Download Dependencies across Phases: From Sequence of Tense to by Olga Khomitsevich PDF
By Olga Khomitsevich
Read or Download Dependencies across Phases: From Sequence of Tense to Restrictions on Movement PDF
Best nonfiction_3 books
In the summertime of 1911, Dutch anthropologist and linguist C. C. Uhlenbeck traveled to Montana to behavior fieldwork one of the southern Piegan Indians. Accompanying him in the course of his three-month remain was once his spouse, Wilhelmina, who saved a diary in their reports one of the Blackfeet. This diary is reproduced the following in complete, translated for the 1st time from Dutch into English by way of Mary Eggermont-Molenaar.
- Euripides, Volume I (Loeb Classical Library)
- King Arthur Pendragon: Edition 5.1
- Continuity and Discontinuity in the Peopling of Europe: One Hundred Fifty Years of Neanderthal Study
- Metaphors in Globalization: Mirrors, Magicians and Mutinies
- Who am I?
- Grey Room 11, Spring 2003
Additional resources for Dependencies across Phases: From Sequence of Tense to Restrictions on Movement
To this they add their own implementation of the distinction between Agree and Move. In case of Agree, an element X bearing an uninterpretable feature F establishes a connection with another element Y bearing an interpretable instance of the same feature. The uninterpretable feature is then deleted – which for PT does not mean that it disappears immediately; rather, it is “marked for deletion” but does not disappear until a later point in the derivation (possibly, until the completion of the current phase).
To, [ˇcto my zdez’,] menja raduet. ’ ˇ my zdes’,] menja raduet. b. 1 Clause structure 27 To be precise, (14b) can be grammatical, but only with a marked stress pattern that shows that the embedded clause is topicalized and not in the subject position. 3 However, the explanation of the contrast between English and Slavic, as well as of the English that-omission data, appears to be a weak spot in PT’s argumentation. The analysis outlined above stops working once we discard the idea of feature deletion, which is the path taken in the most recent developments of the theory (Chomsky, 2005, 2006), because if features do not delete we cannot distinguish between the embedded CPs in (11c) and (11d) anymore.
PT assume that the noun comes out of the lexicon with the gender feature already specified as feminine; this means that this feature is valued. e. unvalued, and get their “feminine” value in the course of the sentence derivation, due to agreement with the noun. On the other hand, the distinction between interpretable and uninterpretable features refers to the fact that some features make a semantic contribution to the interpretation on the item they belong to, while others do not. 1 Clause structure 29 about multiple girls, while the same feature on the verb ambulant does not contribute anything to its interpretation.