worth mentioning: ffl Hegarty proposes to force adjunction of the I projection through a [ NOM] feature (p.8) In the adjoined head approach ....

Heycock, C. and Kroch, A. S. (1993). Verb movement and the status of subjects: implications for the theory of licensing. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, 36:75--102.

....the formalism predicts the possibility of functional categories coinciding. For example, it should be possible to have a node which represents both the maximal I and the maximal C projection. Such ideas have also been proposed previously in the literature: Bayer and Kornfilt, 1989; Rizzi, 1990; Heycock and Kroch, 1993; Thiersch, 1993) Heycock and Kroch give particularly compelling evidence for such merged projections using conjunctive constructions in German. Categorial features 5 are introduced by heads. Since the notion of head is no longer defined structurally (i.e. in terms of the X 0 schema) I ....

.... 12 jections (at least not as described in (Hegarty, 1993b) since the adjoined functional projections actually contain nodes labeled I or C (though they project to VP nodes) Thus, the analysis of English proposed in this paper is not available to Hegarty, and a formulation of the analysis of (Heycock and Kroch, 1993) of German conjunction, given his assumptions, would have to mirror their notion of projection deletion explicitly. There are some smaller differences worth mentioning: ffl Hegarty proposes to force adjunction of the I projection through a [ NOM] feature (p.8) In the adjoined head approach ....

Heycock, C. and Kroch, A. S. (1993). Verb movement and the status of subjects: implications for the theory of licensing. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, 36:75--102.

....in chains to be of the same type (except for the foot) In our analysis, the two types of movement cannot be mixed , since after the lexical derivation, each argument is either topicalized or scrambled. 5.4. 11 Coordination in German In this section, we briefly review the argument put forward by Heycock and Kroch (1993) (HK, henceforth) in favor of multi functional heads and projections. Their analysis is based on the so called SLF coordination in German, first discussed by Hohle (1983) In SLF coordinations, the shared constituent is in SPEC(IP) in the first conjunct, and the second conjunct is a C 0 , as ....

.... actually contain nodes labeled I or C (though they project to VP nodes) Thus, the analysis of English proposed in (Rambow, 1994a) according to which tensed lexical verbs in English introduce categorial features [ V, T fin] is not available to Hegarty, and a formulation of the analysis of Heycock and Kroch (1993) of German conjunction, given his assumptions, would have to mirror their notion of projection deletion explicitly. There are some smaller differences worth mentioning: ffl Hegarty proposes to force adjunction of the I projection through a [ NOM] feature (p.8) In the V grammar approach outlined ....

Heycock, C. and Kroch, A. S. (1993). Verb movement and the status of subjects: implications for the theory of licensing. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, 36:75--102.

No context found.

Heycock, C. & A. Kroch (1993b): Verb movement and the status of subjects: implications for the theory of licensing.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC