Showing papers on "Universal grammar published in 1984"

The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar

Abstract: ing away from inflectional particles, the word order in declarative sentences may be schematically represented as in (29), where PART stands for the particle which occurs in particle verb constructions (cf. 3.1.2), and S' [+ TENSE] indicates the position that tensed complement clauses (more specifically na-complements) appeat in (cf. 4.2.) (29) a. NP V ADV X"* PART S' [+ TENSE] b. NP AUX ADV X"* PART V S' [+ TENSE] It will be shown in chapter 3 that these data should be analyzed as follows: (i) The constituents NP, INFL and VP are ordered in the following fashion:

Noun Incorporation in Southern Tiwa

Abstract: 0. Introduction. Noun incorporation, sometimes called noun-verb compounding (see, e.g., Harrington 1910 and Leap 1970), is common within the Tanoan language family, of which Southern Tiwa is a member. In Southern Tiwa the Head noun of subject and direct object is often incorporated into the verb complex; that is, it occurs between the inflectional agreement prefix and the verb. This article describes the conditions under which this incorporation occurs.1 This article has been organized within the framework of uninetwork relational grammar.2 Any data are important to universal grammar, but data described within a particular framework are of far greater value for formulating and testing hypotheses about universals within that framework. Thus we hope that the Southern Tiwa incorporation data being described here will be a significant contribution to universal grammar. Of particular interest is the fact that incorporation constraints make reference to both initial and final relations. In 1-4, we discuss examples which can be accounted for with reference to only a single level of grammatical relations, that is, what in relational grammar is referred to as the final level.3 In 5 we discuss examples which we analyze as involving more than one level of relations, so that incorporation in these cases is not fully explicated without

“Subordination” in Universal Grammar

Abstract: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1984), pp. 510-523

Surface Word-Order Typology and Universal Grammar

Abstract: This paper criticizes the view of Hawkins (1979, 1980, 1982) that the theory of Universal Grammar must include implicational and distributional universals of word order. It shows that universals based on frequency counts of surface word order-as worked out, e.g., by Greenberg 1966-need to be reformulated in order to be relevant to the problem of language acquisition. More specifically, it discusses H's claim that the principle of CrossCategory Harmony can shed light on the proper formulations of the X' schemas of generative grammar. Finally, it is shown how survey studies of word order can be relevant to forming initial hypotheses about certain properties of grammar, and how the study of language typology might proceed within the generative framework.*

Language universals and linguistic argumentation: a reply to Coopmans

Abstract: In the scientific community, reviews have a sacrosanct status, and it is therefore with some trepidation that I requested permission to reply to Coopmans' review article of Comrie (I98I; hereafter LULT). I have tried to ensure that in my reply I do not simply defend myself against the general and specific criticisms of LULTmade by Coopmans, but rather that I address the general issues raised by Coopmans in the spirit of an ongoing debate about the relation between data from individual languages, analyses of individual languages, formal theories of language, and language universals. Just as Coopmans (I 983) is a review article rather than just a review, this is a ' reply article' rather than just a reply. In the space at my disposal, I am not able to reply to all the criticisms made by Coopmans, and I have therefore selected, first, those general points that seem most indicative of the differences between my approach and Coopmans' (as a representative of current generative grammar) and, secondly, those analyses discussed by Coopmans that seem particularly illustrative of differences in methodology. The fact that I do not reply to a specific criticism in Coopmans (I983) should not be taken as an indication that I accept the validity of that criticism. The manuscript of LULT was delivered to the publisher at the beginning of I98 I, and therefore did not take into account work in generative grammar published after that date, in particular Chomsky (I98I), a major work which clearly establishes a new period in the development of generative grammar. In LULT I claimed that one of the major differences between my approach to language universals and that of generative syntax is that I believe it necessary to consider data from a wide range of languages (5-12), whereas generative grammar typically considers only data from English or English plus a narrow range of other languages. Chomsky (i98 i) makes clear that generative grammarians have come to realize that an adequate study of syntax within universal grammar requires the study of languages of different types (in the current terminology: with different parameter values); I am delighted that this difference between the generative approach and my own approach

Domain-preference and Gap Modulations

Abstract: The history of generative grammar shows that the most advanced concepts and theones are only gradually assimilated into Universal Grammar, and the more recent concept of HChain-composition" is no exception. The previous notion of chain formation algorithm is related to and derived from the Trace theory within the Government-Binding frame・ work and the earlier concept of derivational history of transformations. The Trace theory was an inevitable deduction from the theory for permissible antecedenトanaphor Unkings, which was again a radical departure from a largely derivational paradigm. It has now become clear from the preceding researches that the finite Gridィepresentations of the developing structural system provide each other with a mutual environment and produce reciprocal e汀ects as a result of their competitive (complementary) and their cooperative interactions. Nothing in the subcomponents of principles in the GB theory is completely autonomous: every part of the conditions, however independent and fundamental it may seem in its isolated form, is dependent on its mutual relations with other parts of the organized system. It is obvious that development of the syntactic structures under the Bounding principles generate new qualities that are more than the sum of the isolated parts under the Binding Theory in the modular view of grammar; thus the complementarity approach through the interactions and interdependence among the subcomponents of the rule system and the subsystems of principles allow us to see and grasp hidden conditions of the Gap-phenomena emerging during development of the syntactic structures at different levels of representation. The present purpose of this paper is to reexamine and capture the essential properties of EC (empty categories) partitioning withm Trace and Control theories, which will display certain crucial aspects of EC/ Gap functional status modulations through some