MDS classes with significant recommendations overlap, excluding ones under the same top-level class. Melvil Dewey invented his Dewey Decimal System in , and early versions of his system are in the public domain.
Project MUSE - Portuguese Syntax: New Comparative Studies (review)
The chair gathered with Bill at three b. The chair met with Bill yesterday] c. The chair applied together for the grant with Bill 18 a. A recent interesting proposal by Pearson provides a purely semantic version of the analysis, reducing partial control to a temporal containment principle rather than modality as in Rodrigues.
See Fujii , for detailed discussion and analysis. Case issues We may start by examining Duck Principle effects in the domain of Case and morphophological computations.
It has long been observed that the application of some sandhi rules may be blocked by certain syntactic empty categories, the most well known example of such being wanna-contraction in English. Curiously, A- traces also allow similar contraction, as shown in Both approaches face problems of their own. But even if we put these problems aside, what is relevant for our current discussion is that in 19a we again see that OC PRO walks and talks like a Caseless A-trace.
As the data above indicate, this is incorrect. As PRO-based accounts currently stipulate the distributional 14 See e. Lightfoot Jaeggli It is not the case, like we saw in section 3. Adjunct control Let us now consider adjunct control. Of course, adjunct control involves adjuncts and adjuncts are perennial troublemakers. They always challenge attempts towards unification as there are many different types, which require different heights for merge, etc.
Our aim here is not to explore adjuncts in depth, but to consider a subset of adjuncts, the ones which trigger OC. Take the data in 21 , for example. It should be noted that the similarities go beyond the orthodox cases. As mentioned in section 3. Unsurprisingly, in adjunct control configurations in Brazilian Portuguese, the null subject of a finite adjunct clause behaves like OC PRO, as illustrated in For fuller discussion, see Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes section 4.
Accordingly, in raising constructions like 23 , for instance, the adjectival predicate takes the feminine form even in the context where a man has been hurt. FEM brought. FEM been.
- Splitting and clustering grammatical information.
- Nunes, Jairo.
- Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax - Google книги.
- Why Wages Dont Fall during a Recession.
- Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax - Dimensions!
Again, this should be so independently of the specific analysis one assumes for inter-clausal agreement in standard raising constructions. Once 25 cannot be analyzed in terms of an A-trace, inter-clausal agreement is blocked and the embedded predicate takes an arguably default masculine form. To deny that these sentences involve OC because they do not instantiate an Agree configuration see e. Landau section 5.mensbillgendpa.cf
Melvil Decimal System: 469.79
Ignoring the Duck Principle in face of similarities between OC PROs in adjunct control and A-traces such as the ones illustrated above comes, we believe, at a considerable cost. After all, adjuncts are islands for movement and therefore movement out of the adjunct island in adjunct control constructions should also yield a CED violation. This is actually true if we are referring to GB-style grammars, but not to grammars with a minimalist architecture.
Within GB, D-Structure provides the computational system with a unique root tree and all the syntactic computations after D-Structure must operate within this single rooted syntactic object. Thus, if we find an adjunct island between a trace and its antecedent, the movement that gives rise to this configuration must have incurred a CED violation. So, within the GB model incorporating the CED there is no way to generate adjunct control via movement. Minimalist theories, on the other hand, dispense with D-structure as it is not an interface level and syntactic trees are constructed in a step-by-step fashion through possibly interleaved applications of Merge and Move.
This is in fact trivially true for the first steps of any syntactic derivation. Take the derivational step in 26c , for instance. Before saw and her merge, they are independent root syntactic objects. Moreover, given the Extension Condition, the derivation of complex subjects and complex adjuncts invariably demands that the computational system deal with more than one root syntactic object at a time. For instance, the Extension Condition prevents an alternative continuation of 26e where boy first merges with [saw her], yielding [boy [saw her]], and later the merges with boy in a noncyclic manner; hence, the must be selected and merged with boy so that the resulting structure merges with [saw her] cf.
Interestingly, in the derivational step in 26f there are three different root syntactic objects available to the computational system. Another relevant difference between GB and minimalism is the copy theory of movement, which reinterprets Move as the output of the interaction between the more basic operations Copy and Merge. Again, notice that in a system that has Copy as a basic operation, the computational system must be able to handle more than one root syntactic object, namely, the copy newly created and the root syntactic object containing the replicated material cf.
For concreteness, we will frame the following discussion in terms of copies, which will be annotated by superscripted indices.
- The Devils Love.
- Language differences: English - Portuguese.
- Jobs world wide!
- The Cambridge Companion to Frances Burney (Cambridge Companions to Literature).
- Why Do We Need a Public Library? - Material for a Library Campaign.
- The subject, it is here! The varying structural positions of preverbal subjects?
In both cases, we have trivial applications of movement, viewed as Copy plus Merge. Sideward movement is therefore not a novel operation or a new species of movement. Merge: VP applications, and detailed discussion on how overgeneration is prevented, see e. Nunes , , , Hornstein , Hornstein and Nunes , and Drummond Further, this view of things comes with a plausible cost accounting for why sideward movement is less preferred than upward movement and E-merge.
Here, however, is not the place to elaborate on these, no doubt, cryptic comments.
Services on Demand
After PP adjoins to VP cf. Crucially, adjunct is not an absolute, but relational notion: a given expression is an adjunct of another. In 31a PP is just a root syntactic object. Assuming that syntactic computations operate in a local fashion, the fact that later on PP will become an adjunct is irrelevant at the derivational step where movement takes place. This approach correctly distinguishes licit cases of adjunct control like 30 from standard CED violations such as 32 below, for instance. Given that Extension Condition bars late adjunction, it must be the case that the PP in 32 merges with the matrix VP before the derivation builds the matrix TP.
This being so, by the time the interrogative complementizer Q is merged, as sketched in 33 , which book cannot move to check the strong feature of Q, as it is within an adjunct; hence the ungrammaticality of Under the relevant reading indicated by the brackets in 34 , the PP headed by without is an adjunct of the VP headed by answered.
The Extention Condition requires that these two constituents be merged before they become part of a larger structure. Thus, by the time the VP left the room is built, John is unable to undergo sideward movement to reach the matrix predicate, for it is inside an adjunct, as illustrated in Consider the derivational step sketched in 37 , for instance.
If Mary is selected and merged with saw, the derivation results in a subject control structure, after John undergoes sideward movement to [Spec,VP] cf. On the other hand, if John is copied and merged with saw, the derivation should give rise to an object control structure after Mary is plugged in as the external argument.
Under the assumption that Merge is more economical than Move see Chomsky , the first option is enforced, yielding the subject-object asymmetry observed in In sum, if economy independently restricts movement and sideward movement is just an instance of Move, then the restriction to subject control into adjuncts is what we expect and find. There are various ways of ensuring preference of merger over movement in these contexts.
For refinements and further discussion, see Nunes section 5. However, this guiding principle leads to a dead end if we have in mind a GB-style grammar, for movement out of an adjunct structure that is part of the bigger D- Structure representation that feeds the computation necessarily results in a CED violation. Given that an intervening adjunct island should bar an application of Agree, the only way out is to say that adjunct control PRO walks and talks like complement control PRO, but this is due to something else.
Crucially, by exploring the possibility of sideward movement made available by these minimalist architectural properties, the MTC manages to capture the fact that adjunct control PRO is also a residue of movement without incorrectly ruling in standard adjunct island violations.
The differences between English and Portuguese
The result of comparing PRO-based accounts and the MTC with respect to the Duck Principle is much stronger here than the one regarding wanna-contraction. As mentioned in section 2.
But here there is simply no such escape for PRO-based accounts other than denying that adjunct control involves control. By contrast, adjunct control brings no turbulence to the MTC. Consider the simplified structure each approach assigns to a control sentence such as 38 , for instance: 38 John tried to work hard. MTC analysis: [Johni tried [Johni to work hard]] b.