Non-local dependencies and auxiliary chains

Article Sidebar

PDF (Español)
Published: 09-09-2019

Main Article Content

Luis García Fernández
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Spain
Diego Gabriel Krivochen
University of Reading
United Kingdom
Vol 46 (2019), Articles, pages 207-244
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15304/verba.46.4567
Submitted: 26-01-2018 Accepted: 10-05-2018 Published: 09-09-2019
Copyright How to Cite

Abstract

The goal of the present paper is to explain the behaviour of verbal periphrases and, particularly, those composed by more than a single auxiliary verb, i.e. those cases in which there is an auxiliary chain. To this end, we will provide data pertaining to two displacement phenomena: first fronting of a non-finite lexical verb (gerunds, specifically) and the concomitant problem of the surface position of the subject, and secondly, clitic climbing. We will show that these instances of fronting pose both theoretical and empirical problems for orthodox approaches to phrase structure, which can be solved by adopting a view of displacement as multidominance within a lexicalized
Tree Adjoining Grammar. We will also argue that this solution can be extended to other areas of the grammar such as Wh-movement.

Keywords:

fronting, clitics, verbal periphrases, verum focus
Cited by

Article Details

References

Abney, S. P. (1987): The English Noun Phrase in its Sentental Aspect. Tesis doctoral, MIT, Cambridge.

Barbosa, P. (2001): «On Inversion in Wh-questions in Romance», en C. Aafke & J. Hulk & J.-Y. Pollock (eds.): Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of universal grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 20-59.

Bleam, T. (2000): «Clitic climbing and the power of Tree Adjoining Grammar», en A. Abeille & O. Rambow (eds.): Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalisms, linguistic analysis, and processing. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 193-220.

Bravo, A. & L. García Fernández & D. Krivochen (2015): «On Auxiliary Chains: Auxiliaries at the Syntax-Semantics Interface», Borealis 4(2), pp. 71-101. https://doi.org/10.7557/1.4.2.3612

Campos, H. & M. Zampini (1990): «Focalization strategies in Spanish», Probus 2(1), pp. 47-64. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1990.2.1.47

Chomsky, N. (1957): Syntactic Structures. La Haya: Mouton.

Chomsky, N. (1977): «On Wh-movement», en P. Culicover & A. Akmajian (eds.): Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71-133.

Chomsky, N. (1986): Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1995): The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2001): «Derivation by Phase», en M. Kenstowicz (ed.): Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 1-52.

Chomsky, N. (2009): «Opening Remarks», en M. Piattelli-Palmarini & J. Uriagereka & Pello Salaburu (eds.): Of Minds and Language. Oxford: OUP, pp. 13-43.

Cinque, G. (1999): Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.

Citko, B. (2014): «Multidominance», en C. Boeckx (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: OUP, pp. 119-142.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.013.0006

De Vries, M. (2009): «On Multidominance and Linearization», Biolinguistics 3(4), pp. 344-403.

Emonds, J. (1970): Root and structure preserving transformations. Tesis doctoral. Cambridge: MIT.

Emonds, J. (2007): «Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions», en J. Emonds: Discovering Syntax: Clause Structures of English, German and Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 331-380.

Epstein, S. D. & T. D. Seely (2006): Derivations in minimalism. Cambridge: CUP. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550607

Escandell Vidal, M. V. & M. Leonetti (2009): «La expresión del verum focus en español», Español actual 92, pp. 11-46.

Fillmore, C. (1963): «The Position of Embedding Transformations in a Grammar», Word 19(2), pp. 208-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1963.11659796

Frank, R. (1992): Syntactic Locality and Tree Adjoining Grammar: Grammatical, Acquisition and Processing Perspectives. Tesis doctoral. Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania.

Frank, R. (2002): Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5366.001.0001

García Fernández, L. & D. G. Krivochen & A. Bravo (2017): «Aspectos de la semántica y sintaxis de las cadenas de verbos auxiliares en español», Moenia 23, pp. 1-28.

Gómez Torrego, L. (1999): «Los verbos auxiliares. Las perífrasis verbales de infinitivo», en I. Bosque & V. Demonte (dirs.): Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa, vol. 2, pp. 3323-3389.

Grimshaw, J. (2005): Words and Structure. Stanford: CLSI, pp. 1-74.

Guéron, J. & T. Hoekstra (1988): «T-Chains and the Constituent Structure of Auxiliaries», en A. Cardinaletti & G. Cinque & G. Giusti (eds.): Constituent Structure. Papers from the 1987 GLOW Conference. Venice: Annali di Ca’ Foscari, pp. 35-99.

Hernanz, M. Ll. & J. M.a Brucart (1987): La Sintaxis. Barcelona: Crítica.

Hopcroft, J. & J. Ullman (1969): Formal Languages and their relation to Automata. London: Addison-Wesley.

Jiménez Fernández, A. (2015): «Towards a typology of focus: Subject position and microvariation at the discourse–syntax interface», Ampersand 2, pp. 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2015.03.001

Jiménez Fernández, A. (en prensa): «Negative Preposing. Intervention and Parametric Variation in Complement Clauses», Atlantis. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies 39.

Johnson, K. (2016): Towards a Multidominant theory of movement. Ms. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. http://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/Multi_Movement.pdf

Joshi, A. K. (1985): «Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions?», en D. Dowty & L. Karttunen & A. Zwicky (eds.): Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge, Mass.: CUP, pp. 206-250. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597855.007

Joshi, A. K., & A. Kroch (1985): Linguistic significance of TAG's. Ms. Disponible en http://babel.ling.upenn.edu/papers/faculty/tony_kroch/papers/relevance3.pdf

Karttunen, L. & M. Kay (1985): «Structure sharing with binary trees», en Proceedings of the 23rd Association for Computational Linguistics. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago, pp. 133-136. https://doi.org/10.3115/981210.981226

Kayne, R. (1994): The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Kiparsky, P. (1968): «Linguistic universals and linguistic change», en E. Bach & R. T. Harms (eds.): Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 171-202.

Koutsoudas, A. & G. Sanders (1979): «On the universality of rules and rule ordering constraints», Studia Linguistica 33(1), pp. 57-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1979.tb00676.x

Koutsoudas, A. & G. Sanders & C. Noll (1974): «The application of phonological rules», Language 50, pp. 1-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/412007

Krivochen, D. (2015): «On Phrase Structure Building and Labeling Algorithms: Towards a Non-Uniform Theory of Syntactic Structures», The Linguistic Review 32(3), pp. 515-572. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2014-0030

Krivochen, D. (2018): Syntax as Graph Theory. Ms. Reading: University of Reading. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003842

Krivochen, D. & L. García Fernández (en prensa): «Variability in syntactic-semantic cycles: evidence from auxiliary chains», en M. González Rivera & S. Sessargo (eds.): At the interface: Essays in honor of Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ladusaw, W. (1980): Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. New York: Garland.

Lasnik, H. & M. Saito (1984): «On the nature of proper government», Linguistic Inquiry 15, pp. 235-289.

Lasnik, H. & M. Saito (1992): Move Alpha: Conditions on its Application and Output. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Leonetti, M. & M. V. Escandell Vidal (2009): «Fronting and verum focus in Spanish», en A. Dufter & D. Jacob (eds.): Focus and Background in Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 155-204. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.112.07leo

Levine, R. (1985): «Right Node (Non-)Raising», Linguistic Inquiry 16(3), pp. 492-497.

May, R. (1985): Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

McCawley, J. D. (1968): «Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar», Foundations of Language 4, pp. 243-269.

McCawley, J. D. (1982): «Parentheticals and Discontinuous Constituent Structure», Linguistic Inquiry 13(1), pp. 91-106.

McCawley, J. D. (1988): The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2 vols.

Osborne, T. (2008): «Major constituents: and two dependency grammar constraints on sharing in coordination», Linguistics 46(6), pp. 1109-1165. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.036

Osborne, T. & M. Putnam & T. Gro? (2011): «Bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax. Is Minimalism becoming a dependency grammar?», The Linguistic Review 28(3), pp. 315-364. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2011.009

Pullum, G. K. & B. C. Scholz (2001): «On the distinction between model-theoretic and generative-enumerative syntactic frameworks», en P. de Groote & G. Morrill & C. Retoré (eds.): Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: 4th International Conference (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 2099). Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 17-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48199-0_2

RAE-ASALE (= Real Academia Española / Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española) (2009): Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.

Ringen, C. (1974): «On Arguments for Rule Ordering», Foundations of Language 8(2), pp. 266-273.

Rizzi, L. (2010): «On Some Properties of Criterial Freezing», en P. Panagiotidis (ed.): The Complementizer Phase: Subjects and Operators. Oxford: OUP, pp. 17-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584352.003.0002

Sampson, G. (1975): «The Single Mother Condition», Journal of Linguistics 11(1), pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700004242

Schmerling, S. F. (1983): «A new theory of English auxiliaries», en F. Heny & B. Richards (eds.): Linguistic categories: auxiliaries and related puzzles. Dordrecht: Reidel, vol. II, pp. 1-53.

Shieber, S. (1986): An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. Brookline, Mass.: Microtome Publishing.

Sloan, K. (1991): «Quantifier-Wh Interaction», en L. Lai-Shen Cheng & H. Demirdache (eds.): More Papers on Wh-movement, MITWPL #15, pp. 219-237.

Torrego, E. (1984): «On Inversion in Spanish and Some of Its Effects», Linguistic Inquiry 15(1), pp. 103-129.

Uriagereka, J. (2002): «Multiple Spell-Out», en J. Uriagereka: Derivations: Exploring the Dynamics of Syntax. London: Routledge, pp. 45-65.

Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (1992): «On the structural positions of the subject in Spanish, their nature and their consequences for quantification», en J. Ortiz de Urbina (ed.): Syntactic theory and Basque syntax. San Sebastián: Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia, pp. 447-491.

Zagona, K. (2003): The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: CUP.

Zubizarreta, L. (2001): «The Constraint on Preverbal Subjects in Romance Interrogatives: A Minimality Effect», en A. C. J. Hulk & J.-Y. Pollock (eds.): Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of universal grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 183-204.

Zwicky, A. & S. Isard (1963): «Some aspects of tree theory», Working Paper W-6674, Bedford, Mass: The MITRE Corporation. Disponible en: https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/some-aspects-of-tree-theory.pdf

Most read articles by the same author(s)