By Joseph Aoun, Yen-hui Audrey Li
Read Online or Download Syntax of Scope (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 21) PDF
Best nonfiction_4 books
Rose Rita embarks with Mrs. Zimmerman on a summer season event that turns evil after they succeed in their destination--a farm the Mrs. Zimmerman inherited--and it sort of feels to be abandoned with the exception of a mystical harmful strength. Reissue. SLJ. PW.
This paintings illustrates the range of early Christian literature, with its many style, its many cultural settings, its many reasons and features, and its many theological trends. The records during this assortment are basic resources.
This accomplished textual content Focuses in particular On Emergency deal with accidents In Agricultural-Rural Settings. it really is anticipated That 27% Of The inhabitants within the U. S. dwell In Rural components. The textual content starts off With the significance Of Pre-Incident making plans And Rescuer practise And contains Sections On Emergencies concerning Farm equipment, Farm buildings And Agricultural chemical substances.
- Blank Minds and Sticky Moments in Counselling: Practical Strategies and Provocative Themes
- No Exit (Quickreads Series 3)
- Turkey. Ankara and the central Anatolian region
- Hugo's Les Miserables (Cliffs Notes)
Additional resources for Syntax of Scope (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 21)
C. [IP QP1 [IP x1 [VP QP2 [VP . . x2 . . ]]]] In (20a) QP2 is the first available -binder for x1 and x2. According to the MBR, x1 and x2 must both be bound by QP2. This is not the case, however, since x1 is coindexed with QP1 by movement. (20a) will therefore be ruled out by the MBR. Notice that (20a) cannot be salvaged by reindexing x1 with QP2. After this reindexing process, not only would both variables be bound by a single QP but QP1 would not bind any variable, thus violating the prohibition against vacuous quantification (May 1977) or, < previous page page_19 next page > < previous page page_20 next page > Page 20 alternatively, the Bijection Principle (Koopman and Sportiche 1982).
As in Huang's account, the difference in interpretation between Chinese and English is traced back to a structural difference between the two languages and not to a parametric variation affecting the form or functioning of LF interpretive rules. 2 QP Subjects in Raising Structures We now would like to point out one direct consequence of our analysis. We have assumed that in Chinese, contrary to English, no subject raising takes place in simplex sentences. The same reasoning leads us to expect the absence of any other subject-raising process in Chinese even in seem-type constructions.
This contrast parallels the one between dative and double object constructions. The ambiguity of (67a) and (68a) thus can be accounted for in exactly the same way as that of the dative construction. (67a), for instance, has the partial S-Structure representation in (69), just like (65). (69) will yield two interpretations, as (65) does. The partial D-Structure representation of (67b) is (70). As in (61), NP2 must be incorporated into V in (70): this is necessary to allow the possessor q-role to be assigned and to satisfy the Case Filter.