tailieunhanh - Constituent Structure - Part 28

Constituent Structure - Part 28 .Cuốn sách này khám phá những khía cạnh thực nghiệm và lý thuyết của cơ cấu thành phần trong cú pháp ngôn ngữ tự nhiên. Nó mô tả các bài kiểm tra truyền thống cho bầu cử và các phương tiện chính thức đại diện cho họ trong cấu trúc ngữ pháp cụm từ, cụm từ ngữ pháp cơ cấu mở rộng, lý thuyết, và thiết lập cấu trúc lý thuyết cụm từ. | 250 CONTROVERSIES Instead following Ura 1994 he claims that TP and vP should allow multiple specifiers by this he actually means Chomsky-adjoined structures and these heads serve the purpose of AgrS and AgrO respectively. AgrPs are widely absent from the current minimalist literature. I personally think this is a mistake. Although the original motivations for two AgrPs were weak in Chomsky 1993 they were purely conceptual subsequent work has shown that they can account for a wide variety of agreement particles such as the AgrO particle in Irish . Sportiche 1996 also showed they were an important mechanism for explaining the properties of Romance pronominal clitics. While it is true that the Agrs have no clear function in the LF they do have such a function at the other interface PF . One might counter Chomsky s objections to the Agr categories by claiming that items in the tree must have an interpretation at either of the two interfaces in which case AgrPs can be construed as legitimate objects. A number of other functional projections in the clausal layer have been proposed. Beghelli 1995 and Beghelli and Stowell 1997 put-forth three new functional categories DistP ShareP and RefP to account for scope ambiguity among quantified DPs. Roberts 2005 proposes splitting AgrPs into PersP person and NumP Number on the basis of data from Welsh and various Italian dialects. Cardinaletti 2004 suggests that in addition to AgrP and TP two other subject related functional categories are required SubjP hosts subject of predication arguments and EPPP hosts arguments that satisfy EPP effects. Spencer 1992 proposes the Full Functional Projection Hypothesis 32 which argues that each feature associated with the verbal projection gets its own functional projection. This idea is echoed more recently in the work of Kayne 2005 who claims that all variation is ultimately controlled by microparameters each associated with a particular functional category and every functional element is the