(i) John bought <mumble-mumble> (ii) John bought WHAT?This type of question is usually considered irrelevant in the discussion of wh-movement (What did John buy?) and °wh-in-situ (Who bought what?).
ECP
°Empty category principle.
Ejective
PHONOLOGY: a sound produced with the air above the larynx being expelled.
The oral tract and vocal cords are occluded whereafter the lips are suddenly opened,
causing the compressed air to escape.
Empty Category
SYNTAX: Any node without phonological content. Usually indicated as
e or ec. Empty categories come in different varieties, depending
on their syntactic properties, such as °Case,
°Theta-role and (potential) antecedent(s).
°NP-traces have no Case, whereas
°wh-traces may have Case (also
°trace). The trace of an adjunct has no
theta-role and is °A-bar bound. An NP-trace
has a theta-role and is °A-bound.
Empty categories can be the result of °deletion or
°movement, or they are base-generated,
viz. °pro and °PRO.
Different types of empty categories behave differently with respect to the
°Empty category principle and
°binding theory.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1982).
Empty Category Principle (ECP)
SYNTAX: a principle which requires that empty categories be
°properly governed. It is assumed
that the ECP does not hold of all empty categories: it holds for A- and A'-bound
traces (i.e. NP-traces and variables), but not for pronominal empty categories like
°pro and °PRO.
Well-known examples of ECP-violations are extractions of an adjunct out of an
°island, as in (i) (containing a
wh-island) and °that-trace
configurations in English, as in (ii). In both cases, the trace cannot be properly
°antecedent-governed because of
the intervention of a °barrier.
(i) * howi did John ask [ whether Bill fixed the car ti ] (ii) * whoi does John believe [ that ti will fix the car ]LIT. Chomsky (1981, 1986b), Lasnik & Saito (1984, 1991), Rizzi (1990).
Empty operator
SYNTAX: °Operator without phonological
content.
EXAMPLE: in (i) the 'implicit relative pronoun' is an empty operator binding
the °variable t.
(i) the man [CP Oi [IP you fired ti yesterday]]An empty operator has also been postulated for °Parasitic gap constructions and °Tough-movement constructions.
End rule
PHONOLOGY: a type of stress rule, first introduced by
Prince (1983)),
which captures the delimitative and culminative properties of stress in
°grid theory. End Rules (ER) apply at the highest levels of the grid and assign
an extra gridmark to (typically) the rightmost or leftmost prominent element.
EXAMPLE: In English, the End Rule that assigns main word stress applies
domain-finally at the line indicated with number 3 and adds a grid mark to the
rightmost column above the penultimate syllable:
3 *
2 * * * *
1 * * * * --> * * * *
achromatic achromatic
Endocentric compound
MORPHOLOGY: a type of °compound in
which one member functions as the °head and the
other as its modifier, attributing a property to the head. The relation between
the members of an endocentric compound can be schematized as 'AB is (a) B'.
EXAMPLE: the English compound steamboat as compared with
boat is a modified, expanded version of boat with its range of
usage restricted, so that steamboat will be found in basically the same
semantic contexts as the noun boat. The compound also retains the primary
syntactic features of boat, since both are nouns. Hence, a steamboat
is a particular type of boat, where the class of steamboats is a subclass
of the class of boats. °Exocentric
compound.
LIT.
Allen (1978),
Williams (1981a),
Kiparsky (1982),
Spencer (1991).
Epenthesis
PHONOLOGY: the phenomenon that a segment is inserted between two other
segments within a word. EXAMPLE: in the Dutch word melk 'milk' a
°schwa is inserted between [l] and [k],
yielding [mel@k].
Equi NP (deletion)
SYNTAX: transformation deleting one of two identical NPs.
EXAMPLE: in deriving John wants to win the surface-structure
(i)b is derived from deep-structure (i)a by deletion of the second occurrence of
John.
(i) a John wants [John to win]
b John wants [to win]
c John wants [ PRO to win ]
The two occurrences of John in the
°deep-structure (i)a account for the fact
that the understood subject of to win is identical to the subject of wants. This
analysis has been replaced by the analysis in (i)c with a
°PRO subject.
Equivalence
SEMANTICS: 1. (material equivalence) the combination of two formulas with the
°connective <-> (if and only if,
iff), which is only true if both formulas have the same
°truth value. phi <-> psi can also be defined
as the conjunction of two implications: phi -> psi and psi -> phi. For this reason,
the connective of material equivalence is sometimes called the biconditional. The
°truth table for material equivalence is as
follows:
(i) phi psi phi <-> psi 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1°Connective. 2. (logical equivalence) a relation obtaining between two formulas phi and psi if their material equivalence phi <-> Psi is a °tautology. In other words, two formulas which are logically equivalent have the same truth value for every possible °model. EXAMPLE: phi -> psi is logically equivalent with Neg [ phi & Neg psi ] in °propositional logic and ThereIs(x) [ P(x) ] is equivalent with Neg All(x) [ Neg P(x) ] in °predicate logic. When two expressions are logically equivalent, it is possible to substitute them for each other, without changing the truth values of the proposition they are contained in. LIT. Gamut (1991).
Ergative pattern
MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX: a term used for a situation in which one case marker
or affix is used to mark the subject of intransitive verbs as well as the object
of transitive verbs, while another case marker or affix is used for the subject
of transitive verbs. The former case marker is called the
°Absolutive (ABS), and the latter, the
Ergative (ERG). The following examples from the paleosiberian language Chukchee
are taken from
Spencer (1991:24):
(i) @tl@g-e l_?unin ek-@k 'the father saw the son' father-ERG saw son-ABS (ii) ek-@k k@tg@ntatg_?e 'the son ran' son-ABS ran
Ergative verb
°Unaccusative verb.
Escape hatch
SYNTAX: term referring to the fact that elements in COMP do not have
to obey the °Tensed S Condition (TSC)
and °Specified Subject
Condition (SSC) when moving to the next higher COMP. Thus, COMP functions
as an escape hatch for movement. This is evident from the following joint definition
of TSC and SSC:
No rule can invoke X,Y in the structure ...X...[a...Z...-WYV...]..., where
(a) Z is the specified subject of WYV
or
(b) Y is in COMP and X is not in COMP
or
(c) Y is not in COMP and a is a tensed S
The reduction of TSC and SSC to °Binding
Theory and the introduction of °barriers
to define cyclic nodes has made this stipulation superfluous. In the
barriers-framework, °VP-adjunction
can create escape hatches.
EST
Extended Standard Theory. Elaboration of the
°Standard theory. Its distinguishing
marks are the strengthening of the hypothesis of the °autonomy of syntax, the
claim that semantic interpretation is determined by more than one level of
representation, the introduction of °Move alpha,
°trace theory, and the theory of
°LF. The EST originates in
Chomsky (1973).
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986a).
Event time
SEMANTICS: the point or interval of time at which the situation denoted
by a sentence is located. In Reichenbach's theory of tense, the event time is
represented by E.
LIT.
Reichenbach (1947),
Gamut (1991).
Exceptional Case Marking (ECM)
SYNTAX: non-canonical °structural
case assignment to an embedded subject by a certain class of verbs, such as
believe, which have the (exceptional) capacity to govern the embedded
subject position of their infinitival complement. EXAMPLE: the Case-marking
of the subject Bill by believe is a case of ECM.
(i) John believes [Bill to have won]The fact that the complement clause is transparent for government is exceptional, and has been accounted for in terms of °CP-reduction (Sbar-deletion). As a result the complement does not constitute a °barrier to government.
Exclusion
SYNTAX: structural/configurational relation. An element a is excluded by
a category b iff no segment of b dominates a (Chomsky 1986b).
EXAMPLE: in (i) d is excluded by b, but a and g are not.
°Dominance.
(i) [e d [b a [b ...g...]]]LIT. Chomsky (1986b).
Existential interpretation
SEMANTICS: the interpretation of an indefinite noun phrase as an
°existential quantifier.
In (i) the indefinite noun phrase has an existential interpretation because its
logical paraphrase involves an existential quantifier ("there is an x").
(i) a John ate a donut
b There is an x, x a donut, such that John ate x
Existential quantifier
SEMANTICS: a logical operator of predicate logic, written ThereIs, which
makes it possible to express that at least one entity in the
°universe of discourse has a
particular property.
EXAMPLE: in (i), ThereIs is used to express that there is at least
one entity x which has property P:
(i) ThereIs(x) [ P(x) ]The existential quantifier can be used to represent the meaning of indefinite noun phrases:
(ii) John ate a donut
ThereIs(x) [ donut(x) & ate(john,x) ]
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
Existential sentence
°There-insertion.
Exocentric Compound
MORPHOLOGY: a term used to refer to a particular type of compound,
viz. compounds that lack a head. Often these
compounds refer to pejorative properties of human beings. A Dutch compound
such as wijsneus 'wise guy' (LIT. 'wise-nose') (in normal
usage) does not refer to a nose that is wise. In fact, it does not even refer
to a nose, but to a human being with a particular property. An alternative
term used for compounds such as wijsneus is bahuvrihi compound.
LIT.
Kiparsky (1982),
Spencer (1991).
Experiencer
SYNTAX: a specific semantic (or thematic) role of the person(s) whose
mental
faculties are involved in the psychological state denoted by an emotive predicate.
EXAMPLE: in both John is amused and This is amusing (to)
John the expression John is associated with the Experiencer role.
Expletive
SYNTAX: grammatical element having no semantic content and occurring in
°theta-bar positions.
EXAMPLE: there in (i) and it in (ii) are expletives.
(i) There is a man in the room (ii) It seems that John is illLIT. Chomsky (1981, 1986a, 1992).
Extended Level Ordering
Hypothesis
MORPHOLOGY: a hypothesis proposed in Allen (1978) which can be
represented as in (i).
(i) Level I (Class I affixation) Cyclic phonological rules (e.g. stress rules) Level II (Class II affixation) Level III (root compounding) Level IV (regular inflection)This hypothesis is intended to replace Siegel's °Level Ordering Hypothesis. Like Siegel's hypothesis it embodies the claim that affixation takes place at two linearly ordered levels, which are separated by the cyclic phonological rules. The Extended Level Ordering Hypothesis (ILOH) furthermore claims to explain the following observations: (a) the members of (English) °root compounds such as houseboat and passion fruit behave like °Class II affixes, in that they fail either to condition or to undergo the cyclic phonological rules; (b) such compounds cannot undergo Class I and Class II affixation (*[com [passion fruit]], *[[passion fruit] y]), and (c) they do accept regular inflection ([[house boat] s]).
Extended Projection Principle (EPP)
SYNTAX: principle which extends the
°Projection Principle with the
requirement that clauses have subjects (also
°licensing).
EXAMPLE: the EPP requires that sentence (i) has an expletive subject
(to which no °theta-role is assigned):
(i) it is rainingLIT. Chomsky (1981, 1986a).
Extended Standard Theory
°EST.
Extension
SEMANTICS: 1. the entity or set of entities to which an expression refers.
The extension of a proper name or definite description is one entity; the extension
of a predicate is a set of entities. The extension of an expression is determined
by its °intension (the meaning or concept of
the expression). This is formalized in
°intensional logic and
°Montague Grammar by taking the
intension of an expression as a function which yields the extension of that
expression in every possible world. The distinction between extension and intension
is close to Frege's distinction between reference (Bedeutung) and sense (Sinn) and
is also related to the distinction between
°denotation and
°connotation.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
2. a general constraint on °determiners in
°Generalized Quantifier
Theory. A determiner D has extension if it is context independent: extension
of the number of elements in the domain has no influence on its interpretation.
Formally, a determiner D has extension if and only if for all the subsets X and Y
of the domains of entities E and E', condition (i) holds.
(i) if D(X,Y) in E and E a subset of E', then D(X,Y) in E'Some, at least two and not only are examples of determiners which obey extension; many and only are not. Take Only boys dance in a restricted set E and extend E to the set E', then it might be the case that there are dancing girls in E'.
Extension requirement
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) the requirement that substitution operations
in overt syntax always extend their target. This requirement is met iff the
designated position E for °GT in overt syntax
is external to the phrase-marker K, i.e. extends K, unless E is an adjunct
position. In effect, GT can only insert material into the highest specifier
position of K*.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Extensional adjective
SEMANTICS: an attributive adjective which can simply be interpreted as a
set, because its denotation does not depend on the noun with which it is combined.
EXAMPLE: red, female, living are extensional adjectives. The
combination of an extensional adjective with a noun is interpreted as the
intersection of the denotations of the adjective and the noun. Thus the expression
red rose is interpreted as the intersection of the set of red things and the set of
roses. (For this reason extensional adjectives are also called intersective
adjectives). This is not true for subsective adjectives (like big in
big mouse), syncategorematic adjectives (like good in good
violinist) and
°intensional adjectives
(like present in present queen).
LIT.
Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet
(1990).
External argument
SYNTAX: argument of a predicate X, which is not contained in the
°maximal projection of X. In general, this is the subject of a predicate.
EXAMPLE: in (i), John is the external argument of the verb
buy, and is not part of its maximal projection VP.
(i) John [VP buys books]An argument of a predicate X which is contained in its maximal projection is called the °internal argument. In (i) the NP books is the internal argument of the verb buy.
External negation
SEMANTICS: the external negation Neg Q of a
°generalized quantifier Q is the
set of sets that are not in Q (i.e. the complement of Q with regard to the power
set of E). Formally, external negation is defined as follows:
(i) Neg Q = { X subset E : X neg in Q }
The external negation of all is not all and the external negation of
a(n) is no. See also
°internal negation.
External theta-role
SYNTAX: °theta-role assigned to the
°external argument.
Extraction-site
°Landing site.
Extrametricality
PHONOLOGY: a phonological unit (for instance a
°segment,
°mora,
°syllable,
°foot,
°affix or
°word) is called extrametrical if it is ignored
by a (commonly: °metrical) phonological rule;
that is, it is treated as if it were not there. Hayes (1982) argues that
extrametricality can be assigned by rule and is subject to the
°Peripherality Condition:
extrametrical elements are always peripheral (found at one edge of the domain
under consideration) and they lose their marking if they are not at the edge of
the stress domain in the next °phonological cycle.
EXAMPLE: in English nouns the final syllable does not count for stress
assignment and can be considered as extrametrical (indicated by angled brackets) (cf.
Améri<ca> with antepenultimate stress, not
*Ameríca). In
English derived adjectives the adjectival suffix is extrametrical. In
paréntal main stress is penultimate; the extrametricality of the final
syllable of the noun párent is lost in the derived word by the
Peripherality Condition and the stress rules reapply. Schematized in the grid:
a. b. *
* . * . . --> * * .
pa<rent> pa<rent><al> paren<tal>
LIT.
Liberman & Prince (1977),
Hayes (1981,
1982).
Extraposition
SYNTAX: originally a movement rule that moves
°CPs and PPs to the right periphery of the sentence.
EXAMPLE: in (ii) the relative clause which I like is extracted
from the subject NP and moved to the right. PPs can be extraposed as well: in
(iv) the PP about the Sovjet Union is extraposed.
(i) [NP Many paintings of young artists [CP which I like]] are on sale (ii) [NP Many paintings of young artists t] are on sale [CP which I like] (iii) [NP Many books [PP about the Sovjet Union]] will appear soon (iv) [NP Many books t ] will appear soon [PP about the Sovjet Union]In general, extraposition is optional and clause bound. In Dutch, complement clauses undergo extraposition obligatorily, as shown by the contrast between (v) and (vi).
(v) * Kees heeft [CP de prijs aan te nemen] geweigerd
'Kees has the prize prt to accept refused'
(vi) Kees heeft t geweigerd [CP de prijs aan te nemen]
'Kees has refused to accept the prize'
Finite complement clauses have to be extraposed as well:
(vii) Kees heeft t besloten [CP dat hij de prijs zal weigeren]
'Kees has decided that he the prize will refuse'
Often the term 'extraposition' merely refers to the state of being in a right
peripheral position.