Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Domains of Polarity Items.Vincent Homer - 2021 - Journal of Semantics 38 (1):1-48.
    This article offers a unified theory of the licensing of Negative and Positive Polarity Items, focusing on the acceptability conditions of PPIs of the some-type, and NPIs of the any-type. It argues that licensing has both a syntactic and a semantic component. On the syntactic side, the acceptability of PIs is checked in constituents; in fact, for any given PI, only some constituents, referred to as `domains', are eligible for the evaluation of that PI. The semantic dimension of licensing consists (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Poverty of the Stimulus Revisited.Robert C. Berwick, Paul Pietroski, Beracah Yankama & Noam Chomsky - 2011 - Cognitive Science 35 (7):1207-1242.
    A central goal of modern generative grammar has been to discover invariant properties of human languages that reflect “the innate schematism of mind that is applied to the data of experience” and that “might reasonably be attributed to the organism itself as its contribution to the task of the acquisition of knowledge” (Chomsky, 1971). Candidates for such invariances include the structure dependence of grammatical rules, and in particular, certain constraints on question formation. Various “poverty of stimulus” (POS) arguments suggest that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • Why Movement?Kyle Johnson - unknown
    There is a certain set of locality conditions that seem to hold just of movement operations. Some of the islands described in Ross (1967) appear to be of this kind.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • LCA+Alignment=RNR,.Kyle Johnson - manuscript
    talk presented at the Workshop on Coordination, Subordination and Ellipsis, Tubingen, June 2007.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Appositive and parenthetical relative clauses.Tim Stowell - unknown
    Appositive relative clauses differ from restrictive relative clauses in a number of ways. The fundamental distinction is semantically based: an appositive relative like that in (1a) conveys an independent assertion about the referent of its associated head; the reference of the head is established independently of the appositive relative. In contrast, a restrictive relative like that in (1b) is interpreted as an intersective predicate modifier, restricting the reference of its head.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Gapping isn't (VP) ellipsis.Kyle Johnson - manuscript
    Pseudogapping is no misnomer. Despite the many tempting similarities, Gapping and Pseudogapping are distinct constructions. Pseudogapping is a special instance of VP Ellipsis, while Gapping, I will argue, is a special instance of across-the-board movement. Squeezing Gapping into across-the-board movement has its own discomforts, however, which I will suggest can be remedied by re-tailoring our syntax to include string-based output constraints. I give a sketch of one such alteration that involves apparent Left Branch Condition violations.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations