Adjunction, Labeling, and Bare Phrase Structure

The 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 are at odds with the central vision of BPS and current practice leans more to descriptive eclecticism than to theoretical insight. A diagnosis for this conceptual disarray is suggested here: 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. In actuality, it is argued, 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. 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.

[1]  Noam Chomsky Derivation by phase , 1999 .

[2]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing , 1988 .

[3]  Pieter Muysken,et al.  Parametrizing the notion 'head' , 1982 .

[4]  Howard Lasnik Case and Expletives: Notes Toward a Parametric Account , 1996 .

[5]  Robert A. Chametzky,et al.  Phrase Structure: From Gb to Minimalism , 2000 .

[6]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure , 1984 .

[7]  Jairo Nunes,et al.  The Copy Theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program , 1995 .

[8]  Ernest Lepore,et al.  Truth and interpretation : perspectives on the philosophy of Donald Davidson , 1989 .

[9]  Jairo Nunes Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement , 2004 .

[10]  R. May Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation , 1985 .

[11]  Kyle Johnson,et al.  What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What it Can't, but not Why * , 2008 .

[12]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Minimalist inquiries : the framework , 1998 .

[13]  Jonathan David Bobaljik,et al.  In terms of Merge : Copy and Head Movement , 2022 .

[14]  鎌田 浩二 書評 Juan Uriagereka: Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax , 2000 .

[15]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory , 1975 .

[16]  Luigi Rizzi,et al.  The Cartography of Syntactic Structures , 2009 .

[17]  Carlos Gussenhoven,et al.  Testing the Reality of Focus Domains , 1983 .

[18]  Kleanthes K. Grohmann,et al.  Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies , 2003 .

[19]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[20]  Jonathan David Bobaljik,et al.  Interarboreal operations : Head movement and the extension requirement , 1997 .

[21]  Norbert Hornstein A Theory of Syntax: The emerging picture: Basic operations, FL and the Minimalist Program , 2008 .

[22]  Jairo Nunes,et al.  A uniform raising analysis for standard and nonstandard relative clauses in Brazilian Portuguese , 2009 .

[23]  J. Bobaljik Morphosyntax : the syntax of verbal inflection , 1995 .

[24]  Paul M. Pietroski,et al.  Events and Semantic Architecture , 2005 .

[25]  Jairo Nunes,et al.  Sideward Movement , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[26]  Norbert Hornstein,et al.  Logical Form: From Gb to Minimalism , 1995 .

[27]  I. Roberts Verb movement: Two types of head movement in Romance , 1994 .

[28]  Terence Parsons,et al.  Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics , 1990 .

[29]  Adriana Belletti,et al.  The Case of Unaccusatives , 1988 .

[30]  Juan Uriagereka Syntactic Anchors: On Semantic Structuring , 2008 .

[31]  Cedric Boeckx,et al.  Head-ing toward PF , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.