Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:44:04.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Derived constituent order in unbounded dependency constructions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2009

James P. Blevins
James P. Blevins*
Affiliation:
Centre for Linguistics, The University of Western Australia
*
Centre for Linguistics, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia 6009, Australia. E-mail: jblevins@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes that unbounded dependency constructions in English instantiate a surface subject-predicate structure in which the predicate is typically discontinuous. Evidence is presented supporting this discontinuous analysis over the operatorvariable structure conventionally assigned to unbounded dependencies. A model of phrase structure that sanctions discontinuous representations is outlined, along with a feature-based strategy for generating the proposed structures within an extended phrase structure system. Extraction islands and other locality constraints are subsequently characterized with reference to the feature propagation paths that induce discontinuity.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , September 1994, pp. 349 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This paper substantially revises Blevins (1987) and chapter 7 of Blevins (1990). I am grateful to Emmon Bach, Roger Higgins, Edwin Williams, and Charles F. Hockett for helpful comments on previous drafts, and to Robert D. Borsley and several anonymous reviewers for numerous criticisms and suggestions that have led to improvements in the present version.

References

REFERENCES

Aoun, J. & Sportiche, D. (1982). On the formal theory of government. The Linguistic Review 2. 211–236.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1979). Control in Montague grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 515–531.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. R. (1989). Heads and projections. In Baltin, M. R. & Kroch, A. S. (eds.) Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1–16.Google Scholar
Barss, A. (1986). Chains and anaphoric dependence: on reconstruction and its implications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Barss, A. & Lasnik, H. (1986). A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 347–354.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (1987). Preposing, bound anaphora and constituency. In Crowhurst, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI. 33–46.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (1990). Syntactic complexity: evidence for discontinuity and multidomination. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Amherst: GLSA.)Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (forthcoming). A lexicalist analysis of derived nominals in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, B. (1946). Studies in colloquial Japanese. II. Syntax. Language 12. 200–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsley, R. D. (1980). In defence of single mothers. Journal of Linguistics 16. 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1982). Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13. (Reprinted in Bresnan, J. (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 282–390.)Google Scholar
Brody, M. (1984). On contextual definitions and the role of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 355–380.Google Scholar
Bunt, H. (1991). Parsing with discontinuous phrase structure grammar. In Tomita, M. (ed.) Current issues in parsing technology. Boston: Kluwer. 48–63.Google Scholar
Carden, G. (1986). Blocked forwards coreference: theoretical implications of the acquisition data. In Lust, B. (ed.) Studies in the acquisition of anaphora: defining the constraints. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955). The logical structure of linguistic theory. Published in 1975 by University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. Institute of Radio Engineers Transactions on Information Theory II–2. 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. (Janua Linguarum 4.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1962). A transformationalist approach to syntax. In Hill, A. A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English. Austin: University of Texas Press. 124–158.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 81–161.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1976). Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2. 303–351.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986 a). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986 b). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. (1976). A transformational approach to syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. (1986). Constituent questions. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1977). Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7. 467–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1982). Phrase structure grammar. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G. K. (eds.) The nature of syntactic representation. Boston: Reidel. 131–186.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. K. & Sag, I. A. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
George, L. (1980). Analogical generalization in natural language syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. (1955). An introduction to descriptive linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (1987). Parallel structures in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halpern, A. L. (1991). Phonological evidence for the surface nonexistence of empty categories. In Halpern, A. L. (ed.) Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI. 233–247.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1945). Discontinuous morphemes. Language 21. 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1980). Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 679–708.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1983). Logical form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 395–420.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. R. (1979). The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C. T. (1982). Move WH in a language without WH movement. The Linguistic Review I. 369–416.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. M. & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 173–281.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. M. & Zaenen, A. (1987). Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In Baltin, M. R. & Kroch, A. S. (eds.) Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 17–42.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1983). Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. (1971). Fact. In Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (eds.) Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. 245–269.Google Scholar
Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (eds.) The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 246–323.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. (1983). ECP effects in main clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 346–350.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D. (1982). Variables and the bijection principle. The Linguistic Review 2. 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1968). Pronouns and reference. In McCawley, J. D. (ed.) Syntax and semantics 7: Notes from the linguistic underground. New York: Academic Press. 275–335.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1966). Pronominalization and the chain of command. In Reidel, D. & Shane, S. (eds.) Modern studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 160–186.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1976). Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis 2. 1–22.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1984). Locality and anaphoric binding. The Linguistic Review 4. 343–363.Google Scholar
Maling, J. & Zaenen, A. (1982). A phrase structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G. K. (eds.) The nature of syntactic representation. Boston: Reidel. 229–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manaster-Ramer, A. & Kac, M. (1990). The concept of phrase structure. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 325–362.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1982). Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 99–107.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1987). Evidence for discontinuity. In Huck, G. J. & Ojeda, A. E. (eds.) Syntax and semantics 20: Discontinuous constituency. New York: Academic Press. 185–200.Google Scholar
Muadz, H. (1991). Coordinate structures: a planar representation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Ojeda, A. E. (1987). Discontinuity, multidominance and unbounded dependencies in GPSG. In Huck, G. J. & Ojeda, A. E. (eds.) Syntax and semantics 20: Discontinuous constituency. New York: Academic Press. 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1978). Bound variables and other anaphors. In Waltz, D. (ed.) Proceedings of Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing 2. Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (ed.) (1983). Studies in relational grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1982). Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. (1943). Taxemes and immediate constituents. Language 19. 65–82.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1987). Information-based syntax and semantics. (Vol. 1.) Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 261–303.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1971). Cross-over phenomena. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1993). Parasitic gaps and the across-the-board phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 735–754.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. & Pullum, G. K. (1982). The contraction debate. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 122–138.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1991). English nominal gerund phrases as noun phrases with verb-phrase heads. Linguistics 29. 763–799.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. F. & Chametsky, R. (1985). A string-based reformulation of c-command. In Berman, S., Choe, J.-W. & McDonough, J. (eds.) Proceedings of NELS 15. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 332–361.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van & Williams, E. (1986). Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. (Published in 1986 as Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex Corporation.)Google Scholar
Safir, K. (1984). Multiple variable binding. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 603–638.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. & Fodor, J. D. (to appear). Extraction without traces. Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.Google Scholar
Saito, M. (1985). Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. (1975). The single mother condition. Journal of Linguistics II. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, R. T. (1972). Introduction to mathematical linguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (1972). Anaphoric relations in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Wells, R. S. (1947). Immediate constituents. Language 23. 81–117.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1978). Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 31–43.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1990). The ATB theory of parasitic gaps. The Linguistic Review 6. 265–279.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1993). Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., Engdahl, E. & Maling, J. (1981). Resumptive pronouns can be syntactically bound. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 679–682.Google Scholar