Adjuncts and the theory of phrase structure (original) (raw)

Adjunction, Labeling, and Bare Phrase Structure

This article argues for a version of bare phrase structure which maintains that — contrary to the standard view on phrase structure — adjunction structures are simpler than structures involving complements and specifiers. Assuming with Hornstein (forthcoming) that the operation Merge is to be decomposed into two basic operations, namely, Concatenate and Label, the article shows that whereas the building of complements and specifiers requires that the output of a Concatenate operation be labeled, adjuncts may only require concatenation to receive a proper interpretation at the interface. It is argued that taking adjunction structures to be label-less concatenates not only complies with Chomsky's (1995) Inclusiveness Condition, but also makes it possible to account in a principled manner for the dual behavior of adjuncts, which sometimes behave as integral parts of the target of adjunction and some other times behave as completely independent elements.

Some Thoughts on Adjunction Some Thoughts on Adjunction

1. Introduction It is fair to say that what adjuncts are and how they function grammatically is not well understood. The current wisdom comes in two parts: a description of some of the salient properties of adjuncts (they are optional, not generally selected, often display island (CED) effects, etc.) and a technology to code their presence (Chomsky-adjunction, different labels, etc). Within the Minimalist Program (MP), adjuncts have largely been treated as afterthoughts and this becomes evident when the technology deployed to accommodate them is carefully (or even cursorily) considered. Our primary aim in this paper is to propose a phrase structure for adjunction that is compatible with the precepts of Bare Phrase Structure (BPS). Current accounts, we believe, are at odds with the central vision of BPS and current practice leans more to descriptive eclecticism than to theoretical insight. We have a diagnosis for this conceptual disarray. It stems from a deeply held though seldom formulated intuition; the tacit view that adjuncts are the abnormal case while arguments describe the grammatical norm. We suspect that this has it exactly backwards. In actuality, adjuncts are so well behaved that they require virtually no grammatical support to function properly. Arguments, in contrast, are refractory and require grammatical aid to allow them to make any propositional contribution. This last remark should come as no surprise to those with neo-Davidsonian semantic sympathies. Connoisseurs of this art form are well versed in the important role that grammatical (aka, thematic) roles play in turning arguments into modifiers of events. 1 Such fulcra are not required for meaningfully integrating adjuncts into sentences. In what follows, we take this difference to be of the greatest significance and we ask ourselves what this might imply for the phrase structure of adjunction. A second boundary condition in what follows is that an adequate theory of adjunction comport with the core tenets of BPS. Current approaches sin against BPS in requiring an intrinsic use of bar levels and in using idiosyncratic labeling conventions whose import is murky at best. We rehearse these objections in the following sections. A goal of a successful theory of adjuncts should be to come up with a coherent account of adjunction structures that (at least) allows for a relational view of bar levels along the lines of Chomsky 1995 (following earlier suggestions of Muysken 1982). More ambitiously, one could require that the bar-level properties of adjunction structures play no grammatically significant role. Hornstein 2005b proposes a very strong version of the Inclusiveness Condition, one in which only intrinsic features of lexical elements can be used by the computational system. This excludes, among other things, bar-level information (which is relational) from the purview of the syntax. 2 Thus syntactic rules cannot be stated in terms like " Move/delete XP " or " Move X 0 " or " never

The Left-Left Constraint – a structural constraint on adjuncts

2022 in: Ulrike Freywald & Horst Simon (eds.) "Headedness and/or Grammatical Anarchy?" Berlin: Language Science Press.

Left-hand adjuncts of left-headed (= head-initial) phrases are constrained in a particular way that is unheard of for head-final phrases. The head of the adjunct must be phrase-final. Anything that follows the head disqualifies the phrase as an adjunct. The effect of this head-final-constraint is adjacency between the head of the adjunct and the phrase the adjunct is adjoined to. Adjuncts to head-final phrases are not constrained that way. This holds for adverbials, viz. adjuncts to VPs and APs, as well as for adnominal attributes. This constraint does not follow from any known conditions on phrase structuring. It will be shown to arise from a licensing requirement that holds for phrases to be merged with a given phrase. Left adjuncts of head-initial phrases are not in the licensing domain of the head of the phrase and therefore they are in need of an alternative way of getting licensed. This alternative way – proper attachment – results in the hitherto unaccounted adjacency effect.

F Nuessel Ray S. Jackendoff X bar Syntax A Study of Phrase Structure Grammar 1979 pdf

Lingua. Vol. 49. Pp. 255-259;, 1979

Chomsky's grammatical theory since Aspects has undergone frequent and fundamental modification. One significant metamorphosis in the evolution of his hypethesis originated in a series of lectures delivered at MIT in the fall of 1967 in which he proposed th: expansion of the base into a more complex and central component of his theoretical framework. These lectures were subsequently published as ' Remarks on Nominalization' (1970, 1972). In this study, Chomsky proposed that derived (as opposed to gerundive) nominals l be generated directly by the base rather than by transformation. Such a suggestion (the Lexicalist Hypothesis) has profound theoretical consequences in that it permits a nontransformational linking of related lexical items. Specifically, it allows a transformation to refer to more than one syntactic category within the term of its structural description. Such enrichment of the base consequently impoverishes the transformational component. This has the immediate effect of severely constraining the power of the transformational component-a highly desirable goal in generative theory during the 1970's. One must question, however, whether or not such a "trading relation" (Chomsky 1970: 185) has any significant impact on grammatical theory since it merely shifts problems from one domain of the grammar to another. The book contains ten chapters. The first ('Preliminaries', pp. l-6) presents Jackendoff's (henceforth J) theoretical beliefs. 4 The second ('Notation for the X Convention', pp. 7-27) sketches Chomsky's ideas (1970) and presents an outline of the remainder of the book. The next chapter (*A Theory of Phrase Structure', pp. 29-56) is the theoretical core in which J tries to explicate Chomsky's sometimes vague suggestions. Somewhat ironically, J begins this chapter with a quote from Chomsky (1957)5 concerning the necessity co have precisely stated models of grammar for empirical verification. The 57 (= X-bar) convention makes three essential claims according to the author, namely, ".. . the class of possible lexical categories is determined by a set of distinctive features; the class of syntactic categories is determined by elaborating the lexical categories in terms of the prime notation; relies of grammar are to be stated in terms of these features and primes" (p 53).

Extraction and coordination in phrase structure grammar and categorial grammar

1989

A large proportion of computationally-oriented theories of grammar operate within the confines of monostratality (i.e. there is only one level of syntactic analysis), compositionality (i.e. the meaning of an expression is determined by the meanings of its syntactic parts, plus their manner of combination), and adjacency (i.e. the only operation on terminal strings is concatenation). This thesis looks at two major approaches falling within these bounds: that based on phrase structure grammar (e.g. Gazdar), and that based on categorial grammar (e.g. Steedman). The theories are examined with reference to extraction and coordination constructions; crucially a range of 'compound' extraction and coordination phenomena are brought to bear. It is argued that the early phrase structure grammar metarules can characterise operations generating compound phenomena, but in so doing require a categorial-like category system. It is also argued that while categorial grammar contains an adequ...