2012 Binding at the syntax-IS interface (John Benjamins book series) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Cleft Constructions in a contrastive perspective. Towards an operational taxonomy.
Cleft constructions in a contrastive perspective Towards an operational taxonomy 3 The terminology used in the literature to refer to the cleft components varies quite significantly (on this issue, also see note 23). The term cleft / clefted constituent, which is used for instance in Hedberg (1988) and Calude (2009), is called differently in other studies, in particular according to the point of view that is adopted: Collins (1991: 2), for instance, prefers to use the term highlighted element, which he considers to be "neutral as to the semantic/syntactic/textual/logical role of the constituent in question" (p. 217). In his view, this element should be called identifier in propositional semantic terms, complement of the copula be (or post-copular constituent) in syntactic terms, new or comment in textual terms and focus in logical terms (cf. Collins 1991: 217). Again in line with Hedberg (1988) and Calude (2009), the same is true for what we call cleft clause: Declerck (1984) calls this part of the cleft wh-that clause, and Collins (1991) and Lambrecht (2001) label it relative clause. All of these labels have advantages and disadvantages that we cannot discuss in detail here. In a way, these labels are therefore to be interpreted as a practical, compromise solution.
The Proper Treatment of Binding in Pseudo Cleft Constructions
2007
In modern terminology, (1) implies that, as far as specificat ional pseudo cleft sentences are concerned, S-structure and LF must coincide i n all relevant respects. More specifically, Higgins denies that the analysis of clefts necessitates a specific mechanism of reconstruction. Since by definition a Null-Hypothesis cannot actually be a principle (of grammar), and since it is a ccepted methodology to avoid construction-specific assumptions, it is plaus ible to assume that (1) should in fact be a theorem, resulting from deeper principle s which in turn do not explicitly mention the specificational pseudo cleft con struction. In the context of this volume, I take it that the more general thesis to b e defended is that UG does not provide for any mechanism of reconstruction as a s yntactic device that maps S-structures onto LFs. I will first discuss some traditional arguments in favor of re construction and how these are dealt with by Higgins. Assuming Higgins’ synta ctic arguments ag...
The term cleft is commonly used to describe a syntactic pattern which serves to separate a discourse prominent constituent structurally from the rest of the clause. It is formed by dividing a more elementary clause into two parts. One of the two parts is foregrounded, and the other, backgrounded. The structure is characterized e.g. in English by the presence of a proleptic pronoun (it), a copula (be), and a relative clause (the cleft clause). This process (foregrounding through cleaving) is not limited to Indo-European languages and can be observed in other languages, e.g. Zaar, a Chadic language spoken in Nigeria. However, in this language ‘cleft’ structures do not use a proleptic pronoun (since copulas do not require a subject in Zaar) nor is there any morphological exponent of relativization in the cleft clause. A further morphological reduction of the structure can be observed when the left-dislocation of the foregrounded element is not accompanied by a copula. I propose to examine what characterises these foregrounding structures beyond the formal components defining them in e.g. English or French, and to find a unifying definition that sets it apart from presentational constructions with a plain restrictive relative clause. In the process I argue that this type of syntactic structure is best accounted for within the framework of Universal Dependency Grammar (UD) which only considers content words as governors in dependency relations, thus accounting for the absence of copula. Finally, I present a brief description of copulas in Zaar.
This essay argues that antecedent-anaphor and bound-variable relations (coconstrual relations) are formed outside of narrow syntax by an interpretive component that exploits the structures built by minimalist architecture. It is demonstrated that attempts to reduce coconstrual to the tree-building operations of narrow syntax (Agree, feature theory, Merge and its subcase, Remerge) do not succeed in dispensing with conditions that evaluate constructed trees and thus such accounts offer no conceptual advantage. Instead it is established that syntactically sensitive coconstrual relations must be interpreted from the output of narrow syntax, but are not expressed within narrow syntax at all. This result unburdens narrow syntax of a class of relations that bring theoretical and empirical complications, while providing a more elegant account of coconstrual in a broader conception of the interpretive interface.