Phrase structure and derived heads
This dissertation investigates the theory of phrase structure in the field of generative grammar. In chapter 1, I propose a new model of phrase structure representations and argue for its conceptual advantages over alternative models, in chapters 2 to 4, I discuss the advantages of this model for the analyses of various empirical phenomena. Chapter 5 is the conclusion. The proposal is based on two central claims. First, I argue that a moved verb can be the head of its clause, and hence that verb movement can extend a structure (Ackema, Neeleman and Weerman 1993). (This is a rejection of the widely held view that it is always the target of movement that projects; cf. Chomsky 1995.) Since verb movement is not universal, it then follows that syntactic representations are not identical for all languages. This means that the clause structure of a particular language must be learnable, i.e. that the availability of categories without overt realization is highly restricted. In particular, there can be no phonetically empty categories that are not licensed configurationally and that do not receive a semantic interpretation. Second, I argue that phrase structure should not be thought of in terms of tree diagrams but
Bury, Dirk
Phrase structure and derived heads. This dissertation investigates the theory of phrase structure in the field of generative grammar. In chapter 1, I propose a new model of phrase structure representations and argue for its conceptual advantages over alternative models, in chapters 2 to 4, I discuss the advantages of this model for the analyses of various empirical phenomena. Chapter 5 is the conclusion. The proposal is based on two central claims. First, I argue that a moved verb can be the head of its clause, and hence that verb movement can extend a structure (Ackema, Neeleman and Weerman 1993). (This is a rejection of the widely held view that it is always the target of movement that projects; cf. Chomsky 1995.) Since verb movement is not universal, it then follows that syntactic representations are not identical for all languages. This means that the clause structure of a particular language must be learnable, i.e. that the availability of categories without overt realization is highly restricted. In particular, there can be no phonetically empty categories that are not licensed configurationally and that do not receive a semantic interpretation. Second, I argue that phrase structure should not be thought of in terms of tree diagrams but
phrase_structure derive head investigates theory phrase_structure field generative_grammar propose_new model phrase_structure representation argue_conceptual advantage alternative_model discus advantage model analyse various empirical phenomenon conclusion proposal base central_claim first argue move verb head clause hence verb movement extend structure rejection widely_hold view always target movement project chomsky since verb movement universal follow syntactic_representation identical language mean clause_structure particular language must availability category without overt realization highly restrict particular phonetically empty category license receive semantic_interpretation second_argue phrase_structure think term tree diagram