Insertion Minimalist Grammars: Eliminating Redundancies between Merge and Move

  • Tim Hunter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6878)

Abstract

Minimalist Grammars (MGs) provide a setting for rigourous investigations of ideas that have been proposed at a more intuitive level in mainstream work in generative syntax. I address one such idea, namely the possibility that when an element appears to be “displaced”, it might be usefully analysed not as having merged into one position and then moved to another position, but rather as simply having merged into one position, and then merged again into another. Intuitively, there appears to be some redundancy in a system where merge and move are unrelated primitive operations, because the structures that they build are of the same sort. I offer a careful illustration of how a MG variant based upon re-merging can eliminate these redundancies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chomsky, N.: The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chomsky, N.: Beyond explanatory adequacy. In: Belletti, A. (ed.) Structures and Beyond, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins, C.: Local Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper, R.: Quantification and Syntactic Theory. Reidel, Dordrecht (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emonds, J.: Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations. Ph.D. thesis, MIT (1970)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Emonds, J.: Adjectival passives. In: Everaert, M., van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, pp. 16–60. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Epstein, S.D., Groat, E., Kawashima, R., Kitahara, H.: A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frey, W., Gärtner, H.M.: On the treatment of scrambling and adjunction in minimalist grammars. In: Jäger, G., Monachesi, P., Penn, G., Wintner, S. (eds.) Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2002, pp. 41–52 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hornstein, N.: Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Blackwell, Oxford (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hornstein, N., Nunes, J.: Adjunction, labeling, and bare phrase structure. Biolinguistics 2(1), 57–86 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hunter, T.: Relating Movement and Adjunction in Syntax and Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kallmeyer, L.: Parsing Beyond Context-Free Grammars. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kobele, G.M.: Inverse linking via function composition. Natural Language Semantics 18(2), 183–196 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lasnik, H., Uriagereka, J.: A Course in Minimalist Syntax. Blackwell, Malden (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Michaelis, J.: Derivational minimalism is mildly context-sensitive. In: Moortgat, M. (ed.) LACL 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2014, pp. 179–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stabler, E.P.: Derivational minimalism. In: Retoré, C. (ed.) LACL 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1328, pp. 68–95. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stabler, E.P.: Sidewards without copying. In: Wintner, S. (ed.) Proceedings of FG-2006: The 11th Conference on Formal Grammar, pp. 157–170. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Hunter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsYale UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations