The argument relations that hold in verbal compounds of the form N+ Ving such as bike-riding and pot smoking are analyzed in government theory with a view to exploring possible ways of semantic interpretation in the lexicon. The impossibility of subject-linking (e.g. rainfalling), observed by Roeper & Siegel 1978, Selkirk 1982, Lieber 1983 and others, is shown to follow automatically from the government relation in the configurational structure of Present-day English. The proposed analysis receives empirical justification from nonconfigurational languages such as Old English and Japanese, in which examples of subject-linking are amply attested.
Following the basic idea of Selkirk 1982 and Lieber 1983 to deal with verbal compounds in terms of the argument structures of verbal heads, we examine verbal compounds incorporating predicative expressions. We propose a framework for analyzing the internal structures of verbal compounds, which is different in detail from either Selkirk or Lieber. Noting that adjectives and nouns do not take predicative expressions as their arguments though they can occur with predicative expressions that are non-argument adjuncts, we show that seemingly complicated data distribution is correctly predicted in the proposed framework.
Proposals have been made concerning how synthetic compounding, which is one of the most productive morphological processes, should be analyzed. After presenting some problems in these proposals, we advance an alternative, which shows that synthetic compounds can involve phrasal categories, contrary to a previous assumption of morphological processes, and that the independently needed principles of X-bar theory apply to morphology.
This paper proposes a revision in the notion SUBJECT, which has been assumed, since Chomsky 1981, to include a subject NP and AGR. The proposal claims that COMP, instead of AGR, be counted as a SUBJECT. Since SUBJECT is a very basic notion in the binding theory, the revision yields far-reaching effects on bindings of various sorts of expressions. Descriptive and conceptual effects of the proposal are discussed and examined. It will be shown, in particular, that some ad hoc stipulations in Chomsky's binding theory may be eliminated on the assumption that COMP is a SUBJECT.
Those verbs which allow or require the present subjunctive in the embedded clause may generally be expected, from their semantic properties, to take a transitive VP complement. However, this is not always the case. Besides transitive VP complements, some of them will be found to take other kinds of infinitival complements; we will find that these present subjunctive verbs can be divided into several different types as to their subcategorization properties. This paper explores these syntactic properties of some of those subjunctive-taking verbs, especially in the framework of the Government and Binding theory.
In this paper, I will first examine some previous analyses of reduced questions that have been advanced within the framework of generative syntax, and show that they are inadequate in a number of respects. Then I will propose an extended version of the null complement analysis, which adopts Wasow's 1979 basic idea that the reduced question is a null complement, but stipulates that its internal structure is ensured by the interpretive rule based on Nakau's theory of semantic structure.
This paper is concerned with the syntactic and semantic aspects of ‘nominal’if-clauses in English. I will show that a number of conceptual and empirical difficulties arise when we try to account for them strictly within Chomsky's general framework. To overcome these difficulties, a new analysis will be proposed with in the‘dynamic’model of grammar, which has been developed in Kajita 1977, 1983a, b, c, 1984. It will be shown that the discussion here provides empirical evidence in favor of the ‘dynamic’theory over the‘static’one.
After making clear that the infinitival indirect question has a number of peculiar properties, this article argues that the Government-Binding (GB) approach, as advocated in Chomsky 1981, is not sufficient to properly deal with this construction. It then presents an alternative analysis within the framework of the‘extension theory’, outlined in Kajita 1977, 1983a, 1983b. It is argued that the infinitival indirect question is generated by the‘derivative processes’. Ample evidence is adduced which justifies the proposed analysis.
The so-called tough construction has a number of problems, which make all of the previous analyses inadequate. The most notable of them, which none of the previous analyses has taken into account, is the fact that tough constructions exhibit great differences in acceptability among speakers. Thus in this paper I propose an appropriate analysis of tough constructions that covers this fact. Especially I claim that the idiolectal differences originate from syntactico-semantic discrepancy that induces semantic or syntactic reorganization. Other notions of interest are multiple analysis and semantic binding. These two play a very important role in accounting for the difference in judgment of apparent violation of the wh-island constraint.
This paper claims that the category VP, which is negated and reduced to the category S in GB-Theory, is essential for the syntax of to-infinitives. I will argue that the INFL system is inadequate as it stands when modals, do, have, and be are incorporated into it, and that some modals cannot be dealt with naturally without the category VP. Furthermore, it is shown that the infinitival marker to belongs to the category INF, and that INF is the head of VP in the same way that COMP is the head of the category S.
With constructions have been drawing much attention of theoretical linguists these few years. However, the structure and the internal and/or external behavior of with constructions have not been unanimously agreed upon. In this article, I will show that the structure of with constructions is of the form [PP[Pwith][S′[SNP[INFL-ing][VPV...]]]]. This state of affairs is of theoretical interest in several respects to the Government and Binding theory. I will also argue that the descriptive statements for parasitic gap phenomena, especially those of Engdahl 1983 and Chomsky 1982, are insufficient, and propose that the true characterization of parasitic gaps should be undertaken from the viewpoint of the Governing Domain defined in subsequent text.
It is usually assumed that anaphoric relations hold exclusively at the level of NP (where NP is the maximal projection of N). However, in order to explain various anaphora data, we are compelled to assume that anaphoric relations also hold at the level of N (where N is the second-maximal projection of N). The aim of this article is to propose and justify the ‘Inter-N Anaphora’ hypothesis. In the course of justification, we come to the generalization that NP-level anaphora is coreference and N-level anaphora is bound anaphora (in the sense of Reinhart 1983).
The aim of this paper is to propose an analysis of Gapping in a metagrammatical organization of grammar. A strategy for defining a grammar of a natural language by metagrammatical mechanisms is adopted in the framework, now called GENERALIZED PHRASE STRUCTURE GRAMMAR, a GENERATIVE GRAMMAR developed in such works as Gazdar 1981, 1982, Gazdar and Pullum 1981, 1982, Gazdar, Pullum, and Sag 1981, and Gazdar, Klein, Pullum, and Sag 1982, in press. The analysis of Gapping given below is along the general lines of GENERALIZED PHRASE STRUCTURE GRAMMAR. The rules necessary for generating gapped conjuncts are defined in dependence on the existence of rules for the corresponding nongapped conjuncts. The first half of the paper summarizes the discussion on coordination and Gapping by Sag, Gazdar, Wasow, and Weisler 1984 and the second half proposes some rules and conditions which insure generation of various Gapping sentences.