March Notes on the Antisymmetry of Syntax. Bernhard Rohrbacher. University of Pennsylvania. Follow this and additional works at. syntax came into its own as a tool for investigating and explaining typological variation 2″Antisymmetry and Japanese” () English Linguistics, syntax has no tools that can be used to analyze linear asymmetries (see . closer to answering the questions raised by Kayne’s antisymmetry.

Author: Zulukazahn Yozshugul
Country: El Salvador
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Spiritual
Published (Last): 11 July 2007
Pages: 362
PDF File Size: 7.67 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.7 Mb
ISBN: 237-3-15673-771-9
Downloads: 38174
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Maugul

It should be mentioned that in this article it is accepted that either moving or deleting of one of the symmetry makers can break the point of symmetry. A weak version of the theory of antisymmetry Dynamic antisymmetry has been proposed by Andrea Morowhich allows the generation of non-LCA compatible structures points of symmetry before the hierarchical structure kanyee linearized at Phonetic Form.

LINGUIST List 6.1651

Introduction to the theory of grammar. Takita argues against the conclusion of Kayne’s Antisymmetry Theory which states that all languages are head-initial at an underlying level. Undoubtedly, it is a contribution to the armoury of competing formal approaches to natural language.

This right-branching is completely visible in the lower row of dependency-based structures, where the branch extends down to the right. The standard X-bar schema has the following structure:.

رویکردی پادتقارنی به ضمیراندازی در زبان فارسی

This would imply that zenmeyang could not appear in a verb phrase with sentence-final leassuming the above analysis, since that verb phrase has moved into a non-complement specifier position, and thus further movement such as that which zenmeyang is required to undergo at LF level is not possible.

Kayne makes the important conclusion that the Linear Correspondence Axiom applies to all syntactic representations having in mind that in the tradition of transformational grammar there are several levels of representation such as D-structure, LF, and PF.

Multiple adjunction to a head is not allowed, thus, for example, in the adjunction of heads to heads “sequences of clitics must not be analyzed as successive adjunctions to the same head”. On a DP-analysis determiner phrasethe phrase the house would be right-branching instead of left-branching.


Adjunction of a head to a nonhead is systematically unavailable. Once the underlying order is fixed, there come into use different combinations of movements. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53p.

As evidence for this, Lin considers among others wh -adverbials such as zenmeyang “how? Storage and Computation in the Language Faculty.

In such a way, the author ensures antisymmetry, the main property of phrase structures necessary for the correspondence between the hierarchical structure of nonterminals and the linear order of terminals. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Subsequently, there have also been attempts at deriving specifier-complement-head as the basic word order. A category is a kind of extended node; if two directly connected nodes in a tree have the same label, these two nodes are both segments of a single category.

Takita briefly applies the same tests to Turkish, another seemingly head-final language, and finds similar results. Kayne notes that his theory permits either a universal specifier-head-complement order or a universal complement-head-specifier order, depending on whether asymmetric c-command establishes precedence or subsequence S-H-C results from precedence.

A nonhead cannot be adjoined to a head. Kayne introduces some refinement to his theory of phrase structure in order to include specifiers and adjoined phrases into the phrase markers. The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. The LCA is the central statement in the monograph, it is the basis for all syntactic representations in the rest of the chapters.

Let me finish with the last sentence of R. The upper row again shows the constituency-based structures, and the lower row the dependency-based structures.

Acquisition of Relative Clauses: The theory is an interesting, clearly defined tge to linguistic structure within the tradition of the big trend of transformational grammar. Chapter 9, entitled “Extraposition”, describes relative clause extraposition, result clauses and comparatives. Views Read Edit View history. This page was last edited on 30 Novemberat Most structures in English are, however, not completely left- or completely right-branching, but rather they combine both.


Kayne proposes that the direction of the probe-goal search must share the direction of language knye and production.

Branching (linguistics)

This process can be mapped onto X-bar syntactic trees as shown in the adjacent diagram. Consider the following tree:. One can knaye arguments for both approaches. AP 1 and AP 2 are both segments of a single category. Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims.

In accordance with the universal word order of heads and complements, R. He claims that a language such as Japanese is truly head-final, since the mass movement which would be required to take an underlying head-initial structure to the head-final ones actually found in such languages would violate other constraints.

Branching (linguistics) – Wikipedia

The theory derives a version of X-bar theory. The following sentence is completely left-branching.

Languages Simple English Antksymmetry links. This assumption kannye accepted through the current article. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The idea of probes and goals in syntax is that a head acts as a probe and looks for a goal, namely its complement. Thid small cluse is the product of merging of two maximal projections none of which is projected in the resulting structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Twenty-Five. Kayne takes the locally linear relation of asymmetric c-command of nonterminals “to be the one that is closely matched to the linear ordering of the set of terminals.

Result clauses are represented in terms of LF raising of some sentential elements, for example “so”.