There has been a great deal of work examining the structures of yes/no and wh-constructions that has led to many important developments in linguistic theory. In this dissertation, I extend this work by developing a theory that explains how the behavior of Qu-morphemes (question morphemes) and wh-phrases in interrogative constructions in several different languages is influenced by `interrogative features.' The interrogative features are 1) a Qu-feature, which is responsible for typing a clause as an interrogative, 2) a wh-feature, which is responsible for giving a wh-phrase scope, and 3) a Focus-feature, which is responsible for focusing certain relevant phrases. The main focus of this work is on explaining the influence of these interrogative features on the positions of question morphemes and wh-phrases. In the first part of this work, I examine the behavior of Qu-morphemes. I account for why a Qu-morpheme must appear in the clause periphery in certain languages, such as Japanese, whereas it can appear in a non-clause-peripheral position in other languages, such as Sinhala. I explain how a Qu-feature associated with a Qu-morpheme types a clause and why there is variation in the positions of Qu-morphemes. The second part of this work focuses on the behavior of wh-phrases. I account for why wh-constructions can be formed with an in-situ wh-phrase (for example, in Japanese), with movement of a wh-phrase to a scope position (for example, in English), or with movement of a wh-phrase to a non-scopal position (for example, in some dialects of German). I also examine other phenomena involving wh-phrases. I show how wh-feature movement can influence well-formedness of a wh-construction. I explain why, in certain cases, what would normally be an ill-formed construction can be repaired via the addition of a wh-phrase. I examine why some languages, but not others, allow multiple wh-constructions. Lastly, I investigate the odd behavior of the wh-phrase 'why,' which behaves differently from other wh-phrases. This work is novel in that it provides a unified analysis of cross-linguistic and language internal variation in the structures of yes/no and wh-constructions.

Rejecting approaches with a directionality parameter, mainstream minimalism has adopted the notion of strict (or unidirectional) branching. Within optimality theory however, constraints have recently been proposed that presuppose that the branching direction scheme is language specific. I show that a syntactic analysis of Chechen word order and relative clauses using strict branching and movement triggered by feature checking seems very unlikely, whereas a directionality approach works well. I argue in favor of a mixed directionality approach for Chechen, where the branching direction scheme depends on the phrase type. This observation leads to the introduction of context variants of existing markedness constraints, in order to describe the branching processes in terms of optimality theory. The paper discusses how and where the optimality theory selection of the branching directions can be implemented within a minimalist derivation.

If we want to compare the explanatory and descriptive adequacy of the MP and OT, the original definitions by Chomsky (1964) are or little direct use. However, a relativized version of both notions can be defined, which can be used to express a number of parallels between the study of individual I-languages and the language faculty. In any version of explanatory and descriptive adequacy, the two notions derive from the research programme and can only be achieved together. They can therefore not be used to characterize the difference in orientation between OT and the MP. Even if ‘OT’ is restricted to a particular theory in Chomskyan linguistics (to the exclusion of, for instance, its use in LFG), it cannot be said to be stronger in descriptive adequacy than in explanatory adequacy in the technical sense of these terms.

The main claim of this paper is that the minimalist framework and optimality theory adopt more or less the same architecture of grammar: both assume that a generator defines a set S of potentially well-formed expressions that can be generated on the basis of a given input, and that there is an evaluator that selects the expressions from S that are actually grammatical in a given language L. The paper therefore proposes a model of grammar in which the strengths of the two frameworks are combined: more specifically, it is argued that the computational system of human language CHL from MP creates a set S of potentially well-formed expressions, and that these are subsequently evaluated in an optimality theoretic fashion.

Zugl.: Tübingen, Univ., Diss., 2005

Stuttgart, Univ., Diss., 2007.

Orientador: Jairo Morais Nunes / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-03T14:56:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Zocca_CynthiaLevart_M.pdf: 3976728 bytes, checksum: e53a16b486d8d1b98c90d5c05d8a1f25 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2003 / Resumo: Esta dissertação trata da relação entre sintaxe e morfologia que pode ser observada através de sentenças contendo elipses. A análise proposta tem como base o arcabouço teórico do Programa Minimalista de Chomsky (1995, 1999, 2000) e a Morfologia Distribuída de Halle e Marantz (1993). A principal questão levantada diz respeito à necessidade de identidade entre o elemento elidido e seu antecedente. Em primeiro lugar faço a distinção entre dois processos anafóricos descritos por Hankamer e Sag (1976): anáforas profundas, que não têm conteúdo sintático, e anáforas superficiais, que têm conteúdo sintático. Aponto que um dos critérios para identificar anáforas superficiais, identidade estrita entre o antecedente e a elipse, nem sempre parece se aplicar. Mostro que a falta de identidade entre o antecedente e a elipse é apenas aparente, pois existe um ponto da derivação sintática em que são idênticos, sendo que nos dois locais o que existe é um radical e afixos de Caso, tempo ou concordância. Tais afixos são valorados através da operação Agree de Chomsky (1999,2000). Dentro do Programa Minimalista, existem duas formas de eliminar traços não-interpretáveis: através do movimento coberto de traços, Move F (Chomsky 1995) ou de concordância local sem movimento, Agree (Chomsky 1999, 2000). Mostro que os dados de elipse apresentados favorecem uma análise através de Agree. Além disso os dados também favorecem uma abordagem para a derivação de elipses que se vale de apagamento em PF, e não reconstrução em LF. Por fim, analiso casos de elipses envolvendo expressões inerentemente negativas ou positivas e os verbos ser e estar, que parecem ser contra-exemplos para a análise com Agree e apagamento em PF proposta. Mostro, no entanto, que tais casos podem ser explicados dentro da análise proposta considerando-se que se tratam de elementos inerentemente especificados / Abstract: This thesis deals with the relationship between syntax and morphology that can be established from sentences containing ellipsis. The proposed analysis is based on the theoretical background of Chomsky's (1995, 1999, 2000) Minimalist Program and the Distributed Morphology of Halle and Marantz (1993). The main issue raised concerns the necessity of identity between the elided element and its antecedent. First of ali I distinguish between two anaphoric processes described by Hankamer and Sag (1976): deep anaphora, which has no syntactic content, and surface anaphora, which has syntactic content. I point out that one criterion used to identify surface anaphora, i.e. strict identity between the antecedent and the ellipsis, does not always apply. I argue that the lack of identity between the antecedent and the ellipsis is just apparent, for there is a point in the syntactic derivation in which both sites are actually filled with a root plus Case, tense or agreement affixes. Such affixes enter the derivation unvalued and have their values set under the operation Agree Chomsky (1999, 2000). In the Minimalist Program, there are two ways of checking and eliminating uninterpretable features: through covert feature movement, Move F (Chomsky 1995) or local agreement with no movement, through the operation Agree (Chomsky 1999, 2000). I show that the ellipsis data presented favor an analysis using Agree. Furthermore, the data also favor an approach for the derivation of ellipsis using PF deletion instead of LF reconstruction. Finally, I analyze cases of ellipsis involving inherently negative or positive expressions and the verb be, which seem to be counter-examples to the Agree - PF deletion analysis. I show, however, that these cases can be explained under the proposed analysis, taking into account that these elements are inherently specified. / Mestrado / Mestre em Linguística

Autism poses many internal challenges, from increased sensory overwhelm and cognitive inflexibility to navigating co-occurring conditions like depression and anxiety. In addition, Autistic persons may use different internal working models to transact with other agents in the world. These population differences may result in empathy gaps. How do scientists minimize the resulting psychological distress associated with these challenges and empathy gaps? A psychoeducational program for global cognition was developed that attempts to integrate psychological research to design a prosthetic internal working model. The result is EM-Theory (Elemental Model), a 4x4 (sixteen elemental module) psychoeducational matrix called the Skew Metric. EM-Theory may evoke increased psychoeducational insight into the mechanics of cognitive architecture in a manner that is always accessible because it is optimized for limited capacity visuospatial working memory. It is hypothesized that an increased understanding of cognitive mechanics may increase capacities to self-regulate psychological distress. Emphasis was placed on four reportable elemental modules as a significant cause of psychological distress. A small conceptual study was conducted with 10 participants with autism spectrum differences (ASD) and ten participants from the typically developing population (TD). Measures were taken to capture attributes of psychological distress from four reportable elemental modules (worry, rumination, distraction from mindfulness, and loss of mental vigilance), as well as measures designed to capture each ASD participant’s relationship with internalized narratives implicating their autism. General conclusions were not drawn from this small sample study. However, individual differences were described as a proof of concept on how a quantitative test may be further developed to provide accurate and meaningful feedback to assist beyond introspection. / Graduate

Esta pesquisa investiga o comportamento sintático dos quantificadores flutuantes no português brasileiro (PB), dentro do modelo teórico do Programa Minimalista (Chomsky 1995) da Sintaxe Gerativa, buscando atingir dois objetivos principais: (i) identificar as posições na sentença em que os quantificadores podem ou não flutuar e (ii) identificar a estrutura sintagmática interna das expressões quantificadas. Com Sportiche (1988) assumimos que a flutuação de quantificadores é derivada por movimentos sintáticos e com Valmala Elguea (2008) assumimos que este fenômeno é relacionado ao conteúdo informacional da sentença. Dessa forma, adotamos a cartografia de projeções informacionais (de tópico e foco) proposta por Rizzi (1997) para a periferia esquerda alta da sentença e por Belletti (2004) para a periferia esquerda baixa (acima de VP). Argumentando que é preciso distinguir os tipos categoriais dos quantificadores para explicar por que alguns são capazes de flutuar no interior da sentença e outros não, mostramos que os quantificadores que projetam a categoria QP, como cada (um) e todos, são capazes de flutuar, enquanto quantificadores que projetam uma categoria igual ou menor que DP, como muitos, poucos, vários e alguns, são incapazes de flutuar no PB. Mostramos ainda como as diferenças estruturais internas entre todos (cujo DP associado é um complemento de Q0) e cada (um) (cujo DP associado é analisado como um adjunto de QP) podem explicar seu comportamento distinto em relação a algumas possibilidades de flutuação, considerando o cálculo de Minimalidade Relativizada entre QP e DP. A flutuação de quantificadores é | 10 | analisada como resultado da interação entre a estrutura sintagmática interna de cada expressão quantificada e outras propriedades da gramática (universais e específicas da língua) operantes ao longo da derivação e envolvidas sobretudo na checagem de Caso e na satisfação dos Critérios de Tópico e Foco. As possibilidades de flutuação devem respeitar a assimetria entre a periferia esquerda alta e a periferia esquerda baixa do PB em relação ao licenciamento de elementos com ou sem Caso sintático: enquanto DPs, NumPs e NPs que não foram licenciados na sintaxe podem ser superficializados com Caso default na periferia alta, a periferia baixa apenas pode superficializar DPs, NumPs e NPs licenciados antes de Spell-Out. Assumimos que quantificadores de categoria QP, além de poderem ter seu Caso licenciado na sintaxe por checagem, podem se licenciar na superfície por Caso default ou por Transmissão de Caso seja na periferia alta, na periferia baixa ou na posição temática propriedade que lhes garante a capacidade de flutuação. Propomos uma análise uniforme em que estruturas flutuantes e não-flutuantes podem ser geradas a partir de um mesmo constituinte subjacente inserido na posição temática, sendo distintas por seu percurso derivacional. Dessa forma, esta análise simplifica e uniformiza algumas questões presentes na literatura sobre a flutuação de quantificadores. / This research investigates the syntactic behavior of floating quantifiers in Brazilian Portuguese (BP), in the framework of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), aiming at two main goals: (i) to identify the sentence positions in which quantifiers can or cannot float and (ii) to identify the internal phrase structure of quantified expressions. I assume with Sportiche (1988) that quantifier floating is derived through syntactic movement and with Valmala Elguea (2008) that this phenomenon is related to the informational content of the sentence. Thus, I adopt the cartography of informational projections (topic and focus) proposed by Rizzi (1997) for the high left periphery of the sentence and by Belletti (2004) for the low left periphery (above VP). I argue that in order to explain why some quantifiers are able to float inside the sentence and some are not, it is necessary to distinguish the categorial types of quantifiers. I show that quantifiers that project as QPs, like cada (um) each (one) and todos all, are able to float, whereas quantifiers that project as DPs or lower categories, like muitos many, poucos few, vários several and alguns some, are unable to float in BP. We also show how internal structural differences between todos (whose associate DP is a complement of Q0) and cada (um) (whose associate DP is analyzed as an adjunct of QP) can explain their different behavior regarding some floating possibilities, given the computation of Relativized Minimality between QP and DP. Quantifier floating is analyzed here as the result of the interaction between the internal phrase structure of each quantified expression and other properties of the grammar (both universal and language| 12 | specific), in particular Case-checking and Topic and Focus Criteria. Floating possibilities must respect the asymmetry between the high and the low left peripheries in BP regarding the licensing of elements with or without syntactic Case: whereas DPs, NumPs and NPs that have not been licensed in the syntax can surface with default Case in the high periphery, the low periphery can only host DPs, NumPs and NPs that have already been licensed before Spell- Out. I assume that QP-type quantifiers, besides being able to have their Case licensed in the syntax via Checking, can be licensed on the surface via default Case or Case Transmission regardless of whether they are in the high left periphery, in the low left periphery or in the thematic position which is in fact the property that provides them with the ability to float. We propose a uniform analysis in which both floated and non-floated structures can be generated from the same underlying constituent inserted in the thematic position, being distinguished by their derivational course. Therefore, this analysis simplifies and unifies some issues present in the literature on quantifier floating.

Esta pesquisa investiga o comportamento sintático dos quantificadores flutuantes no português brasileiro (PB), dentro do modelo teórico do Programa Minimalista (Chomsky 1995) da Sintaxe Gerativa, buscando atingir dois objetivos principais: (i) identificar as posições na sentença em que os quantificadores podem ou não flutuar e (ii) identificar a estrutura sintagmática interna das expressões quantificadas. Com Sportiche (1988) assumimos que a flutuação de quantificadores é derivada por movimentos sintáticos e com Valmala Elguea (2008) assumimos que este fenômeno é relacionado ao conteúdo informacional da sentença. Dessa forma, adotamos a cartografia de projeções informacionais (de tópico e foco) proposta por Rizzi (1997) para a periferia esquerda alta da sentença e por Belletti (2004) para a periferia esquerda baixa (acima de VP). Argumentando que é preciso distinguir os tipos categoriais dos quantificadores para explicar por que alguns são capazes de flutuar no interior da sentença e outros não, mostramos que os quantificadores que projetam a categoria QP, como cada (um) e todos, são capazes de flutuar, enquanto quantificadores que projetam uma categoria igual ou menor que DP, como muitos, poucos, vários e alguns, são incapazes de flutuar no PB. Mostramos ainda como as diferenças estruturais internas entre todos (cujo DP associado é um complemento de Q0) e cada (um) (cujo DP associado é analisado como um adjunto de QP) podem explicar seu comportamento distinto em relação a algumas possibilidades de flutuação, considerando o cálculo de Minimalidade Relativizada entre QP e DP. A flutuação de quantificadores é | 10 | analisada como resultado da interação entre a estrutura sintagmática interna de cada expressão quantificada e outras propriedades da gramática (universais e específicas da língua) operantes ao longo da derivação e envolvidas sobretudo na checagem de Caso e na satisfação dos Critérios de Tópico e Foco. As possibilidades de flutuação devem respeitar a assimetria entre a periferia esquerda alta e a periferia esquerda baixa do PB em relação ao licenciamento de elementos com ou sem Caso sintático: enquanto DPs, NumPs e NPs que não foram licenciados na sintaxe podem ser superficializados com Caso default na periferia alta, a periferia baixa apenas pode superficializar DPs, NumPs e NPs licenciados antes de Spell-Out. Assumimos que quantificadores de categoria QP, além de poderem ter seu Caso licenciado na sintaxe por checagem, podem se licenciar na superfície por Caso default ou por Transmissão de Caso seja na periferia alta, na periferia baixa ou na posição temática propriedade que lhes garante a capacidade de flutuação. Propomos uma análise uniforme em que estruturas flutuantes e não-flutuantes podem ser geradas a partir de um mesmo constituinte subjacente inserido na posição temática, sendo distintas por seu percurso derivacional. Dessa forma, esta análise simplifica e uniformiza algumas questões presentes na literatura sobre a flutuação de quantificadores. / This research investigates the syntactic behavior of floating quantifiers in Brazilian Portuguese (BP), in the framework of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), aiming at two main goals: (i) to identify the sentence positions in which quantifiers can or cannot float and (ii) to identify the internal phrase structure of quantified expressions. I assume with Sportiche (1988) that quantifier floating is derived through syntactic movement and with Valmala Elguea (2008) that this phenomenon is related to the informational content of the sentence. Thus, I adopt the cartography of informational projections (topic and focus) proposed by Rizzi (1997) for the high left periphery of the sentence and by Belletti (2004) for the low left periphery (above VP). I argue that in order to explain why some quantifiers are able to float inside the sentence and some are not, it is necessary to distinguish the categorial types of quantifiers. I show that quantifiers that project as QPs, like cada (um) each (one) and todos all, are able to float, whereas quantifiers that project as DPs or lower categories, like muitos many, poucos few, vários several and alguns some, are unable to float in BP. We also show how internal structural differences between todos (whose associate DP is a complement of Q0) and cada (um) (whose associate DP is analyzed as an adjunct of QP) can explain their different behavior regarding some floating possibilities, given the computation of Relativized Minimality between QP and DP. Quantifier floating is analyzed here as the result of the interaction between the internal phrase structure of each quantified expression and other properties of the grammar (both universal and language| 12 | specific), in particular Case-checking and Topic and Focus Criteria. Floating possibilities must respect the asymmetry between the high and the low left peripheries in BP regarding the licensing of elements with or without syntactic Case: whereas DPs, NumPs and NPs that have not been licensed in the syntax can surface with default Case in the high periphery, the low periphery can only host DPs, NumPs and NPs that have already been licensed before Spell- Out. I assume that QP-type quantifiers, besides being able to have their Case licensed in the syntax via Checking, can be licensed on the surface via default Case or Case Transmission regardless of whether they are in the high left periphery, in the low left periphery or in the thematic position which is in fact the property that provides them with the ability to float. We propose a uniform analysis in which both floated and non-floated structures can be generated from the same underlying constituent inserted in the thematic position, being distinguished by their derivational course. Therefore, this analysis simplifies and unifies some issues present in the literature on quantifier floating.