Canonical structural realization
°S-selection.
Case
SYNTAX: grammatical feature distinguishing, among other functions, subject and
(direct) object. In many languages case is morphonologically visible. In English and
Dutch, morphonological case is only visible in the pronominal system (he vs.
him etc.) The distinction between
°structural case and
°inherent case is that inherent case is tied to
a specific thematic interpretation. In the
°Principles and Parameters
framework, case is thought to play a role in the distribution of (overt) NP
°arguments. See
°Case filter.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986a).
Case assignment
SYNTAX: case is assigned to an argument by a head, in particular a verb or a
preposition, or by °INFL
(°structural case). Such a head is called a
case-assigner. V and P assign case to their complement positions, in some languages
subject to structural conditions, e.g. °government
and °adjacency. INFL on the other hand assigns
case to its specifier (the surface subject) under
°spec,head agreement; if INFL is
+Tense, the subject is assigned Nominative Case (e.g. he), if INFL is -Tense,
it assigns Null Case (the unique property of PRO).
More recently, all structural Case assignment is taken to be a matter of spec,head
agreement in a different AGRP for each distinct argument (e.g. AGROP, AGRSP).
In order to be assigned structural Case arguments move either overtly or covertly to
an appropriate spec, AGRP position.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986a,
1992),
Chomsky & Lasnik (1993).
Case Filter
SYNTAX: filter which requires an (overtly realized) NP argument to be case
marked, or be associated with a case position.
EXAMPLE: this filter rules out (i). No °case
is assigned to the subject position of the complement of seems; only by
moving to the subject position of the matrix clause can John satisfy
the case filter: it is assigned case there.
(i) a * it seems [ John to be angry ]
b John seems [ ti to be angry ]
More recently, the case filter has been reduced to the
°visibility condition. See also
°chain condition.
Case-marking
°Case assignment.
Cataphoric relation
SEMANTICS: the °coreference relation
between a pronoun and a noun phrase which follows the pronoun.
EXAMPLE: in Everyone who knows her loves Mary the NP Mary
can corefer with the pronoun her. Another term for a cataphoric relation is
backward anaphora.
Causative verb
Verb with an °argument that expresses the cause
of the action described by the verb.
EXAMPLE: in (i)-(iii) let, make, and cause are
causative verbs; John refers to the cause of Bill's eating grass.
(i) John let Bill eat grass (ii) John made Bill eat grass (iii) John caused Bill to eat grassA certain class of verbs alternate between a causative reading and an °inchoative reading. Examples are break, drown and De-adjectival verbs formed with the suffix -en in (iv) - (vii).
INCHOATIVE CAUSATIVE
(iv) The vase broke John broke the vase
(v) The lady drowned Our tenant drowned a lady
(vi) The canal widened They widened the canal
(vii) The tomatoes reddened The sun reddened the tomatoes
LIT.
Borer (1990),
Grimshaw (1990),
Jackendoff (1990).
C-command
SYNTAX: C-command is a binary relation between nodes in a tree structure
which is defined as follows:
(i) Node A c-commands node B iff
a A =/= B,
b A does not °dominate B and B does not
dominate A, and
c every X that dominates A also dominates B.
(ii) X2
/ \
A X1
/ \
B C
In (ii) A c-commands B since A =/= B (cf. (i)a), A does not dominate B, nor does B
dominate A (cf. (i)b); and the node which dominates A, X2, also dominates B (cf.
(i)c). X1 in (ii) is not relevant to (i)c: although it dominates B, it does not
dominate A.
(iii) VP | V'2 |\ | PP | \ | P' | |\ V'1 | \ |\ P NP | \ | | | \ in the store | \ V NP | | buy the bookAn alternative option for the possible values of X in (i)c is to count only maximal projections. Under this interpretation A is said to m-command B.
Chain
SYNTAX: a set of syntactic elements subject to specific conditions.
Formally:
(a1,...,an), 1 =< n, is a chain iff
(i) every a has the same subscript, i.e
(a1,...,an) = (aj1,...,ajn)
(ii) for every i < n, ai °antecedent governs ai+1
Given this definition a1 is called the head of the chain, an the
foot, and each pair (ai,ai+1) is a link. The superscripts only serve
to distinguish elements which are otherwise identical; so, superscripts are left
out in the notation if the elements are not identical. Different kinds of chains
are distinguished. A chain is an A-chain if a1 is in an
°A-position, and an A-bar-chain if a1 is in an
°A-bar-position.
(i) Johni was hit ti by the carj (ii) Whoi ti1 seems ti2 to have been hit ti3 by the carjIn (ii), the chain (whoi, ti1, ti2, ti3) is an A-bar-chain, since the head whoi is in an A-bar-position. The foot (i.e. ti3) of this chain is theta-marked (by hit). The element t1 is case marked (by the matrix INFL). Hence, the chain satisfies the °case filter and the °theta-criterion. The A-chain (ti1, ti2) is an example of a non-maximal chain, since this chain, being part of the maximal chain (whoi, ti1, ti2, ti3) contains no theta-position. Also see °CHAIN and °chain composition.
CHAIN
SYNTAX: notion derived from the notion of
°chain and meant to generalize chains and
expletive-argument pairs. The notion CHAIN thus covers two cases:
chains and expletive-argument pairs.
EXAMPLE: in (i) the expletive-argument pair (therei,
a mani) which is not a chain, constitutes a CHAIN, because there
binds a man and the pair behaves as a chain with regard to
°visibility.
(i) Therei is a mani in the roomLIT. Chomsky (1986a).
Chain Composition
SYNTAX: process by which two independent
°chains, say (a1,...,an) and
(b1,...,bn), are linked to each other, thus forming one extended chain
(a1,...,an,b1,...,bn).
Chain composition presumably takes place in a.o.
°parasitic gap constructions. Thus, in (i)
there are two chains, (which gapsi, ti), the result of wh-movement
in the matrix clause, and (Opj, tj), resulting from movement of the
°empty Operator in the embedded adjunct
clause. To give the parasitic gap in the embedded clause its correct interpretation
(i.e. as a °variable bound by which gaps),
the chain headed by the Operator must be composed with the chain headed by which
gaps.
(i) which gapsi did you hate ti [before [Opj [analyzing tj ]]]The locality restriction on Chain composition (an and b1 may not be too far apart) has been formulated in terms of °Subjacency.
Chain Condition
SYNTAX: wellformedness condition on °chains,
which states that every chain (a1,...,an) must contain exactly one Theta-marked
position and exactly one Case-marked position. In A-chains a1 is Case-marked and
an is Theta-marked, while in A'-chains the lowest
°variable A'-bound by the operator is Case-marked,
and may either be Theta-marked, or A-bind a Theta-marked position in the chain. This
condition restates the °case filter (or the
°visibility condition) and the
°Theta-criterion in terms of chains.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986a,
1986b).
Checking domain of A
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) the minimal residue of A. An element's checking
domain is the domain in which its features can be checked. In effect checking is a
relation either between an adjunct and its host or a head and its specifier.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Circumfix
MORPHOLOGY: the combination of a prefix and a suffix that attach to a base
simultaneously to express a single meaning or category. Another term is discontinuous
affix. This type of affixation is referred to as
°parasynthesis.
EXAMPLE: Dutch collective nouns may be formed by adding the circumfix
ge-..-te to underived nouns as in (i):
(i) berg 'mountain' ge+berg+te 'mountains' (*geberg, *bergte)
vogel 'bird' gevogelte 'poultry' (*gevogel, *vogelte)
raam 'frame' geraamte 'skeleton' (*geraam, *raamte)
The existence of circumfixes is controversial. Many linguists argue that all cases
of alleged circumfixation can be reduced to suffixation and concomitant prefixation
(e.g. Scalise 1984, Schultink 1987). One objection to circumfixes is that they violate
the °Binary Branching Constraint.
Class I/II affix
MORPHOLOGY/PHONOLOGY: classification of (English) affixes. Class I and Class II
affixes can be distinguished in terms of their different phonological and morphological
properties.
EXAMPLE: the English Class I affixes can cause stress shift
(párent-paréntal,
prodúctive-productívity), while their class II counterparts
are stress neutral (párent-párenthood,
prodúctive-prodúctiveness). Furthermore, class I affixes may appear inside
class II affixes, but not vice versa (*hopefulity). This generalization is
usually referred to as the
°Affix Ordering Generalization.
The distinction between Class I and Class II affixes is equivalent to that between
formative-boundary and word-boundary affixes (Chomsky & Halle
1968), Level I and Level
II affixes
(Pesetsky 1979,
Kiparsky 1982),
and Stratum I and Stratum II affixes
(Halle & Vergnaud 1987).
Clause union
SYNTAX: process which reduces a clause containing an embedded clause to one
simplex clause by eliminating the clause structure of the embedded clause. This (as
yet undefined) process is supposedly triggered by auxiliary-like verbs (e.g. certain
modals, causatives and perception verbs) in Germanic and Romance languages.
°Restructuring,
°Verb Raising.
LIT.
Evers (1975),
Guéron & Hoekstra (1988),
Rizzi (1982).
Cleft
SYNTAX: a Cleft construction can be derived from a non-cleft construction by
introducing one of its elements, say X, in a clause having the form It be X,
and by turning the rest into a
°relative clause.
Two cleft versions of (i) are given in (ii):
(i) We saw John
(ii) a It was John [who we saw e]
b It was John [that we saw e]
See also °pseudo-cleft.
Clipping
MORPHOLOGY: an unproductive type of word formation which produces new words
on the basis of existing words by simply cutting off one or more syllables. It is
often argued that this type of word-formation does not belong to the I-language.
EXAMPLE: the word mike which is made out of microphone.
Clitic
MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX: element which, like affixes, cannot occur freely in syntax
but is in need of a 'host'. A clitic can thus be regarded as a kind of
°bound morpheme. A typical clitic will
attach itself to a host, that is, a (fully inflected) word or phrase. The observation
that they can attach to inflected words distinguishes, among other things, clitics
from affixes. Clitics come into two types: proclitics and enclitics. Proclitics attach
themselves to the left of the host, while enclitics attach themselves to the right of
the host.
EXAMPLE: In French, object pronouns are clitics which are either proclitics, as
me and les in (i), or enclitics, as les in (ii):
(i) il me les a donnés 'he has given them to me'
he to-me them has given
(ii) donnez -les -moi 'give them to me'
give -them -me
(iii) il mei lesj a donnés ei ej
In syntax it is usually assumed that a clitic is related to a gap, an
°empty category
(°trace or °pro).
But see °clitic doubling. Example (i) is
analyzed as in (iii), where e is a gap.
Clitic Climbing
SYNTAX: movement of a °clitic out of its
local domain, as in (i)b:
(i) a Gianni vuole vederli
Gianni wants see-them
b Gianni li vuole vedere
Gianni them-wants see
In (i)a the clitic li is in its normal position, cliticized on the infinitive.
In (i)b the clitic is moved out of the domain of the infinitive and cliticized on the
matrix verb vuole. This phenomenon is also common in other Romance languages,
but not in French. Clitic Climbing facts have led to the assumption that certain verbs,
like volere in Italian, trigger
°Restructuring.
Clitic Doubling
SYNTAX: occurrence of a °clitic in the
presence of a corresponding (pronominal) object in a number of Romance languages,
such as Spanish:
(i) Juan me visito a mi ayer
Juan me visited (to) me yesterday
All pronominal objects, such as mi in (i), must be 'doubled' by a
corresponding clitic, in this case me.
Cliticization
MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX: a process by which a complex word is formed by attaching a
°clitic to a fully inflected word. It is unclear
whether cliticization is a type of word formation or a type of syntactic operation
(°incorporation).
EXAMPLE: in Je t'aime, t' is the clitic attached to aime.
LIT.
Zwicky (1977),
Klavans (1982,
1985),
Zwicky & Pullum (1983),
Nespor & Vogel (1986),
Spencer (1991).
Closed syllable
PHONOLOGY: a °syllable which ends in a
consonant: C0-VC.
EXAMPLE: the English name Wisconsin consists of three closed
syllables: wis, con and sin.
°Open syllable.
Closed under extension
°Upward monotonicity.
Closed under inclusion
°Downward monotonicity.
Co-analysis
MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX: a concept proposed by Williams (1979) and DiSciullo &
Williams (1987) to account for a situation where one grammatical function (e.g.
possessive) is expressed syntactically as well as morphologically, i.e. by adding
a grammatical element both to a phrase as a whole and to the
°head of that phrase. Co-analysis means that a
syntactic and a morphological representation are assigned to one phrase. The English
possessive marker 's sometimes appears to be attached to a possessor phrase
as a whole (cf. (i)), and in other cases it seems to be attached to a noun (cf. (ii)):
(i) [the man on the corner]'s hat (ii) his hat (= [he]'s hat)Phrases such as the one in (iii) are ambiguous, since the possessive is either attached to the NP the man or to the N man. To account for this ambiguity, Williams & DiSciullo assign a co-analyzed structure to the NP the man's, cf. (iv):
(iii) the man's hat (= [the man]'s hat or the [man]'s hat) (iv) NP / \ NP \ / \ \ the man 's hat \ | / \ N / \ \ / \ N \ / NPLIT. Williams (1979), Di Sciullo & Williams (1987).
Co-articulation
PHONOLOGY: the automatic adjustment of a sound to its environment.
EXAMPLE: in Dutch koel, kaal, kiel the phoneme /k/is
articulated each time differently, depending on the quality of the following vowel.
Coindexing
SYNTAX: two elements in a structure are coindexed if they have the same
°referential index. Coindexing may
come about in different ways. Firstly, when an element undergoes
°movement, all elements in the resulting
°chain (the moved element itself, and any traces
it has left) bear the same index by convention. Alternatively, two NPs may be
assigned the same referential index, indicating either that they share the same
reference (in case the NPs in question may be interpreted as referential expressions)
or that one (typically a °pronominal, an
°anaphor, or an
°anaphoric epithet) is interpreted as a
°bound variable (in case the NP it is
coindexed with is interpreted as an °operator).
The former case of coindexing plays a crucial role in the definitions of
°chain and
°antecedent government. The latter
case is relevant to °binding theory.
LIT.
Chomsky (1980,
1981,
1986a),
Rizzi (1990),
Fiengo & May (1994).
Collective predicate
SEMANTICS: a predicate that applies to a plurality of things as a whole and
not to each of the individual members.
EXAMPLE: the contrast in (i) shows that gather is a collective
predicate because it can only be used as a predicate with a subject that refers to a
plurality.
(i) a * John/A boy/Every boy gathered
b The boys/John and Mary/The club gathered
Other predicates, such as buy a house or carry the piano upstairs
can be used as collective predicates but also as
°distributive predicates.
John and Mary bought a house is therefore ambiguous between a collective
reading (they bought the house together) and a distributive reading (they each bought
a house).
Comment
°Topic-comment-distinction.
COMP (C0)
SYNTAX: the category of the
°complementizer of embedded clauses. In
languages exhibiting the °Verb Second
phenomenon the COMP position is the ultimate landing site of the finite verb in
°root clauses. Originally it was assumed that
wh-phrases such as who in who did you see?, is in the
COMP-position in order to explain why, in English, the presence of a
wh-phrase usually excludes the presence of a complementizer
(°Doubly-Filled COMP filter).
The standard assumption now is that COMP, or rather C0, heads its own syntactic
°projection - CP - and that wh-phrases,
relative pronouns and other preposed material are in the
°specifier position of CP.
LIT.
Van Riemsdijk & Williams (1986),
Chomsky (1986b),
Lasnik & Saito (1991).
Comparative
MORPHOLOGY: a particular kind of adjectival inflection.
EXAMPLE: when the English comparative suffix -er is attached to
adjectives such as long, big, happy etc. the morphologically
complex adjectives longer, bigger and happier share the
meaning 'MORE ADJECTIVE'. These adjectives often introduce a comparison: longer
than ..., bigger than ... etc.
Complement
SYNTAX: YP in [H' H YP], where H is a head and H' the projection of H.
According to °X-bar theory, the complement
of a head X0 is defined either as a position attached or adjoined to X', or as a
°sister of X0. Thus, in configuration (i), either
A and B are complements of X0, or just B (the sister of X0).
(i) X' /| / | A X' /| / | B X0Sometimes, the complement of a head X0 is equated with its °internal argument(s).
Complement domain
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) the subset of a domain reflexively dominated
by a complement.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Complementary distribution
Two elements a and b are in complementary distribution if a, but not b, occurs in those
environments where on general grounds we may expect both a and b, while b, but not a
occurs in the complementary set of environments.
PHONOLOGY: Complementary distribution is often taken as an indication that two
superficially different elements are one and the same at a deeper level. Two sounds
/a/ and /b/ are in complementary distribution when one of the two (/a/) occurs in all
environments except those in which /b/ occurs and vice versa.
EXAMPLE: in English [p] and [ph] are in complementary distribution, since
[ph] occurs syllable-initially when it is directly followed by a stressed vowel
(cf. pin [phin]), whereas in all other positions [p] is found. In Hindi,
however, [p] and [ph] can occur in the same position and are distinctive.
Complementizer
SYNTAX: element introducing a subordinate clause.
EXAMPLE: that in I think that you are right.
°COMP.
Complementizer deletion
SYNTAX: the process of deleting a complementizer as in (i). Also: deletion in
COMP.
(i) a I know that he is here
b I know _ he is here
This deletion has also been taken to apply to wh-words in
°relative clauses as in (ii).
(ii) a the man whom I have seen
b the man _ I have seen
The underlying assumption is that the wh-word is in the COMP position. This
assumption has been abandoned with the introduction of
°CP. Now the empty slot '_' in (ii)b is usually analyzed
as an °empty operator.
°that-trace effect.
Complete Functional Complex
SYNTAX: A complete functional complex (CFC) is the minimal domain (e.g.
°maximal projection) in which all
°grammatical functions compatible
with a head are realized. The notion CFC is relevant to
°Binding theory. The notion CFC has been
proposed as an alternative to the notion
°Governing Category.
LIT.
Chomsky (1986a).
Complex Noun Phrase Condition, Complex NP
constraint
SYNTAX: one of the conditions on transformations in early generative syntax:
(i) No element contained in an S dominated by an NP with a lexical head
noun may be moved out of that NP by a transformation. (Ross 1967:70)
This condition accounts for the ungrammaticality of (ii):
(ii) * Who did you hear [NP the rumor [CP that Mary kissed t ]]More recently, this class of facts have been analyzed as °subjacency violations.
Componential analysis
SEMANTICS: the idea that the meaning of words can be analyzed as construed from
basic semantic primitives (features or markers). Two famous examples of componential
analysis are informally paraphrased in (i) and (ii):
(i) x kill y = x cause y to be not alive (ii) x is a bachelor = x is an unmarried manComponential analysis is typical of the so-called °Katz-Fodor-semantics, °Generative Semantics, and Jackendoff's °Conceptual Structure.
Compositionality of translation
°Compositionality Principle.
Compositionality Principle
SEMANTICS: a principle (attributed to Frege, hence sometimes called Frege's
Principle) that constrains the relation between form and meaning by requiring
that the meaning of a composite expression is built up from the meanings of its basic
expressions. This principle plays an important role in formal semantic theories, like
°Montague Grammar. Here the Compositionality
Principle takes the form of a homomorphism, a mapping that assigns meanings to
the basic expressions of the language and semantic operations to syntactic rules.
LIT.
Gamut (1991),
Montague (1974).
Compound
MORPHOLOGY: a morphologically complex word constructed out of two or more
unbound °morphemes.
EXAMPLE: the English nouns steam and boat can be
combined to produce the compound noun steamboat. It is not necessary though
that the members of a compound belong to the same category as is shown by examples
such as blackbird (A+N), swearword (V+N), and colorblind
(N+A). On both formal and semantic grounds linguists distinguish several types of
compounds, viz.
°bahuvrihi compounds,
°dvanda compounds,
°endocentric compounds,
°exocentric compounds,
°root compounds, and
°synthetic compounds.
Compound Affix Ordering
Generalization
MORPHOLOGY: a generalization which entails that
°Class I affixes can not appear
outside °compounds, while some Class II affixes may
appear both inside and outside compounds. In other words, only Class II affixes may
attach to compounds.
EXAMPLE: the English Class I negative prefix in- may not attach to
compound adjectives (*in-self-sufficient), while its Class II counterpart
un- may (un-self-sufficient).
LIT.
Selkirk (1982),
Kiparsky (1982),
Halle & Mohanan (1985),
Spencer (1991).
Compound Rule
°Lexical transformation.
Conceptual Structure
SEMANTICS: an autonomous level of cognitive representation postulated by
Ray Jackendoff, representing concepts in terms of a small number of conceptual
primitives. Conceptual structure is related to syntactic and phonological structure
on the one hand and other, non-linguistic levels of representation (e.g. vision) on
the other hand. The theory of conceptual structure is decompositional
(because it decomposes meanings in terms of conceptual primitives, see
°componential analysis),
conceptualist (because it identifies meanings with concepts, i.e. mental entities, see
°meaning theories) and (in its origin)
localistic (because it elaborates the idea that notions of location and movement are
central in the semantic analysis of verbs and sentences, see
°localism).
°Lexical conceptual structure
is conceptual structure as determined by the
°argument structure of verbs.
LIT.
Jackendoff (1983,
1987,
1990).
Conceptualism
°Meaning theories.
Concrete noun
SEMANTICS: a noun that refers to a concrete entity (traditionally an entity
which is extended in time and space). Examples of concrete nouns are apple
and water. The opposite of a concrete noun is an
°abstract noun.
Condition A
One of the conditions of the °binding theory.
Condition B
One of the conditions of the °binding theory.
Condition C
One of the conditions of the °binding theory.
Condition on Extraction Domain
Condition of °bounding theory formulated in
Huang (1982)
which restricts the class of constituents that elements may be extracted
from. Includes the °Subject Condition
and the °Adjunct Condition.
Configurational language
SYNTAX: a language that has a fairly rigid word order based on a specifically
ordered °D-structure.
EXAMPLE: English is a configurational language, as opposed to languages such
as Walpiri which are supposed to lack an ordered D-structure, and which, as a result,
exhibit extremely free word order variation.
LIT.
Hale (1983),
Webelhuth (1984).
Conjugation/Conjugational class
MORPHOLOGY: a traditional term indicating that verbs can be classified
according to the shape of the inflectional endings they may take. See also
°declension class. Russian provides
a clear case of a conjugational system. Verbs inflect for person and number in
the non-past tense, and also have an imperative, an infinitive, and several
participles.
EXAMPLE: in one conjugational class a verb consists of a root morpheme
followed by the conjugational marker -a- (preconsonantal) or -aj-
(prevocalic); in the second conjugational class, the verbal root is followed by the
conjugational marker -i-.
(i) del-a-t 'to do' govor-i-t 'to speak'
2.sg. del-aj-e® govor-i-®
2.pl. del-aj-ete govor-i-te
imperative pl. del-aj-te govor-i-te
past part.act. del-a-l govor-i-l
pres.part.pas. del-aj-emyj govor-i-myj
conjunction
SEMANTICS: the combination of two sentences with and. In
°propositional logic, the conjunction
of two formulas Phi and Psi, written Phi & Psi, is true if both Phi and Psi are true,
otherwise it is false. The °truth table of
conjunction is therefore as follows:
(i) Phi Psi Phi & Psi
1 1 1
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
°Connective.
Connectedness
SYNTAX: property which is meant to account for
°parasitic gap constructions of the type
illustrated in (i).
(i) ? A person who [[close friends of e] admire t]In (i) both e and t take who as their antecedent. This is allowed, because the °path from e to who and the path from t to who are connected in a specific way. This type of connection is missing in the example in (ii).
(ii) * A person who you admire t because [[close friends of e] become famous]The notion of connectedness has been resolved under the °Path Containment Condition.
Connective
SEMANTICS: logical operator which combines with one or more
°formulas to form a more complex formula. Binary
connectives, like &, v, -> and <->, combine with two formulas as in (i),
the unary connective Neg combines with one formula as in (ii).
(i) Phi & Psi (and)
Phi v Psi (or)
Phi -> Psi (if ... then ...)
Phi <-> Psi (... if and only if ...)
(ii) Neg Phi (not)
The truth-value of the complex formula is always a function (a truth-function) of the
truth-values of the formulas Phi and Psi, which can be represented in a
°truth table.
Connotation
SEMANTICS: a term which is often used in opposition to
°denotation, covering the more secondary and
subjective aspects of meaning that people associate with expressions.
EXAMPLE: the words sidewalk and pavement have the same
denotation, but different connotation. The term is also used more generally to cover
everything that is part of the °meaning of an
expression except for its denotation. In this sense, the term is in some respect
similar to °intension.
Conservativity
SEMANTICS: presumably one of the universal constraints on possible
°determiner meanings in natural language. In
order to verify or falsify a sentence like All boys walked in a model, it
is sufficient to take into consideration the set of boys and the set of boys who
walked, and check whether the former set is identical to the latter. (It is not
necessary to consider e.g. the set of girls or the set of boys who danced.) Another
way of saying that a determiner D is conservative, is that an NP of the form D(CN)
'lives on' the interpretation of CN. According to Barwise & Cooper (1981) in natural
language simple determiners together with a CN always yield an NP which lives on the
interpretation of CN.
LIT.
Barwise & Cooper (1981),
Keenan & Stavi (1986),
Gamut (1991).
Consonantal
PHONOLOGY: a °feature which characterizes
sounds that are produced with an obstruction or a complete closure in the vocal tract
(i.e. °obstruents,
°nasals, and
°liquids are consonantal).
Constituent
SYNTAX: notion in the syntactic description of linguistic expressions. A
constituent of an expression is any part of the expression that, linguistically,
functions as a unit. In terms of °tree
structure, a constituent can be defined as a subtree, or as the material
dominated by a single node. In terms of
°labeled bracketing, the material
enclosed by a matching pair of brackets is a constituent.
EXAMPLE: each of the bracketed strings in (i) is a constituent:
(i) [1 John [2 left [3 his [4 pet chihuahua 4] 3] [5 to [6 his mother 6] 5] 2] 1]Various tests can be employed to establish whether a given part of an expression is a constituent. One well-known test is used in (ii);
(ii) a to his mother, John left his pet chihuahua
b his pet chihuahua, John left to his mother
c * his pet chihuahua to his mother, John left
Assuming that °topicalization allows the
preposing of exactly one constituent, the well-formedness of (ii)a & b indicates that
the italicized strings are constituents; the illformedness of (ii)c can be attributed
to the fact that the direct object and the indirect object do not form a constituent.
A stricter version of the notion constituent holds that only those subtrees that are
maximal projections are called constituents (synonymously with: phrase).
Contain
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) A contains B if some
°segment of A s-dominates B
(s-domination is domination by only a segment of a category).
EXAMPLE: in [A1 B [A2 C ]] , B is contained by A because it is s-dominated by
A1, a segment of A (= {A1, A2 }).
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Context dependence
SEMANTICS: the phenomenon that the interpretation of an expression depends
on the context in which it is used.
°Deictic pronouns
are a clear case of context dependent expressions, but other expressions can also be
context dependent, such as many or big, because what counts as many
or big always depends on the context in which these words are used (a big mouse may
be a small animal).
Contextual neutralization
PHONOLOGY: the loss of phonological distinctions in a specific environment.
EXAMPLE: in Dutch, word-final obstruents neutralize: both /t/ and /d/ are
realized as voiceless [t] as in /bad/ [bat] and /kat/ [kat]. When an opposition is
neutralized in all environments we speak of
°absolute neutralization.
LIT.
Kiparsky (1968).
Contingent truth
SEMANTICS: a true sentence that is not
°necessarily true, which means that its
truth value crucially depends on the facts of the actual world. See
°analytic truth.
Continuant
PHONOLOGY: a °feature which characterizes
phonemes that are produced without complete closure in the vocal tract, allowing the
air stream to continue.
EXAMPLE: In Dutch °vowels,
°fricatives and the phonemes /h/, /j/, /w/, /l/,
/r/ are continuants.
Contour tone
PHONOLOGY: a sequence of different °tone
heights realized on one vowel in °tone
languages.
EXAMPLE: in Igbo the word àkàla[cup] has two vowels with a low
tone; the final vowel, however, has a sequence of a low tone and a high tone.
LIT.
Goldsmith (1976).
Contraction
SYNTAX: the phenomenon that two or more elements are pronounced as one.
EXAMPLE: ain't is a contraction of is not, wanna
of want to. See °wanna-contraction.
Contradiction
SEMANTICS: a sentence which is false under all circumstances, i.e. for every
assignment of values to its basic expressions. A sentence of
°propositional logic is a contradiction
when it is false for every possible assignment of truth values to the propositional
letters of that sentence.
For example, the formula p & Neg p is a contradiction of propositional logic. A
sentence of °predicate logic is a
contradiction when it is false for every possible denotation of the variables and
individual and predicate constants that it contains. For example, the formula
All(x)[ P(x) & Neg P(x) ] is a contradiction of predicate logic.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
Control
SYNTAX: the phenomenon that the understood
(°PRO) subject of an infinitival clause must be
anaphorically dependent on a specific argument of the matrix clause.
EXAMPLE: in (i), the understood subject of to leave must be
John; in (ii), it is Susan. The case in (i) is called 'subject
control' (the so-called controller John is a subject), the case in (ii)
'object control' (Susan is an indirect object). See
°Control Theory.
(i) John promised Susan to leave (ii) John persuaded Susan to leaveMORPHOLOGY: a mechanism introduced in DiSciullo & Williams (1987) which assigns a special linkage between the argument of an affix and a position in the verb's °argument structure, thereby preventing that argument from being realized syntactically. EXAMPLE: the argument structure of the English verb employ consists of two arguments (viz. AGENT and THEME). If the suffix -er is added to this verb, the resulting noun employer is an AGENT, and in John's employer, John cannot realize that argument. On the other hand, if the suffix -ee is added to this verb the resulting noun employee is a THEME, and in the NP John's employee, the noun John cannot express the THEME role. DiSciullo & Williams account for the difference between -er and -ee by assuming that the suffix -er controls the external argument (= AGENT role) of the verb employ, while -ee controls its internal argument (= THEME role). In both cases, the controlled argument cannot be expressed in syntax.
Control shift
SYNTAX: the phenomenon that the restrictions on the interpretation of PRO
(°Control Theory) are relaxed or changed.
EXAMPLE: in (i)a the subject of to go must refer to John, but in
(i)b the subject of to be allowed can be John or Susan.
(i) a John promised Susan [PRO to go]
b John promised Susan [PRO to be allowed to go]
Control Theory
SYNTAX: would-be theory that accounts for the referential properties of PRO
(see °control and
°control shift).
EXAMPLE: the fact that John is the understood subject of to do
the dishes in (i)a but not in (i)b (Susan is the understood subject of
to do the dishes in (i)b) is to be accounted for by control theory.
(i) a Johni promised Susanj [PROi to do the dishes]
b Johni ordered Susanj [PROj to do the dishes]
Sometimes the term 'control theory' is used for whatever explains those aspects of the
behavior of
°PRO which are not captured by other theories (such as
°binding theory or the theory of
°predication).
Converge
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) a derivation converges if it satisfies the
interface (i.e LF and PF) conditions. A convergent derivation is what (within the
principles and parameters framework) is called a grammatically well-formed derivation.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Conversion
MORPHOLOGY: a process which derives words without changing the phonological
shape of the °base.
EXAMPLE: in English it is possible to derive verbs from adjectives in such a
way that the verbs are interpreted as 'TO RENDER SOMETHING ADJECTIVE':
solid-ify 'make solid', legal-ize 'make legal'. But we also find
verbs of this (semantic) type which are phonologically identical to the base adjective:
to clean 'make clean', to warm 'make warm' etc. These are instances
of conversion. Some linguists (e.g. Bloomfield 1933, Kiparsky 1982) assume that
converted forms are derived by means of an
°affix without phonetic content, a so-called
°zero-affix. Others have challenged this view
(e.g. Lieber 1980, 1981).
Other terms for this process are: null affixation, zero-derivation, hypostasis,
functional shift, implicit transposition.
LIT.
Bloomfield (1933),
Marchand (1969),
Lieber (1980,
1981),
Kiparsky (1982),
Spencer (1991),
Don (1993).
Coordinate Structure Constraint
SYNTAX: Constraint on movement proposed in Ross (1967) which says that
In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct.The CSC explains the ungrammaticality of (i) and (ii).
(i) * which professor did you divide the cake between [ Mieke and t ] (ii) * which book did you [VP [VP steal t from Ger] and [VP give the paper to Jacqueline] ]These examples violate the first and the second clause of the CSC, respectively. Well-known exceptions to the CSC are °Across-the-Board extractions.
Core
PHONOLOGY: °Nucleus.
SYNTAX: °Core grammar.
Core-grammar
That part of the relatively stable (steady) state of the language faculty (i.e. of
the adult I-language) that results from the setting of parameters in UG (the initial
state of the language faculty, S0). As opposed to the periphery, which consists of
additional, marked, language-specific rules and exceptions.
LIT.
Chomsky (1986a).
Coreference
SYNTAX: if two referential elements (NPs) in a structure refer to the same
entity, i.e. have the same reference, this is called coreference.
EXAMPLE: in John says that he has been here before, the NPs
John and he can be co-referential. Coreference is usually indicated by
°coindexing: Johni says that hei has been
here before.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981),
Lasnik (1989),
Fiengo & May (1994).
Coronal
PHONOLOGY: a °feature which characterizes
sounds that are produced by raising the tongue blade (including the tip of the tongue)
from its neutral position towards the teeth or the hard palate.
EXAMPLE: Examples of coronal sounds in English and Dutch are /t/, /d/, /n/,
/s/, /z/ and /l/.
Correspondence theory
°Meaning theories.
Counterfactive predicate
°Factive predicate.
Count noun
SEMANTICS: a noun that refers to entities that can be individuated and counted,
like dog and sandwich. They can be pluralized, occur with the
indefinite article and with numerals. The opposite of count nouns are
°mass nouns.
Covert syntax
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) that part of syntax which is ordered after
SPELL-OUT, i.e. leaves no traces in the sound structure of a language. Overt
syntax is what is ordered before SPELL-OUT, hence is reflected in the sound structure.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
CP
SYNTAX: maximal projection of °COMP (C0).
CP is in part an °X-bar theoretical
reconstruction of the category S' (or S-bar). Thus the (anomalous) structure
generated in (i) (see Chomsky 1981) is replaced by the X-bar structure generated
in (ii) (see Chomsky 1986b).
(i) S' -> COMP S
(ii) a CP -> spec,CP C'
b C' -> C IP
Under (i) COMP contains both wh-phrases and the complementizer; under (ii)
C is the complementizer position, and spec,CP the position of the wh-phrases.
CP-reduction
SYNTAX: a process which deletes CP (also known as
°S-bar deletion). CP-reduction has been
proposed to explain °Exceptional Case
Marking (ECM).
EXAMPLE: in (i) expect assigns structural accusative Case to the
subject (Greg) of its complement clause (Greg to win). This should
not be possible if this clause were a full CP, because expect could not
govern the subject in that case (CP would be a
°barrier). If expects deletes CP, government is
possible, as the remaining IP is not a barrier to
°government.
(i) Everybody expected [IP Greg to win ]CP-reduction has also been assumed to obtain in °Raising-to-Subject constructions such as (ii):
(ii) John seems [IP t to have won ]In order for the matrix verb to °properly govern the trace of John, the embedded clause may not be a barrier.
Cranberry morpheme
MORPHOLOGY: a type of °bound morpheme
that cannot be assigned a meaning nor a grammatical function, but nonetheless serves to
distinguish one word from the other.
EXAMPLE: the English word cranberry seems morphologically complex,
since it must be distinguished from words such as raspberry,
blackberry, and gooseberry. Still, cran has no meaning
and does not function as an independent word: cranberry is the only word
in which cran appears. The existence of cranberry-morphemes plays
a role in the discussion whether morphology is word based or morpheme based (e.g.
Aronoff 1976).
LIT.
Aronoff (1976),
Spencer (1991).
Crash
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) a derivation crashes if it does not
°converge.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Cross-categorial operators
SEMANTICS: logical operators, such as
°conjunction and
°disjunction, that can
occur with almost any syntactic category. The examples in (i) show some of the
categories that and can occur with.
(i) NP + NP: John and his friends AP + AP: tall and strong VP + VP: walk and talk AdvP + AdvP: here and there PP + PP: in the house and around the house AP + PP: generous and with graceLIT. Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet (1990) Partee & Rooth (1983).
Crossed Binding
°Bach-Peters paradox.
Crossing
°Bach-Peters paradox.
Crossover
SYNTAX: establishing a relation between two elements across another element
which somehow interferes with that relation. The name 'crossover' derives from Ross's
Crossover Condition:
(i) No NP mentioned in the structural index of a transformation may be
reordered by that rule in such a way as to cross over a co-referential
NP. (Ross 1967:73)
EXAMPLE: this condition accounts for the ill-formedness of (ii): the NP
which has been moved across the co-referential NP it.
(ii) * The pudding whichi the man who ordered iti said ti would be tasty was a horror show.Two subcases distinguished are °strong crossover and °weak crossover.
Cumulative reference
SEMANTICS: the model-theoretic property that characterizes a
°mass noun like water in terms of the
cumulative structure of its extension. If w1 and w2 are two bits of water in the
extension of water, then the sum of w1 and w2 (i.e. the result of putting
w1 and w2 together) is also in the extension. Plural count nouns also have the
property of cumulative reference.
LIT.
Quine (1960),
Link (1983).
Cyclic domain
MORPHOLOGY/PHONOLOGY: a term used for a morphologically complex string,
consisting of a base and an affix, to which the whole set of cyclic phonological
rules apply.
EXAMPLE: in English the adjective opaque plus the nominal suffix
-ity (formally represented as [[opaque] ity]) constitute a cyclic domain to
which the cyclic stress rules and the cyclic rules of Trisyllabic Shortening and
Velar Softening apply, yielding the surface form opácity.
LIT.
Mascaró (1991),
Kiparsky (1982),
Spencer (1991).
Cyclicity
SYNTAX: basic notion of °subjacency
that movement is bounded, i.e. can only cross one bounding (or: cyclic) node at the
time. In general S (or S') and NP have been singled out as being bounding nodes.
°Bounding theory. Originally, cyclicity
was considered a property of rules or rule systems: a set of rules are to be applied
cyclically to successively larger dominating constituents.
°Lexical Morphology. Presently,
cyclicity is subsumed under the °barriers theory.
LIT.
Chomsky (1977b),
1986b,
1992).
PHONOLOGY: see °strict cyclicity