Advertisement

The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery

  • Luigi Rizzi
Chapter
Part of the Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics book series (KIHL)

Abstract

Under current assumptions, the structural representation of a clause consists of three kinds of structural layers, each layer an instantiation of the X-bar schema:
  1. 1.

    The lexical layer, headed by the verb, the structural layer in which theta assignment takes place.

     
  2. 2.

    The inflectional layer, headed by functional heads corresponding to concrete or abstract morphological specifications on the verb, and responsible for the licensing of argumental features such as case and agreement.

     
  3. 3.

    The complementizer layer, typically headed by a free functional morpheme, and hosting topics and various operator-like elements such as interrogative and relative pronouns, focalized elements, etc.

     
In the mid eighties, each layer was identified with a single X-bar projection (VP, IP, CP), but this assumption quickly turned out to be too simplistic. Under the impact of Pollock’s (1989) influential analysis of verb movement, IP dissolved into a series of functional projections, each corresponding to system (Agr, T, Asp,…). Kayne’s (1984) binary branching hypothesis naturally led to the postulation of multiple VP layers for multi-argument verbs, e.g. along the lines of Larson (1988) and much related work.

Keywords

Nobel Prize Small Clause Relative Pronoun Left Periphery Subject Extraction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aboh, E. (1995) ‘Notes sur la focalisation en Gungbe’, manuscript, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  2. Antinucci, F. and G. Cinque (1977) ‘Sull’ordine delle parole in italiano: l’emarginazione’. Studi di grammatica italiana 6, 121–146.Google Scholar
  3. Baltin, M. (1982) ‘A landing site for movement rules’. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 1–38.Google Scholar
  4. Bayer, J. (1984) ‘COMP in Bavarian’, The Linguistic Review 3, 209–274.Google Scholar
  5. Belletti, A. (1994) ‘Case checking and clitic placement: Three issues in (Italian/Romance) clitics’, GenGenP 1.2, 101–118.Google Scholar
  6. Belletti, A. and U. Shlonsky (1995) ‘The order of verbal complements: A comparative study’, NLLT 13, 489–526.Google Scholar
  7. Benincà, P. (1988) “Costruzioni con ordine marcato degli elementi’, in: L. Renzi (ed.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Volume I, il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 129–145.Google Scholar
  8. Benincà, P. (1995) ‘La struttura della frase esclamativa alla luce del dialetto padovano’, manuscript, University of Padua.Google Scholar
  9. den Besten, H. (1977/1983) ‘On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules’, in: W. Abraham (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of Westgermania. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 47–131.Google Scholar
  10. Bhatt, R. and J. Yoon (1991) ‘On the composition of comp and parameters of V-2’, WCCFL 10, 41–52.Google Scholar
  11. Bianchi, V. (1995) Consequences of Antisymmetry for the Syntax of Headed Relative Clauses, doctoral dissertation. Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.Google Scholar
  12. Bresnan, J. (1977) ‘Variables in the theory of transformations’, in: P. Culicover et al. (eds.), Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Brody, M. (1990) ‘Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian’, UCL Working Papers, Vol. 2, University College of London.Google Scholar
  14. Brody, M. (1995a) Lexico-Logical Form: A Radically Minimalist Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  15. Brody, M. (1995b) ‘Focus and checking theory’, in: I. Kenesei (ed.), Levels and Structures (Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 5), JATE, Szeged, pp. 30–43Google Scholar
  16. Calabrese, A. (1982) ‘Alcune ipotesi sulla struttura informazionale delle frase in italiano e sul suo rapporto con la struttura fonologica’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 7, 3–78.Google Scholar
  17. Cardinaletti, A. (1983) ‘Lo status dei pronomi d- e la ricostruzione nella dislocazione a sinistra in tedesco’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 8, 111–125.Google Scholar
  18. Cardinaletti, A. and I. Roberts (1991) ‘Clause structure and X-second’, manuscript, University of Venice, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  19. Cardinaletti, A. and M. Starke (1994) ‘The typology of structural deficiency’, manuscript, University of Venice, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  20. Cecchetto, C. (1994) ‘Clitic left dislocation and scrambling: Towards a unified analysis’, manuscript, DIPSCO, Fondazione San Raffaele, Milano.Google Scholar
  21. Cheng, L. (1991) On the Typology of Wh Questions, doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  22. Chomsky, N. (1976) ‘Conditions on rules of grammar’, Linguistic Analysis 2, 303–351.Google Scholar
  23. Chomsky, N. (1977) ‘On Wh movement’, in: A. Akmajian, P. Culicover and T. Wasow (eds.), Formal Syntax. Academic Press, New York, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
  24. Chomsky, N. (1986a) Knowledge of Language. Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Chomsky, N. (1986b) Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  26. Chomsky, N. (1991) ‘Some notes on the economy of derivations and representations’, in: R. Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 417–454.Google Scholar
  27. Chomsky, N. (1993) ‘A minimalist program for linguistic theory’, in: K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, (eds.), The View From Building 20. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  28. Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  29. Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik (1977) ‘Filters and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 425–504.Google Scholar
  30. Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik (1991) ‘Principles and parameters theory’, in: J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: an International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin, De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  31. Cinque, G. (1979) Studi di sintassi e pragmatica, CLESP, Padova.Google Scholar
  32. Cinque, G. (1982) ‘On the theory of relative clauses and markedness’, The Linguistic Review 1, 247–296.Google Scholar
  33. Cinque, G. (1990) Types of A′ Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  34. Cinque, G. (1993) ‘A null theory of phrase and compound stress”, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 239–298.Google Scholar
  35. Cotteli, S. (1994) ‘The representation of tense in modern Irish’, manuscript, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  36. Crisma, P. (1992) ‘On the acquisition of Wh questions in French’, GenGenP 0(1–2), 115–122.Google Scholar
  37. Culicover, P. (1992) ‘Topicalisation, inversion and complementizers in English’, OTS Working Papers, D. Delfitto et al. (eds.), Going Romance and Beyond, University of Utrecht, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  38. Culicover, P. (1993) ‘The adverb effect: Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effects”, NELS 1993, pp. 97–110.Google Scholar
  39. de Chenes, B. (1995) ‘Towards and explanatory account of the that-trace effect’, manuscript, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  40. Figueiredo-Silva, M. C. (1994) La position sujet en portugais brésilien, doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  41. Friedemann, M.-A. (1995) Sujets syntaxiques: positions, inversions et pro, doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  42. Fukui, N. (1993) ‘A note on improper movement’. The Linguistic Review 10(2), 111–126.Google Scholar
  43. George, L. and J. Kornfilt (1981) ‘Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish’, in: F. Heny (ed.), Binding and Filtering. Croom Helm, London, pp. 105–127.Google Scholar
  44. Giorgi, A. and F. Pianesi (1994) ‘Extraction from subjunctive clauses and clausal architecture’, talk presented at the University of Geneva, November 1994.Google Scholar
  45. Grimshaw, J. (1991) ‘Extended projections’, manuscript, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  46. Grimshaw, J. (1993) ‘Minimal projections, heads and optimality’, manuscript, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  47. Grimshaw, J. (1995) ‘Projection, heads and optimality’, manuscript, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  48. Grosu, A. (1975) “The position of fronted Wh phrases’, Linguistic Inquiry 6, 588–599.Google Scholar
  49. Guasti, T. (1993) Causative and Perception Verbs, Rosenberg & Sellier, Turin.Google Scholar
  50. Guasti, T. (1994) ‘On the controversial status of romance interrogatives’, manuscript, DIPSCO, Fondazione San Raffaele, Milano.Google Scholar
  51. Gundel, J. (1974) The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory, Indiana University Linguistic Club, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  52. Haegeman, L. (1986) ‘INFL, COMP and nominative case assignment in Flemish infinitivals’, in: H. van Riemsdijk and P. Muysken (eds.). Features and Projections. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 123–137.Google Scholar
  53. Haegeman, L. (1992) Theory and Description in Generative Syntax, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Haegeman, L. (1995) The Syntax of Negation, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Haegeman, L. and R. Zanuttini (1991) ‘Negative heads and the negative criterion’. The Linguistic Review 8, 233–251.Google Scholar
  56. Henry, A. (1995) Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  57. Holmberg, H. and Ch. Platzack (1988) ‘The role of inflection is Scandinavian syntax’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 42, 25–43.Google Scholar
  58. Horvath, J. (1985) Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  59. Iatridou, S. (1991) ‘Clitics and island effects”, manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
  60. Kayne, R. (1984) Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  61. Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  62. Kiss, K. (1987) Configurationality in Hungarian, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  63. Koster, J. (1978) Locality Principles in Syntax, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, 2nd printing: 1981.Google Scholar
  64. Laka, I. (1990) Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections, PhD Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  65. Larson, R. (1988) ‘On the double object construction’. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
  66. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito (1992) Move Alpha. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  67. Lasnik, H. and T. Stowell (1991) ‘Weakest cross-over’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687–720.Google Scholar
  68. Longobardi, G. (1980) ‘Connectedness, complementi circostanziali e soggiacenza’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 5, 141–185.Google Scholar
  69. Manzini, R. (1992) Locality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  70. Manzini, R. (1995) ‘From “merge and move” to “form dependency”’, University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 205–227.Google Scholar
  71. May, R. (1985) Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  72. McCloskey, J. (1992) ‘Adjunction, selection and embedded verb second’, Working Paper LRC-92-07, Linguistics Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  73. Moro, A. (1995) The Raising of Predicates. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Motapanyane, V. (1995) Theoretical Implications of Complementation in Romanian. Unipress, Padua.Google Scholar
  75. Muller, G. and W. Sternefeld (1993) ‘Improper movement and unambiguous binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 461–507.Google Scholar
  76. Nakajima, H. (1993) ‘Topic phrases and complementizers’, manuscript, Tokyo Metropolitan University.Google Scholar
  77. Pesetsky, D. (1995) Zero Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  78. Poletto, C. (1993) ‘Subject clitic — verb inversion in north-Eastern Italian dialects’, in: A. Belletti (ed.), Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy, Rosenberg & Sellier, Turin, pp. 204–251Google Scholar
  79. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) ‘Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
  80. Puskas, G. (1992) ‘The Wh criterion in Hungarian’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 17, 141–186.Google Scholar
  81. Reinhart, T. (1981) ‘Two comp positions’, in: A. Belletti, L, Brandi and L. Rizzi (eds.), Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.Google Scholar
  82. Rivero, M.-L. (1991) ‘Exceptional case marking effects in Rumanian subjunctive complements’, in: D. Wanner and D. A. Kibbee (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 273–298.Google Scholar
  83. Rizzi, L. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  84. Rizzi, L. (1986) ‘On the status of subject clitics in Romance’, in: O. Jaeggli and C. Silva-Corvalan (eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, pp. 391–419.Google Scholar
  85. Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  86. Rizzi, L. (1991) ‘Residual verb second and the Wh criterion’, Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  87. Rizzi, L. (1993) ‘A parametric approach to comparative syntax: Properties of the pronominal system’, English Linguistics 10, Tokyo, 1–27.Google Scholar
  88. Rizzi, L. (1994) ‘Early null subjects and root null subjects’, in: T. Hoekstra and B. Schwartz (eds.), Language Acquisition in Generative Grammar. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  89. Rizzi, L. (1995) ‘A note on do support’, manuscript, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  90. Rizzi, L. and I. Roberts (1989) ‘Complex inversion in French’, Probus 1, 1–30.Google Scholar
  91. Roberts, I. (1993) Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  92. Rochemont, M. (1989) ‘Topic islands and the subjacency parameter’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 34, 145–170.Google Scholar
  93. Rochemont, M & P. Culicover (1990) English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  94. Safir, K. (1992) ‘Structural economy’, manuscript, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  95. Shlonsky, U. (1994) ‘Agreement in comp’, The Linguistic Review 11, 351–375.Google Scholar
  96. Shlonsky, U. (forthcoming) Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew: An Essay in Comparative Semitic Syntax, to appear, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Speas, P. (1994) ‘Null arguments in a theory of economy of projections’, in: E. Benedicto and J. Runner (eds.), Functional Projections, UMOP 17.Google Scholar
  98. Sportiche, D. (1992) ‘Clitic constructions’, manuscript, UCLA.Google Scholar
  99. Starke, M. (1994) ‘On the format for small clauses’, GenGenP 2, 79–97.Google Scholar
  100. Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, PhD Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  101. Tsimpli, I. M. (1994) ‘Focussing in modern Greek’, in: K. Kiss (ed.), Discourse-configurational Languages, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Turano, G. (1993) ‘Subjunctive constructions in arberesh and standard Albanian’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 18, 101–133.Google Scholar
  103. Turano, G. (1995) Dipendenze sintattiche in albanese, Unipress, Padua.Google Scholar
  104. Vikner, S. (1991) ‘Relative der and other C elements in Danish’, Lingua 84, 109–136.Google Scholar
  105. Watanabe, A. (1993) ‘The notion of finite clauses in Agr-based case theory’, Papers on Case and Agreement I: MIT Working Papers 18, 243–296.Google Scholar
  106. Zribi-Hertz, A. (1984) ‘Prépositions orphélines et pronoms nuls’, Recherches Linguistiques 12, 46–91.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luigi Rizzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Università di SienaItaly

Personalised recommendations