Generative Linguistics: Syntax

doi:10.1017/9781316779194.002

1 - Generative Linguistics: Syntax

from Part I - Theories and Approaches to Spanish Linguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2018

Paula Kempchinsky

Edited by

Kimberly L. Geeslin

Show author details

Kimberly L. Geeslin: Affiliation:
Indiana University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter presents an overview of the basic assumptions of generative syntax, which has been a predominant theoretical framework in research on Spanish syntax for the last several decades. It examines developments in the theory from early work in Principles and Parameters (the Government-Binding model) through the current Minimalist Program, and also looks at the interplay between empirical data and theoretical desiderata. The chapter does not present a comprehensive summary of current research topics in generative research on Spanish syntax, but rather sets out to illustrate this interplay between data and theory by presenting a broad look at research on two particular issues in the field: the syntax of clitic pronouns and the syntax and discourse properties of left peripheral constructions such as topicalization. The chapter also discusses the issue of what constitutes valid data within generative syntax, stressing the importance of introspective speaker judgements while touching briefly on current experimental work as a complement to such judgements.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics , pp. 9 - 30
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.002 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adger, D. (2003). Core Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ben-Yami, H. (2015). Descartes’ Philosophical Revolution: A Reassessment. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1057/9781137512024CrossRef Google Scholar

Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology After Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar

Bosque, I. and Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (2009). Fundamentos de sintaxis formal. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1993). A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In Hale, K. and J. Keyser, S. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.), The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3: Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104–131.10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0004CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2005). Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22.10.1162/0024389052993655CrossRef Google Scholar

Clark, E. (1985). The Acquisition of Romance with Special Reference to French. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 688–782.Google Scholar

Contreras, H. (1991). On the Position of Subjects. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 63–79.Google Scholar

den Dikken, M., et al. (2007). Data and Grammar: Means and Individuals. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 335–352.10.1515/TL.2007.022CrossRef Google Scholar

Eguren, L. and Fernández Soriano, O. (2004). Introducción a una sintaxis minimista. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar

Featherstone, S. (2007). Data in Generative Grammar: The Stick and the Carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 269–318.10.1515/TL.2007.020CrossRef Google Scholar

Fernández Soriano, O. (2016). Clíticos. In Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (ed.), Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gallego, A. (2016). Patterns of Object Agreement in Romance. Paper given at 46th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Stony Brook University, New York.Google Scholar

Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind’s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

González López, V. (2008). Spanish Clitic Climbing (Doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar

Goodall, G. (2004). On the Syntax and Processing of wh-Questions in Spanish. In Schmeiser, B. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 101–114.Google Scholar

Grüter, T. (2008). When Learners Know More than Linguists: (French) Direct Object Clitics are not Objects. Probus, 20, 211–234.10.1515/PRBS.2008.006CrossRef Google Scholar

Gupton, T. and Leal Méndez, T. (2013). Experimental Methodologies: Two Case Studies Investigating the Syntax–Discourse Interface. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 6, 139–164.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (2014). Interfaces and Domains of Quantification. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar

Hoot, B. (2016). Narrow Presentational Focus in Mexican Spanish: Experimental Evidence. Probus, 28, 335–365.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kayne, R. (1975). French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. (1968). Linguistic Universals and Linguistic Change. In Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 171–202.Google Scholar

Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D. (1991). The Position of Subjects. Lingua, 85, 211–258.10.1016/0024-3841(91)90022-WCrossRef Google Scholar

López, L. (2009). A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

López Ornat, S. (1990). La formación de la oración simple: Las omisiones sintácticas (S-V-O) en la adquisición del español. Estudios de Psicología, 11, 41–72.10.1080/02109395.1990.10821130CrossRef Google Scholar

Lorenzo, G. (2016). Gramática generativa. In Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (ed.), Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica. London: Routledge, pp. 138–150.10.4324/9781315713441-13CrossRef Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (2005). Generative Linguistics within the Cognitive Neuroscience of Language. The Linguistic Review, 22, 429–445.10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.429CrossRef Google Scholar

Martín, J. (2003). Against a Uniform wh-Landing Site for Spanish. In Kempchinsky, P. and Piñeros, C.-E. (eds.), Theory, Practice and Acquisition: Papers from the 6th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 156–174.Google Scholar

Matushansky, O. (2006). Head Movement in Linguistic Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 69–109.10.1162/002438906775321184CrossRef Google Scholar

Maynes, J. (2012). Linguistic Intuition and Calibration. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35, 443–460.CrossRef Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. (1983). Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and Possibilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

O’Grady, W. (2012). Three Factors in the Design and Acquisition of Language. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3, 493–499.Google Scholar PubMed

Olarrea, A. (1998). On the Position of Subjects in Spanish. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo (Universidad del País Vasco), 32, 47–108.Google Scholar

Ordóñez, F. and Olarrea, A. (2006). Microvariation in Caribbean and Non-Caribbean Spanish Interrogatives. Probus, 18, 59–97.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ormazabal, J. and Romero, J. (2013). Object Clitics, Agreement and Dialectal Variation. Probus, 25, 301–344.10.1515/probus-2013-0012CrossRef Google Scholar

Otero, C. P. (1971). Evolución y revolución en romance, Vol. 1. Barcelona: Seix Barral.Google Scholar

Otero, C. P. (1972). Acceptable Grammatical Sentences in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 233–242.Google Scholar

Otero, C. P. (1973). Agrammaticality in Performance. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 551–562.Google Scholar

Otero, C. P. (1976). Evolución y revolución en romance, Vol. 2. Barcelona: Seix Barral.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. (2013). On the Nature of Island Constraints I: Language Processing and Reductionist Accounts. In Sprouse, J. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–108.Google Scholar

Phillips, C., et al. (2011). Grammatical Illusions and Selective Fallibility in Real Time Language Comprehension. In Runner, J. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 37: Experiments at the Interfaces. Bingley: Emerald Publications, pp. 147–180.Google Scholar

Reglero, L. (2005). Wh-in-situ Constructions: Syntax and/or Phonology? In Alderete, J. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 334–342.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (1997). The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7CrossRef Google Scholar

Schütze, C. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Sorace, A. and Keller, F. (2005). Gradience in Linguistic Data. Lingua, 115, 1497–1524.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sportiche, D. (1988). A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 425–449.Google Scholar

Sportiche, D. (1996). Clitic Constructions. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 213–275.10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_9CrossRef Google Scholar

Strozer, J. (1976). Clitics in Spanish (Doctoral dissertation). University of California–Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Suñer, M. (1989). Spanish Syntax and Semantics in the Eighties: The Principles-and-Parameters Approach. Hispania, 72, 832–847.10.2307/343561CrossRef Google Scholar

Suñer, M. (1992). Two Properties of Clitics in Clitic-Doubled Structures. In Huang, C.-T. J. and May, R. (eds.), Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 233–252.10.1007/978-94-011-3472-9_8CrossRef Google Scholar

Suñer, M. (2009). Formal Linguistics and the Syntax of Spanish: Past, Present and Future. In Collentine, J. et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar

Torrego, E. (1995). On the Nature of Clitic Doubling. In Campos, H. and Kempchinsky, P. (eds.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 399–418.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, J. (1995). Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 79–124.Google Scholar

Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (2002). In Situ Questions and Masked Movement. In Pica, P. and Rooryck, J. (eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 259–303.Google Scholar

Zubizarreta, M.-L. (1998). Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.