Palatalization
PHONOLOGY: a process, i.e.
°assimilation of place of articulation, in
which the place of obstruction shifts towards the hard palate.
EXAMPLE: in Dutch tasje 'purse' alveolar /s/ is pronounced as
alveopalatal [s] before /j/.
Paradigm
MORPHOLOGY: a term which is used for the set of all the inflected forms
which an individual word assumes.
EXAMPLE: the list in (i) is the paradigm of the Russian verb delat
'to do':
(i) del-a-t 'to do' singular plural imperative 1 del-aj-u del-aj-em sg.: del-aj 2 del-aj-es del-aj-ete pl.: del-aj-te 3 del-aj-et del-aj-ut Past participle active: del-a-l Past participle passive: del-a-n Present participle active: del-aj-uscij Present participle passive: del-aj-emyj
Parallel morphology
MORPHOLOGY: theory proposed in Borer (1988) within the GB-framework.
In this theory the morphological module or component has access to (a) the
lexicon, (b) the output of phonology, and (c) syntax proper. On the basis of
the difference in Hebrew between compounds and compound-type construct state
nominals (constructions which have a character intermediate between syntactically
formed phrases and words proper), Borer argues that the former are generated in a
morphological component, while the latter are formed in the syntax. The word-like
properties of construct state nominals are due to the morphological principle of
percolation that can apply to constructions which are formed in syntax (= the
mapping between °D-structure and
°S-structure)
LIT.
Shibatani & Kageyama (1988),
Borer (1988),
Spencer (1991).
Parameter
Notion in the theory of °Universal Grammar and language acquisition. In Universal
Grammar parameters specify
certain options: the °core grammar of a
specific language, then, is the result of the specific setting of these parameters.
EXAMPLE: the Head Parameter offers a choice between head-first (chosen in
English) or head-last (chosen in Japanese), which means that the head of a syntactic
constituent precedes or follows its complement. Parameter theory thus provides an
explanation for systematic syntactic variation between languages, and puts
restrictions on the number of choices which the language learner has to make.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986a),
Roeper & Williams (1987).
Parasitic gap
SYNTAX: empty category which is licensed by the occurrence of another
empty category in the sentence. Thus in a sentence like
(i) which books did you file t without reading ethe operator which is interpreted not only as binder of the direct object t of file, but also as licenser of the direct object e of reading. Evidence that the gap in the adjunct clause is really 'parasitic', i.e. that we do not have something like a 'double trace' configuration, is provided by the pair of sentences in (ii) and (iii) (Kearney (1983), cited in Chomsky 1986b).
(ii) which books about himself did John file t [before Mary read e] (iii) * which books about herself did John file t [before Mary read e]Since a moved wh-phrase can be interpreted as if it were in its base-position (°reconstruction), an anaphor in it may be bound as if it were in the wh-phrase's base-position. From the fact that the anaphor in these examples can only be bound by the subject of the matrix clause (John) and not by the subject of the adjunct clause (Mary), we can conclude that the wh-phrase can only have been moved from t, not from e. Also °operator movement, °chain composition, °empty operator.
Parasynthesis
MORPHOLOGY: a word formation process by means of which a discontinuous
affix or °circumfix is added to a base.
EXAMPLE: the addition of the Dutch discontinuous nominal circumfix
ge-..-te to underived nouns is an example of parasynthesis: berg
'mountain' - gebergte 'mountains', been 'bone, leg' -
gebeente 'bones'.
LIT.
Schultink (1987),
Spencer (1991),
De Haas & Trommelen (1992).
PARR
SYNTAX/SEMANTICS: requirement that an elliptic second conjunct is
interpreted in the same way as the first conjunct.
EXAMPLE: given that (i)a can be understood either as (i)b or as (i)c,
one would expect (ii)a to have the interpretations (ii)b-e. PARR however does
not allow the interpretations (ii)c and e, in which the second conjunct is not
interpreted parallel to the first conjunct.
(i) a Bill wants to buy a book
b there is a book that Bill wants to buy
c Bill wants there to be a book for him to buy
(ii) a Bill wants to buy a book and John does too
b there is a book that Bill wants to buy and there is a book that
John wants to buy
c there is a book that Bill wants to buy and John wants there to be
a book for him to buy
d Bill wants there to be a book for him to buy and John wants there
to be a book for him to buy
e Bill wants there to be a book for him to buy and there is a book
that John wants to buy
LIT.
Sag (1976),
Chomsky (1992).
Partial suppletion
°Suppletion.
Participle
Non-finite form of a verb. One distinguishes the present participle writing
in (i), the participle of the perfect tense written in (ii), and the
passive participle written in (iii):
(i) John is writing a book (ii) John has written a book (iii) This book was been written by JohnIn Germanic and Romance languages participles sometimes show °agreement inflection, as shown in (iv) by the passive participle écrites:
(iv) Cettes lettres ont été écrites par Marie
Those letters[Pl,F] have been written[Pl,F] by Marie
LIT.
Spencer (1991).
Particle
Element, often a preposition, which combines with an existing verb to form what
looks like a complex verb. Verb-particle combinations are quite common in German,
Dutch, Polish.
EXAMPLE: the Dutch particle uit, which is also a preposition,
combines with the verb lachen in (i).
(i) Ik hoorde dat Jan zijn moeder uitlachte
I heard that Jan his mother out-laughed
'I heard that Jan laughed at his mother'
Although the particle uit seems to be a morphological part of the verb in (i),
it is not in (ii).
(ii) Jan lachte zijn moeder uitIn this example the verb lachte is preposed under °Verb Second, and the particle uit is left behind.
Partitive case
SYNTAX: instance of °inherent case.
Partitive case is optionally assigned by
°unaccusative verbs, such as Italian
arrivare, to a post-verbal subject, which is in fact the internal argument:
(i) E' arrivato Gianni
is arrived Gianni
'Gianni arrived'
According to Belletti (1988), partitive case can be assigned if no case
(Nominative or Accusative) is assigned otherwise.
Passive
SYNTAX: construction in which the logical object shows up as the
grammatical subject, while the logical subject is not expressed at all or shows
up in an adjunct °by-phrase.
EXAMPLE: (ii) is the passive counterpart of active (i).
(i) Civil servants should avoid passive constructions (ii) Passive constructions should be avoided (by civil servants)The standard view in GB-theory is that in a passive configuration the °external theta-role (=logical subject) is assigned to the participial morpheme (-ed of avoided in (ii)), and that as a consequence the subject position is a theta-bar position. In order for its theta-role to be licensed, the participial morpheme also absorbs the structural objective case of the base verb. This leaves the object, which is generated at D-structure in complement position and receives the internal theta-role just as in active sentences, without Case. The object then moves to subject position where it receives nominative Case (i.e. becomes the grammatical subject). Next to this derivational account, lexical analyses of passive have been proposed, which take the promotion of the internal argument to be a consequence of the interaction of lexical rules deriving the argument structure of complex words and the specific lexical properties of the passive morpheme. Languages vary with respect to the ways of forming a passive; sometimes it is not even clear whether a given construction is to be regarded as a passive or not. This is because passive is in fact the sum of a cluster of properties (logical object as subject, logical subject as optional adjunct, passive morphology on the verb, no Case assignment to the object possible, etc.), all of which can be separately present or absent in a given construction. Some main distinctions across languages are the following:
- languages with impersonal passives (= passive of an intransitive verb, with an expletive in subject position instead of a promoted object) vs. languages without (cf. Dutch er wordt een man vermoord versus English *there is a man killed) - languages with periphrastic passives (i.e. using auxiliaries plus a past participle) vs. languages with synthetic passives (expressing the passive via one verbal form) (cf. Dutch de koning wordt geprezen vs. Latin rex laudatur) - languages with optional adjuncts expressing the logical subject vs. languages without (also °by-phrase).LIT. Wasow (1977), Williams (1981b), Chomsky (1981, 1986a), Fabb (1984), Jaeggli (1986a), Levin & Rappaport (1986), Di Sciullo & Williams (1987), Roberts (1987), Baker (1988), Baker, Johnson & Roberts (1989) Grimshaw (1990).
Path
The set of nodes in a °tree structure
that connect the head of a °chain to the foot
of the chain. °Path Containment
Condition.
Path Containment Condition (PCC)
SYNTAX: condition which attempts to give a generalized account of
constraints on crossing and nested dependencies, such as the
°Subject condition and the
°ECP. The condition states that if two paths
overlap, one must contain the other. The following contrast illustrates the
general idea:
(i) * Whoi did you wonder [CP whatj ti saw tj] (ii) Whatj did you wonder [CP whoi ti saw tj]Assume that there is a °path connecting each wh-phrase to its trace. In both (i) and (ii), the two paths overlap, so the PCC applies. In (i), the path of who 'crosses' the path of what, in violation of the PCC and the sentence is ungrammatical. In (ii) on the other hand, the path of who is 'contained' in the path of what. Hence (ii) obeys the PCC and the sentence is grammatical. °Connectedness.
Patient
SYNTAX/MORPHOLOGY: one type of argument of a verb. An argument is a
patient if the action expressed by the verb is directed at or affects the
referent of the argument.
EXAMPLE: her is a patient in John hit her.
LIT.
Jackendoff (1990).
Percolation
°Feature Percolation.
Performative
SEMANTICS: a term introduced in Austin (1962) in the context of his
theory of speech acts for those utterances which are used to perform an
act instead of describing it.
EXAMPLE: by uttering (i) the speaker actually makes an apology, he
does not describe himself apologizing for his behaviour.
(i) I apologize for my behaviourThis distinguishes performatives from constatives which are used to make a true or false statement. Performatives do not have truth conditions but °felicity conditions. The type of verbs used to make performative utterances are called performatives or performative verbs: apologize, promise, declare.
Performative hypothesis
SEMANTICS: the hypothesis (proposed in Ross 1970), that every sentence
is associated with an explicit
°illocutionary act, i.e. is derived
from a deep structure containing a
°performative verb.
EXAMPLE: sentence (ia) is derived from (ib), or perhaps (ic):
(i) a I'll write you next week
b I claim I'll write you next week
c I promise I'll write you next week
LIT.
Ross (1970).
Peripherality condition
°Extrametricality.
Perlocutionary act
°Speech act.
Permanent lexicon
MORPHOLOGY: list of actual words, where 'actual word' is defined as any
word form that some speaker has been observed to use (in ordinary speech). Hence,
potential words, which are actually
°accidental gaps, are not stored in the
permanent lexicon.
EXAMPLE: in English, the permanent lexicon contains actual words such as
approve, approval, recite, recital, derive, and describe, but
not the potential words derival and describal. Halle (1973)
uses the term 'Dictionary' when he refers to the permanent lexicon.
LIT.
Spencer (1991).
Persistence
°Left upward monotonicity.
PF
Phonological Form, the level of representation in the
°T-model of grammar at which only information
relevant to the phonetic realization of the utterance is present. At this level,
which is derived from °S-structure, only
phonological processes may apply.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981).
Pharyngeal
PHONOLOGY: pharyngeal sounds are produced in such a way that the back
of the tongue touches the pharynx (for instance in Arabic).
Phi-features
Grammatical features such as person, number, gender and case.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981),
Kerstens (1993).
Phoneme
PHONOLOGY: structuralist concept of the smallest unit by which one can
distinguish one word from another (e.g. Jacobson, Trubetzkoy). The phonemes of
a language can be found by constructing °minimal pairs.
EXAMPLE: /t/ and /p/ are two phonemes of English: ten and
pen are two different words. Replacing /e/ by /I/ result in [tIn] and
[pIn], therefore /e/ and /I/ are also two phonemes, etcetera. In Dutch the /e./
as in [be.t] (beet) and /e:/ as in [be:r] (beer) are not two
phonemes since they cannot distinguish two words: *[be:t] and *[be.r].
Phonological feature
°Feature.
Phrasal affix
MORPHOLOGY: a term introduced by
Klavans (1982,
1985)
to refer to °clitics.
Phrase marker (P-marker)
°Tree structure.
Phrase structure
SYNTAX: the internal structure of a phrase and its
°constituents. Phrase structure is
represented in one of the following formats: by means of a
°tree structure or by means of
°labeled brackets.
EXAMPLE: sentence (i) might have the phrase structure in (ii):
(i) Bill will meet his elder brother at the bus station
(ii) IP
/ |
/ |
NP I'
| | \
N | \
| INFL
Bill | \
will \
VP
/ |------\
V | \
| PP
meet | | \
NP P NP
/ | \ | |\
Det AP N at | \
| | | Det N
his A brother | |
| the bus station
elder
The structure in (ii) shows that the string his elder brother is a
syntactic constituent which is a Noun Phrase (NP) whose
°head is the Noun (N) brother. This head
is preceded by an Adjectival Phrase (AP) elder, whose head is the
adjective (A) elder. The constituent at the bus station is a
Prepositional Phrase (PP); the head of this PP is the preposition (P) at
which is followed by the NP the bus station. The constituent meet his
elder brother at the bus station is a Verbal Phrase or VP, which is headed by
the verb (V) meet, followed by two constituents: the NP his elder
brother and the PP at the bus station. The whole sentence is construed
as an Inflectional Phrase or IP, the head of which is
°INFL(ection), here filled with the auxiliary
will. INFL is followed by one constituent, the VP meet his elder
brother at the bus station, and preceded by one constituent, the NP
Bill. The tree structure in (ii) is equivalent to the labelled bracketing
in (iii).
(iii) [IP [NP [N Bill] ] [I'[INFL will] [VP [V meet] [NP[Det his]
[AP[A elder]] [N brother]] [PP[P at] [NP[Det the] [N bus station]]]]]]
See also °X-bar theory.
Phrase structure rules
SYNTAX: rewrite rules that °generate
°phrase structure. These have the
general form of (i), where X is the name of the phrase and Y Z W defines its
structure. Y, Z, and W are either phrases, and therefore must themselves occur
to the left of the arrow in rules of this type, or non-phrasal (terminal)
categories (such as Noun, Verb, or Determiner).
(i) X -> Y Z W ...EXAMPLE: the phrase structure rules in (ii) generate the phrase structure of the sentences in (iii).
(ii) a S -> NP VP
b VP -> V(NP) (PP)
c NP -> (Det) N
d PP -> P NP
(Round Brackets indicate that a phrase is optional)
(iii) a John laughs
b John eats an apple
c The girl walks in the forest
d The boy sends flowers to his mother
Thus the phrase structure rule in (ii)a characterizes a sentence (S) as the
combination of an NP (the subject) and a VP (the predicate), i.e. as in (iv).
(iv) a [S [NP[N John]] [VP[V laughs] ] ]
b [S [NP[N John]] [VP[V eats][NP[Det an][N apple]] ] ]
c [S [NP[Det the][N girl]] [VP[V walks] [PP[P in]
[NP[Det the][N forest]] ] ] ]
d [S [NP[Det the][N boy]] [VP[V sends] [NP[N flowers]]
[PP[P to][NP[Det his] [N mother] ] ] ] ]
The phrase structure rule in (ii)b gives the internal structure of the VP.
According to this rule, a verbal phrase consists of a verb and, optionally,
an NP and a PP. These last two constituents are further defined in phrase
structure rules (iic/d). Originally (cf. Chomsky 1957, 1965), phrase structure
rules were meant to generate °Deep
structures, which are converted into
°Surface structures by
°transformational rules. With
the introduction of the °Principles
and Parameters framework (Cf. Stowell 1981, Chomsky 1986a), phrase structure
rules have been eliminated from the theory of language as descriptive
generalizations of what is better explained by deeper principles. Another term
for phrase structure rules is rewrite rules. Also see
°X-bar theory.
Picture noun
SYNTAX: a picture noun is a noun (such as picture or
story) which appears to behave anomalously with respect to the
°binding theory. The anomaly is that
the noun may define a °binding domain.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986a).
Pied piping
SYNTAX: the phenomenon that when a wh-phrase is moved, it can
optionally 'drag along' a larger NP or PP in which it is contained.
EXAMPLE: next to (1a), (1b) and (1c) are also possible.
(i) a This is the book [NP which] I have designed [NP the covers
[PP of t]]
b This is the book [PP of which] I have designed [NP the covers t]
c This is the book [NP the covers of which] I have designed t
In some cases, Pied Piping is obligatory, due to the
°Left Branch Condition.
Plane Conflation
°Tier Conflation.
Plosive
PHONOLOGY: a sound that is produced by a complete occlusion in the
vocal tract; the flow of the air is totally interrupted. The consonants
[p,b,t,d,k,gamma] are oral plosives and [m,n,eta] are nasal plosives.
Pluralia tantum
MORPHOLOGY: a traditional term used for words which (a) end in a
plural affix, (b) have a plural meaning, and (c) do not have a singular
counterpart.
EXAMPLE: in Dutch plural nouns can be formed by adding the suffix
-en (hond-honden 'dog(s)'). But some nouns such as
hersenen 'brains', annalen 'annals' and watten 'cotton
wadding' have a plural meaning, end in the plural affix -en, and
have no singular counterpart (*hersen, *annaal, *wat).
LIT.
Scalise (1984).
Polyfunctionality
MORPHOLOGY: the phenomenon that one affix is used with a number of
different meanings or grammatical functions.
EXAMPLE: in Dutch, the suffix -er is used to form (a)
deverbal agent nouns (werker 'worker), (b) deverbal instrument nouns
(wekker 'alarm clock'), (c) geographical personal nouns
(Amsterdammer 'person living in Amsterdam'), (d) denominal
personal nouns (rechter 'judge'), and (e) deadjectival personal
nouns (ouder 'parent').
LIT.
Moortgat & Van der Hulst
(1984).
Polysemy
MORPHOLOGY: the phenomenon that a word acquires new usages which, over
time, are likely to become more like new meanings.
EXAMPLE: the English word mouth refers first of all to the
opening of the buccal cavity, but next to this it refers to the point where a
river joins the sea.
LIT.
Aronoff (1976),
Spencer (1991).
SEMANTICS: the phenomenon that a word has several different meanings
which are closely related to each other. The
°ambiguity of church (either a
building or an institution) is an instance of polysemy.
Polysyllabic
PHONOLOGY: a word is polysyllabic if it can be divided in more than
one syllable.
EXAMPLE: the English name America is polysyllabic and consists
of four syllables: A, me, ri and ca.
Polysynthetic language
MORPHOLOGY: a traditional term for languages or morphological systems
which permit processes such as
°noun incorporation. Hence a
polysynthetic language is a language in which a single word can encode a meaning
which would require a fairly elaborate sentence in many other languages.
LIT.
Spencer (1991).
Portmanteau
MORPHOLOGY: a traditional term used for a type of fusion of two
morphemes into one.
EXAMPLE: one could regard the English word took to be a
portmanteau representation of the verb take and the past tense suffix
-ed.
LIT.
Hocket (1958),
Spencer (1991).
Positive
MORPHOLOGY: a term used for an inflectional form which is peculiar to
adjectives, and which opposes to the
°comparative and
°superlative. If we take the English
°morphs long-longer-longest, the first
one is the positive form, the second the comparative and the third the superlative.
Positive polarity item
°Negative polarity item.
Potential lexicon
MORPHOLOGY: a term used for the unbounded list of potential words,
where 'potential word' is defined as any word form that can be generated by
the word formation rules of a language. Hence, the potential lexicon contains
the actual or attested words plus the potential, but not attested words.
EXAMPLE: in English, the potential lexicon contains actual words such as
approve, approval, recite, recital, derive, and describe, and
the potential words *derival and *describal.
Pragmatic theory
°Meaning theories.
Precedence
SYNTAX: a binary relation between nodes in a
°tree structure, which is defined as
in (i):
(i) Node A precedes node B iff A is to the left of B and A does not
°dominate B and B does not dominate A.
EXAMPLE: in (ii) node B precedes nodes C, D and E, as well as the
(°terminal) nodes d and e. B does not precede
b, since it dominates b. C, D and E do not precede B, since they are to the right
of B. Also, A does not precede any of the other nodes since it dominates all of them.
(ii) A
/ \
/ \
B C
| / \
| D E
| | |
b d e
Node D immediately precedes node E: there is no intervening node between D and E,
i.e. there is no node X such that X is preceded by D and precedes E. Node B
precedes E, but does not immediately precede it, since there is an intervening
node: D, which precedes E and is preceded by B. Node C does not count as an
intervening node between B and E: although it is preceded by B, it doesn't precede
E, since it dominates it. Precedence (or linear order of constituents) has been
believed to play a role in the conditions on coreference. This view has now largely
been abandonned.
Predicate
SEMANTICS: traditionally, an expression which takes a subject to form a
sentence. The predicate ascribes a property to the subject.
EXAMPLE: Socrates is the subject in the sentence Socrates
is mortal and is mortal is the predicate. In
°predicate logic, a predicate designates
a property or a relation. P in P(a) and R in R(b,c) are called predicates. P in
P(a) assigns a property to a and R in R(b,c) designates a relation between b and c.
The expressions a, b and c are called the
°arguments of the predicates P and R.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
SYNTAX: the projection of a lexical category which assigns a
°theta-role to an
°argument.
Predicate constant (letter)
SEMANTICS: a basic expression in
°predicate logic denoting properties
of or relations between individuals. One-place predicate constants combine with
one individual term: P(a), two-place predicates with two individual terms:
R(b,c), etcetera. One-place predicates are interpreted as sets, n-place predicates
with n > 1 as sets of ordered pairs. In 'higher-order' predicate logic and in
°type logic, it is also possible for a
predicate to take another predicate as an argument. Predicates which take other
predicates as their argument are called second-order predicates.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
Predicate logic (calculus)
SEMANTICS: the logical system in which the atomic propositional letters
of propositional logic are analyzed in terms of combinations of predicates and
individual terms. The basic expressions are predicates and individual constants
and variables instead of propositions.
EXAMPLE: sentence (i) would be translated in propositional logic with
a mere p (for proposition).
(i) John walksIn predicate logic, we analyze John as an °individual constant j, representing an entity or individual, and walks as a predicate constant W, representing a property that is attributed to the individual. Translation of (i) into predicate logic would result in the proposition W(j), which is an °atomic formula in predicate logic. The individual variables allow formulas to be quantified (into) by means of the °existential and the °universal quantifier.
Predicate-argument structure
SYNTAX: another term for
°argument structure.
MORPHOLOGY: level of representation, which is part of the lexical
representation of verbs (or adjectives), where the information about the
°theta grid is decoded, and as such
is part of the syntactic structure of verbs.
EXAMPLE: one way to represent the predicate-argument structure (PAS) of
the causative verb break is (i).
(i) break: <Agent, Theme>In (i) break is specified as having an °external (°Agent) argument and an °internal (°Theme) argument.
Predication
SYNTAX: subject-predicate relation. In syntax this relation is
sometimes defined as a coindexing relation between a predicate and a
c-commanding subject, not only in the case of an NP-VP relation, but
also in cases such as (i) where singing is predicated of John.
(i) Johni left singingiThe relation in (i) is sometimes called 'secondary predication', as opposed to NP-VP predication.
Predicative noun phrase
SYNTAX: a noun phrase which is used as a predicate, rather than as a
referring expression.
EXAMPLE: in he is the boss, meaning that he is in charge,
the noun phrase the boss is used predicatively (it denotes a property).
In the sentence the boss will have to deal with that, (meaning that
whoever is (going to be) the boss, he will have to deal with that), the
boss is also taken as a predicative noun phrase.
Predicator
SYNTAX: any argument-taking lexical head.
Prefix
MORPHOLOGY: a °bound morpheme
(or °affix) which attaches at the lefthand side
of a base. The English negative morpheme un- is a prefix: happy:
unhappy, free: unfree etc.
Preposition Incorporation
MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX: a process by which applied verbs are generated in
Baker's (1988) °incorporation theory.
Baker assumes that applied verbs are derived from a
°D-structure representation such as (i).
The preposition FOR is incorporated into V via Preposition Incorporation:
(i) [VP [V..] [PP [P for] [NP..] ] ] (ii) [VP [V [V..] [P for]i ] [PP [P ei] [NP..] ] ]LIT. Baker (1988), Spencer (1991).
Preposition stranding
SYNTAX: a preposition is stranded if it doesn't move along with its
complement.
EXAMPLE: in (i)a the preposition with is stranded.
(i) a Who did you speak with?
b With who did you speak?
The example in (i)b shows the case where the preposition moves along with the
wh-word (°Pied-piping).
Preposition-stranding is restricted: it cannot be applied to all prepositions,
and it is impossible in at least French and Italian.
Primary compound
°Root compound.
Principles and Parameters theory
The conception of grammar introduced in Chomsky (1981), which takes natural
language, i.e. our linguistic competence to be a complex of subsystems of
principles, each with one or more parameters of variation, and grammars of
particular languages to be determined by fixing parameters in these (sub)systems.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986a),
Chomsky & Lasnik (1993).
PRO
SYNTAX: pronoun without phonetic properties which is the subject of
(e.g.) infinitivals.
EXAMPLE: in (i) PRO is the subject of to win.
(i) John tried [ PRO to win]The fact that John is understood to be the one that should be winning is captured (in °Control Theory) by assuming that PRO must be coreferential with John. The distribution of PRO was assumed in Chomsky (1981) to follow from its Binding Theoretic properties. Since PRO is lexically specified as being both +anaphoric and +pronominal, it must obey both condition A and condition B of the °Binding Theory. The resultant contradictory requirements (PRO must be both °bound and °free within its °binding domain) can be met only if PRO has no binding domain by virtue of not having a °governor (the "PRO theorem"). This explains the illformedness of (ii) and (iii), where PRO is governed (by kissed and tensed INFL respectively), as opposed to (i), under the assumption that whether or not the subject position in a clause is governed depends on whether the sentence is tensed.
(ii) * John kissed PRO (iii) * John promised [ that PRO would win ]LIT. Chomsky (1981, 1986a).
Pro
SYNTAX: pronoun without phonetic properties. One of the
°empty categories, specified as
[+pronominal,-anaphoric] by the °binding
theory. Pro can be a subject in
°pro-drop languages, such as Italian.
EXAMPLE: pro in (i)b (which only exists in underlying structure)
is interpreted as the subject.
(i) a Piero conosce bene Maria
Piero knows Maria well
b pro Conosce bene Maria
He knows Maria well
Pro must be licensed. A pro subject is licensed by (morphological)
°agreement features. It is claimed that
pro may occur in object positions in Italian.
Process nominal
°Result nominal.
Procrastinate
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) principle which favors covert syntax over
overt syntax (if there is a choice). The underlying idea is that e.g. LF movement
is 'less costly'.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Pro-drop
SYNTAX: in so-called 'pro-drop' or 'null-subject' languages, such as
Italian, a pronominal subject may be phonetically null in tensed sentences. It
is generally assumed that in such cases, the subject is the element
°pro, and that this pro is licensed by the verbal
inflection (°INFL).
LIT.
Rizzi (1982),
Jaeggli & Safir (1989).
Productivity
MORPHOLOGY: a term which applies to word formation processes. If a
process is fully regular and actively used in the creation of new words, one
regards this process as being productive. Productive word formation is opposed
to unproductive word formation. The English suffix -ness can be attached
to any adjective even if there is a more conventionally acceptable alternative
(sterileness next to sterility). We say that -ness is
a productive suffix. We can contrast this with the suffix -th which
performs the same role, but only for a handful of words (sometimes accompanied
by other idiosyncratic changes): warmth, strength, health. The suffix
-th is unproductive. Linguists differ in the way productivity is treated.
Many linguists (e.g. Aronoff 1976) take the position that linguistic theory must
account for differences in productivity, while others (e.g. DiSciullo & Williams
1987) assume that productivity is a matter of performance, and must be explained
elsewhere.
LIT.
Schultink (1961,
1962),
Aronoff (1976),
Di Sciullo & Williams (1987),
Spencer (1991).
Projection
SYNTAX: notion of °X-bar theory:
any Xn, n > 0, is a projection of X0.
Projection Principle
SYNTAX: principle which says that
(i) representations at each °level of representation are projections
of the features of lexical items, notably their °subcategorization
features, and that
(ii) if F is a lexical feature, it is projected at each syntactic level
of representation (°D-structure, °S-structure, °Logical Form).
The Projection Principle entails that sentence (iii) cannot have the structure in
(iv).
(iii) I believe him to be a fool (iv) I believe [NP him] [S to be a fool]The NP him is the subject of the embedded sentence at the level of D-structure, so it has to be analyzed as its subject at all syntactic levels of representation, even though it has objective case. See also °Extended Projection Principle.
Promotion
MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX: promotion is what happens if an object (or
°internal argument) becomes the
subject (or °external argument) with
all the usual properties of subjects due to some morphological or syntactic
operation.
EXAMPLE: if we form the passive of break (= broken),
the object (or internal argument) is promoted to become the subject:
(i) he broke the vase (ii) the vase was brokenLIT. Williams (1981b), Spencer (1991).
Pronominal
A closed class of nominal lexical items with a characteristic behavior in terms
of their °binding properties, as distinct from
°anaphors and
°R-expressions. In the
°Binding theory of Chomsky (1981),
pronominals are marked as [+pronominal, -anaphoric], and are subject to Binding
°condition B.
EXAMPLE: the expressions he, his, him in (i)-(iii) are
pronominals. With respect to binding theory, condition B states that pronominals
may either be °free (as in (i) and (ii)b), or
°bound (as in (ii)a), but they may not be bound
within a specific type of local domain
(°MGC) which explains the
illformedness of (iii) on the intended reading).
(i) He is up early!
(ii) a Johni likes hisi mother
b Johni likes hisj mother
(iii) *Johni likes himi
Interpretively, pronominals can either deictically refer to some individual that
is somehow salient in the context of utterance (as in (i) and (ii)b), they may be
°coreferential with another referential
expression in the utterance, or they may function as
°bound variables. Coreference obtains
in (iv) (as the pronoun is not bound) and may also obtain in (ii)a; the pronoun
in (v) is interpreted as a variable bound by every boy.
(iv) Because John'si girlfriend is happy, hei is happy, too (v) every boyi believes that hei is a geniusThe bound variable reading of pronominals is conditioned not only by the conditions of Binding theory, but by conditions on °Crossover as well.
Pronoun of laziness
SYNTAX: a pronoun which is only partially co-referential with an
antecedent.
EXAMPLE: if the sentence John gave his hat to me, but Bill gave it
to Sarah is intended to mean that I got John's hat and Sarah Bill's hat, the
pronoun it does not have the same (intended) referent as his hat,
and thus is only 'lazily' co-referential with the full NP. If one takes the
sentence to have a logical form like [John:x [x gave [x's hat] to me ] and [Bill:y
gave [y's hat] to Sarah] with his a bound variable, it can be
taken to be a copy of its antecedent (x's hat), rather than being co-referential
with it. Full implementation of this analysis by means of
°lambda-abstraction is, however,
more involved.
LIT.
Partee (1978),
Haïk (1986).
Proper government
SYNTAX: type of °government. A
category is properly governed if it is governed by a proper governor. Categories
that are usually considered proper governors for a category alpha, are categories
that are coindexed with alpha
(°antecedent government) and
°heads (in some models theta-assigning heads
(theta government), in others lexical heads (head government)). Proper government
is the key notion in the formulation of the °Empty
Category Principle.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986b),
Aoun & Sportiche (1983),
Lasnik & Saito (1984,
1991),
Aoun et al. (1987),
Rizzi (1990).
Properness
SEMANTICS: a semantic property of NPs in
°Generalized Quantifier
Theory. An NP is interpreted in a model M as a proper
°generalized quantifier Q if Q
is neither the empty set nor the power set (i.e. the set of all subsets) of the
domain of entities E. (More formally: Q =/= 0 and Q =/= Pow(E).) An NP is
improper only if it is not proper. If there are no dogs in E, then
all dogs, for instance denotes the power set of E, and hence is an
improper NP. A proper quantifier denotation Q is also called a sieve
because it only lets through those VP denotations that together with Q make a
true sentence.
LIT.
Barwise & Cooper (1981),
Gamut (1991).
Propositional attitude
SEMANTICS: the cognitive or emotional attitude towards a proposition,
which is expressed by a verb or adjective, like know, believe, hope, fear,
etc. Propositional attitude verbs create
°opaque contexts. Indefinite noun
phrases in such a context are ambiguous between a de re and de
dicto reading:
(i) The farmer believes that a witch blighted his donkeyThe farmer either has a de re belief about a specific witch which he holds responsible for blighting his donkey or he has a de dicto belief that some unidentified witch did this.
Propositional formula
SEMANTICS: a well-formed expression of
°propositional logic. What counts
as a propositional formula is defined by the syntax of propositional logic:
(i) a propositional letters in the vocabulary of L are formulas in L
b if psi is a formula of L, Neg psi is too
c if phi and psi are formulas in L, (phi & psi), (phi V psi),
(phi -> psi) and (phi <-> psi) are too
d only that which can be generated by the clauses (a)-(c) in a
finite number of steps is a formula in L.
The clauses (a)-(c) define what counts as a formula; clause (d) states that
nothing else can be a formula of L.
Propositional Island Constraint
°Tensed S condition.
Propositional letters
SEMANTICS: the basic expressions of a propositional language (also
called propositional variables, as opposed to
°logical constants like Neg and &).
Conventionally, a letter from the range {p, q, r} or a p with primes (p',p'',...)
represents a single proposition. The propositional formulas of propositional logic
are built from propositional letters and connectives. Propositional letters should
be distinguished from metavariables such as phi and psi which are used in the
definitions of the logic. See also
°propositional logic.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
Propositional logic (calculus)
SEMANTICS: the logical system which takes sentences and their
combinations as primitives. The
°logical constants of the language
are negation and the connectives &, V, ->, and <->.
°Propositional letters (also
atomic propositions) are combined with these connectives into more complex
°propositional formulas according
to the syntax of propositional logic. The semantics interprets the meaning of the
logical constants in terms of truth-values. Propositional logic characterizes a
particular class of valid arguments, like the one in (i).
(i) If the sun is shining, then John is happy
The sun is shining
Therefore, John is happy
When we translate the natural language statements in (i) into propositional logic
(as in (ii)) we get the schema in (iii).
(ii) p: the sun is shining
q: John is happy
(iii) p -> q
p
------
q
Translation into propositional logic makes it clear that the argument in (i) is
valid because of certain logical constants. The validity of the schema in (iii)
can be demonstrated with a formal syntactic deduction or by means of a truth-table.
Pruning
SYNTAX: eliminating structure.
EXAMPLE: S-pruning as stated in (i) derives the structure in (iii)c from
the structure in (iii)b, both underlying sentence (ii).
(i) S-pruning: delete any embedded node S which does not branch (i.e.
which does not immediately dominate at least two nodes) (Ross 1967:26)
(ii) John wanted to see that movie
(iii) a John wanted [S John [VP to see that movie]]
b John wanted [S [VP to see that movie]]
c John wanted [VP to see that movie]
In (iii)a °Equi NP deletion eliminates
the embedded subject, deriving (iii)b. Now the S no longer branches an must be
deleted, deriving (iii)c. Pruning has also been invoked in the analyses of
°Restructuring in Italian and
°Verb Raising in German and Dutch. In
effect, pruning is similar to °S-bar
deletion (°CP-reduction).
Pseudo-cleft
SYNTAX: in the pseudo-cleft construction, like the
°cleft construction, some part X of a sentence
is °focussed.
EXAMPLE: (ii) is a pseudo-cleft version of (i). The focussed part X
(a herring) is associated with a
°free relative clause in a copula
construction:
(i) John ate a herring (ii) [What John ate e] was a herringLIT. Smits (1989).
Pseudo-compound
MORPHOLOGY: notion used in
Trommelen & Zonneveld
(1989)
to refer to compound-like words where at least one of the constituents is not a
°free morpheme in isolation.
EXAMPLE: the Dutch words antwoord 'answer' and eerbied
'respect' contain the words woord 'word' and eer 'honor',
respectively, while the forms ant and bied are not actual words
of Dutch. Also see °cranberry morph.
Pseudo-passive
MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX: a term which is used for the passive of prepositional
verbs. Prepositional verbs are intransitive verbs followed by a prepositional
phrase which permits °Preposition
Stranding. This means that the passive construction can treat the NP complement
of the preposition as a kind of direct object and
°promote it to subject. Compare the following
examples from English:
(i) Someone has slept in my bed
My bed has been slept in (by someone)
(ii) Someone is pointing at me
I don't like being pointed at
(iii) Many people are sleeping in London
* London is being slept in (by many people)
Psych-movement
SYNTAX: rule which is similar to
°passive, in that it moves the object of a
°psych-verb into subject position, while
the former subject appears in a PP:
(i) a Harry bores me
b I am bored with Harry
LIT.
Postal (1971),
Belleti & Rizzi (1988).
Psych-verb
SYNTAX: verb which designates a psychological state or process, such as
amuse, frighten, etc. Also called Experiencer-verb because the state or
process involves an Experiencer. This Experiencer may be but need not be the
subject.
EXAMPLE: the Experiencer we is the subject in (i), but the
Experiencer us in (ii) is not the subject. See
°Psych-movement.
(i) We feared the storm (ii) The storm frightened usLIT. Postal (1971), Belleti & Rizzi (1988), Grimshaw (1990).