(i) John believes himi [ti to have won]The problem with this analysis is that an empty object position will have to be generated in order to provide a landing site for NP-movement. This is at odds with the °Projection Principle and in conflict with °Theta-theory. As a solution to this problem it has been proposed (e.g. in Chomsky 1991) that Raising-to-object is in fact movement to the specifier position in a °functional AGRP. °Exceptional Case Marking. Soames & Perlmutter suggest that 'Raising to object' is merely a metaphor, and that in fact, the embedded clause in (iii) contains a pro-drop (°pro) subject.
Raising to subject
°Subject Raising.
Reading
SYNTAX: if an expression has two (or more) readings, it has two (or more)
logically distinct interpretations. If two expressions have a reading in common they
share an interpretation.
Readjustment rule
MORPHOLOGY/PHONOLOGY: type of rule proposed by Chomsky & Halle (1968) to
modify the output of the word formation rules or the output of the syntactic rules
before these structures enter the phonological component. First, they change
syntactic structure into phonological structure. Second, they change structures
such as [[sing] PAST] into sung and other type of quasi phonological
operations to adjust the output of the syntactic component.
LIT.
Chomsky & Halle (1968),
Aronoff (1976),
Spencer (1991).
Reanalysis
SYNTAX: notion invoked in the analysis of
°preposition stranding and
°clause union phenomena. In the case of a
°pseudo-passive like (i)a the
stranded preposition at and the verb laughed are sometimes reanalyzed
as the complex verb laughed at as in (i)b.
(i) a Johni was laughed [PP at ti]
b Johni was [V laughed at] ti
Reanalysis eliminates the PP-boundary so that the NP-trace ti in (i)b can be
°properly governed by laughed.
Another kind of reanalysis has been proposed in order to handle operations on
thematic relations. In these cases reanalysis may collapse (or merge) two
°external theta-roles in
°restructuring constructions containing
a modal verb, see (ii), but it may also demote an external theta-role to become
an internal one in °causative constructions,
see (iii), while creating a complex predicate. Both examples are Italian:
(ii) Giorgio vuole sapere per che.
Giorgio wants know why
(iii) Giorgio fa dormire i bambini
Giorgio makes sleep the children
In (ii) Giorgio would fulfill the external theta-roles of vuole
and sapere which are merged to one. In (iii) i bambini fulfills
the external theta-role of dormire, but this role would be turned into
an internal role of the complex fa dormire. Since these kinds of
operations are at odds with the
°theta criterion and the
°Projection Principle,
two-dimensional phrase-structures have been proposed, assigning more than one
representation simultaneously to one sentence, in order to circumvent these
problems. One structure is determined basically by theta-relations corresponding
to a non-reanalyzed D-structure, the other represents the reanalyzed
°clause union structure.
°Co-analysis.
Reciprocal
SYNTAX: element such as each other in (i).
(i) [John and Mary]i can't stand each otheriReciprocals behave as °anaphors with respect to °binding theory, and require a plural antecedent (*that gang hates each other).
Reconstruction
SYNTAX: operation proposed in Chomsky (1977b) in the derivation of
°LF from
°S-structure, which returns material
°pied-piped by
°Wh-movement to the extraction
site so as to derive an
°operator-variable chain headed by the
Wh-operator itself.
EXAMPLE: by reconstruction, the LF (i)b is derived from the SS (i)a:
(i) a which book about Mary does he like t
b which x, does he like [ x book about Mary ]
As a result, interpretation of the LF is relatively straightforward.
Syntactic evidence for reconstruction comes from the behavior of pied-piped material
with respect to binding theory. EXAMPLE: in (ii),
(ii) which book about himself does John like tthe °anaphor himself can apparently be °bound by the NP John, which does not, however, °c-command it at SS. This can be explained if the constituent containing the anaphor is returned to its pre-movement position prior to the operation of binding condition A. Other analyses of such "reconstruction phenomena" can involve an extended notion of c-command, a reordering of the model of grammar (van Riemsdijk & Williams 1981), or a view of movement as copying and deletion (Chomsky 1992).
Recoverability (of deletion)
SYNTAX: condition saying that an element may be deleted only if it is
fully determined by a structurally related phrase, or if it is a 'designated
element'. Part of the recoverability condition is subsumed under the
°ECP. See
°deletion.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981).
Recursion
MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX: process or result of elements recurring in a structure.
Recursion allows structure to become of unbounded length.
EXAMPLE: compounding in English is recursive as is shown by the examples
in (i): the concatenation of nouns can go on forever.
(i) film society
> student film society
> student film society committee
> student film society committee scandal
> student film society committee scandal inquiry > etc.
LIT.
Chomsky (1957),
Spencer (1991).
Redundancy rule
MORPHOLOGY/PHONOLOGY: rule which fills in predictable or redundant
information. Redundancy rules have two important properties: (a) they do not
create structure, and (b) they do not alter structure.
EXAMPLE: the fact that sonorants in English are always voiced, as
opposed to obstruents, can be captured by leaving the feature [voice] unspecified,
and fill in [+voice] by a redundancy rule. The idea behind redundancy rules and
°underspecification is that redundant
information can be left unspecified in the grammar (usually the lexicon), and that
a grammar which contains less (idiosyncratic) information is more highly valued
than a grammar which contains more (every thing else being the same).
LIT.
Halle (1959),
Stanley (1967),
Chomsky & Halle (1968),
Kiparsky (1982),
Archangeli (1984).
Reduplication
MORPHOLOGY/PHONOLOGY: a word formation process by which some part of a base
(= a segment, syllable, morpheme) is repeated, either to the left, or to the right,
or, occasionally, in the middle.
EXAMPLE: Tagalog, a language spoken at the Philippines has many
reduplication rules, resulting in forms like (i) and (ii):
(i) sulat 'writing'
su-sulat 'will write'
(ii) mag-sulat-sulat 'to write intermittently'
LIT.
Marantz (1982),
Broselow & McCarthy (1983),
Clements (1985),
Spencer (1991).
Reference
SEMANTICS: Frege introduced the distinction between sense (German: Sinn)
and reference (German: Bedeutung). The reference of an expression is the entity
or set of entities which that expression denotes. The sense of an expression
relates to properties of the (mental) representation of the expression. For
example, the reference of the president of the USA is George Bush in
December 1992, but Bill Clinton in February 1993. The sense of the phrase, however,
is the same in both cases. Reference and sense are often equated with
°extension and
°intension.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
SYNTAX: °referential NPs are
assumed to be referential due to their reference. This reference is usually
conceived of as a function which associates the NP with some entity or entities
in a mental domain of interpretation. The reference of an NP is indicated by a
referential index (e.g. Johni).
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986a).
Reference time
SEMANTICS: the third time point R in Reichenbach's theory of tense which
is used next to the points S (°speech time)
and E (°event time) to represent the meaning
of tenses. The relevance of R can be seen most clearly in the different
representation of simple past and present perfect:
simple past I saw John ...---R,E -----S--->... present perfect I have seen John ...---E-----S,R--->...Given that the reference point can be interpreted as the time from which an event is 'seen', the difference is that in the simple past the event is seen from some moment in the past, while in the present perfect the event is seen from the present.
Referential index
SYNTAX: formal device used to indicate
°reference.
EXAMPLE: in Johni saw himselfi and Maryi saw Johnj
the subscripts i and j are the referential indices (or indexes).
°Coindexing.
LIT.
Chomsky (1980,
1981),
Lasnik (1989),
Fiengo & May (1994).
Referential noun phrase
SEMANTICS: a noun phrase that refers to an individual (or group of
individuals) as opposed to noun phrases that quantify
(°quantificational noun
phrase) or noun phrases that are used as predicates
(°predicational noun phrase).
EXAMPLE: Typical examples of referential noun phrases are proper names
and definite noun phrases like this book, my car and
John's children.
Referential use
SEMANTICS: the use that a speaker makes of a definite noun phrase when
he uses the content of the noun phrase to identify an individual. The definite
noun phrase in The murderer of Smith is insane is used referentially when
the speaker intends to refer to a particular person which he knows to be the
murderer of Smith. Donnellan (1966) distinguishes the referential use of
definite noun phrases from their °attributive
use.
LIT.
Donnellan (1966).
Referential opacity
MORPHOLOGY: a property of words which entails that it is impossible to
'see inside' them, and refer to their parts by using an anaphoric device such as
a pronoun.
EXAMPLE: there cannot be an anaphoric relation between it and
tea in the compound teapot. Therefore, if the sentence he
took the teapot and poured it into the cup means that he poured the tea into
the cup, the fact that it refers to the tea does not arise through the
anaphoric relation that is possible in he took the tea and poured it into the
cup. Referential opacity is closely related to the property of
°lexical integrity.
Referentiality
SYNTAX: traditionally, an expression is a referential expression if it
has a reference, hence designates an individual in some domain of interpretation.
Recently the notion of a referential expression is equated with that of an argument,
arguments being the terms which are associated with thematic roles such as Agent,
Theme, etc. The set of arguments includes at least proper names (John),
anaphors (himself), and pronouns (he). The notion of
referentiality is involved in the analysis of idioms (the bucket in the
idiom he kicked the bucket is not referential), weather-predicates (
it in it rains is quasi-referential) and expletives such as
it (cf. it seems that he has gone) and there (there
is a man in the garden). Referential expressions are not to be confused with
so-called R-expressions, i.e. NPs which are subject to condition C of the
°binding-theory ('R-expressions must
be free').
Reflexive
SYNTAX: expression such as himself in English, which must be
anaphorically related to an antecedent.
EXAMPLE: herself in (i) is a reflexive with Mary as
its antecedent.
(i) Maryi dresses herselfi wellReflexives behave as °anaphors with respect to the °binding theory.
Relatedness paradox
°Bracketing paradox.
Relative clause
SYNTAX: a clause which is introduced by a
°relative pronoun and which modifies
its NP antecedent:
(i) The Ferrari [which I can't afford e]EXAMPLE: In this example the Ferrari is the antecedent of the relative clause which I can't afford e, and which is the relative pronoun. The relative clause always contains a gap - e - which is the °trace of the relative pronoun. Movement of the relative pronoun is usually treated on a par with °wh-movement. °Relativization, °Restrictive Relative Clause.
Relative pronoun
SYNTAX: pronoun such as who, which, where etc. introducing a
°relative clause.
Relativization
SYNTAX: process by which a relative clause (e.g. the man
[who you see e]) is derived from an underlying non-relative clause
(the man [you see the man]). The derivation includes
NP-deletion under identity (the man), insertion of a relative pronoun
(who), and wh-movement. This analysis has been replaced by
one in which relative pronouns are base-generated.
LIT.
Chomsky (1965),
Smits (1989).
Relativized head
MORPHOLOGY: a notion proposed in DiSciullo & Williams (1987) which
replaces
Williams' (1981a)
notion of °head. They define the notion
'relativized head' as in (i).
(i) The headF (= head with respect to the feature F) of a word is the
rightmost element of the word marked for the feature F
The difference between the notions 'head' and 'relativized head' is far from
trivial. The notion 'head' is an absolute notion, in the sense that one constituent
of a complex word is marked as the head, and features marked on this constituent
undergo °Feature Percolation. The
notion 'relativized head' entails that a constituent can be the head with respect
to one particular feature, but a non-head with respect to another.
EXAMPLE: if the rightmost constituent has the feature [+F] and [uG]
(where [uG] means 'not marked for feature G'), and its lefthand sister constituent
has the feature [+G], the righthand constituent is the relativized head with
respect to the feature [F], whereas the lefthand constituent is the relativized
head with respect to the feature [G]. As a consequence the Feature Percolation
Conventions percolate up the feature [+F] from the righthand constituent and [+G]
from the lefthand one.
Relativized Righthand Head Rule
°Relativized head and
°Righthand Head Rule.
Remnant Extraposition
°Third Construction.
Remnant Topicalization
SYNTAX: topicalization of the remnant of a VP.
EXAMPLE: in (i) the object diese Bücher has been taken
out of the VP, and the remnant gelesen has been topicalized.
(i) [VP gelesen] hat er diese Bücher nicht.Supposedly, the object is extracted from the VP by °scrambling.
Residue
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) the residue of A is the
°domain of A minus the
°complement domain.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Restricted quantifier
SEMANTICS: a quantifier which ranges over a subset of the
°universe of discourse selected
by means of a predicate. Restricted quantification is sometimes represented as in
(i), with the restricted quantifier between brackets and the predicate P indicating
the subset:
(i) [ All(x) : P(x) ] Q(x)
[ ThereIs(x) : P(x) ] Q(x)
It can also be represented in standard predicate logic by means of connectives:
(ii) All(x) [ P(x) -> Q(x) ]
ThereIs(x) [ P(x) & Q(x) ]
In (ii) quantification is restricted to P: all or some entities that are P have
property Q. In natural language, quantifiers are always restricted; either by the
common noun following the quantifying determiner (every man, some woman)
or by an inherent meaning element (everyone, something).
Restrictive relative clause
Relative clause which is used to restrict the class of entities that can be
denoted by a noun phrase.
EXAMPLE: in the books that John read, the restrictive relative
clause that John read restricts the set of books to those that are read
by John. Non-restrictive relative clauses add further qualifications to the
reference of the noun phrase but do not narrow down (nor expand) its extension.
Thus in this book, which John gave to me, the non-restrictive relative
clause does not restrict the set of books. The difference between a restrictive
and a non-restrictive interpretation is often only expressed intonationally.
Restructuring
SYNTAX: process which unites two clauses yielding one clause.
EXAMPLE: The following examples are from Italian. (ii) is the result of
Restructuring:
(i) [Si vuole [PRO vendere queste case a caro prezzo]]
one wants sell these houses at a high price
(ii) Queste casei si vogliono vendere ei a caro prezzo
In (i) it would be impossible to move the object queste case from the
embedded clause into the matrix subject position, but, after Restructuring, this
is exactly what happens in (ii). In general, Restructuring is assumed in order
to explain °clause union phenomena in
Romance languages, such as °Clitic
Climbing and long movement as illustrated in (ii). No satisfactory
formalization of Restructuring as a rule is available. A
°verb raising type of analysis, which
would create a verb cluster, must be rejected, because non-verbal material,
such as adverbs and complementizers, can intervene between the two verbs:
(iii) Loi verró subito a vedere ei
(I) it-will come at-once to see
I will come at once to see it
The Barriers framework, with some extensions, allows an analysis in which
°L-marking basically cancels the barrierhood
of the complement clause, which otherwise would block clitic climbing. Clitic
climbing then reduces to repeated application of
°head movement. An intervening
complementizer - a in (iii) - remains a potential problem.
Result nominal
A result nominal is a nominal which denotes the result of the action denoted
by the verb it is derived from.
EXAMPLE: in (i)a the collection refers to an entity which is
the result of collecting things.
(i) a the collection was sold
b the collection of these particles has only begun
Result nominals are distinguished from process nominals which designate an event
rather than an entity. In (i)b, the collection of these particles is a
process nominal.
Resultative (construction)
SYNTAX: verbs which denote an activity may be combined with a predicate
to render a so-called resultative interpretation:
(i) He smashed [the vase to pieces] (ii) They talked [him out of it] (iii) She washed [the dirt off her face] (iv) The gardener watered [the flowers flat]The brackets in (i)-(iv) reflect the °small clause analysis of resultative constructions. This analysis has not remained unchallenged.
Resumptive pronoun (strategy)
SYNTAX: pronoun which appears in the position of the
°variable bound by a wh-phrase.
EXAMPLE: in (i) him is a resumptive pronoun bound by who
and interpreted as a °bound variable.
(i) I wonder [whoi they think [that [if Mary marries himi] then
everybody will be happy]]
The appearance of resumptive pronouns is marginal in standard English, but quite
acceptable in French and colloquial English. Theoretically, the construction is
exceptional as well. Since the if-clause creates an
°Adjunct Island, extraction of
who out of the object position of marries is ungrammatical,
as shown in (ii):
(ii) * I wonder [whoi they think [that [if Mary marries ei] then
everybody will be happy]]
The resulting °chain presumably violates
°subjacency. In (i), on the other hand,
who has not been moved. But being an operator, it must bind a variable,
in this case the resumptive pronoun him.
Retroflex
PHONOLOGY: retroflex sounds are produced by curling back the tongue
tip past the °alveolar ridge.
EXAMPLE: Northern-American [r] in bird.
Re-write rules
°Phrase structure rules.
R-expression
SYNTAX: element whose reference cannot usually be determined (but see
°anaphoric epithet) anaphorically in
the sense of the °binding theory and as
such is distinguished from °anaphors and
°pronominals. R-expressions are also
distinguished from °quantificational
and °predicational NPs in that they
must be in an °A-position in
°LF. With respect to
°A-binding, variables - either
wh-traces or traces of °QR - count as
R-expressions. R-expressions are not to be confused with
°referential expressions. With
respect to °binding theory,
R-expressions obey condition C, which says that they must be
°A-free. This explains the illformedness
of (ii) and (iii) (°Strong Crossover).
(ii) * hei thinks that Johni is a fool (iii) * whoi does hei like ti
Right downward monotonicity
SEMANTICS: a particular semantic property of some NPs, interpreted as
°generalized quantifiers Q.
Q has the property of being right downward monotone if and only if in a domain
of entities E condition (i) holds.
(i) for all X,Y subset E: if X in Q, and Y subset X, then Y in QRight downward monotonicity can be tested as in (ii): not every N is right downward monotone, every N is not.
(ii) Not every dog walks => not every dog walks rapidly
Every dog walks =/=> every dog walks rapidly
So, a true sentence of the form [S NP VP] with a right downward monotone NP
entails the truth of [S NP VP'], where the interpretation of VP' is a subset
of the interpretation of VP. Right downward monotonicity can also be defined
for determiners.
Right monotonicity
°Right downward monotonicity,
°Right upward monotonicity.
Right Node Raising
SYNTAX: operation of reduction on coordinated clauses whose rightmost
constituents are identical.
EXAMPLE: Right Node Raising derives the structure in (i)b from the
underlying structure in (i)a by adjoining one copy of the identical constituents
(the book) to the right of the sentence, and deleting the identical
originals (indicated by e).
(i) a [[John saw the book] and [Bill bought the book]]
b [[John saw ei] and [Bill bought ei]] the booki
LIT.
Postal (1974).
Right Roof Constraint
SYNTAX: condition on °rightward
movement first formulated by Ross (1967:185):
(i) In all rules whose structural index is of the form ... A Y, and
whose structural change specifies that A is to be adjoined to the
right of Y, A must command Y.
This condition captures the fact that rightward movement is upward bounded, as the following contrast (adapted from Ross 1967:166) shows. The PP cannot leave its clause:
(ii) [That [a review ti] came out yesterday [of this article]i]
is catastrophic
(iii) *[That [a review ti] came out yesterday] is catastrophic
[of this article]i
The notion of 'command' in (i) is not as strict as
°c-command: it goes up to the first S. The
name - Right Roof Constraint - is due to Soames & Perlmutter (1979).
Right upward monotonicity
SEMANTICS: an NP, interpreted as a
°quantifier Q, has the property of being
right upward monotone if and only if for all subsets X and Y of the domain of
entities E condition (i) holds.
(i) if X in Q and X subset Y, then Y in QRight upward monotonicity can be tested as in (ii): all N is right upward monotone, at most two N is not.
(ii) All dogs walked rapidly => all dogs walked (iv) At most two dogs walked rapidly =/=> at most two dogs walkedSo a true sentence of the form [S NP VP] with a right upward monotone NP entails the truth of [S NP VP'], where the interpretation of VP' is a °superset of the interpretation of VP. Right upward monotonicity can also be defined for determiners.
Righthand Head Rule (RHR)
MORPHOLOGY: a principle proposed in Williams (1981a) which says that
the righthand member of a morphologically complex word is the
°head of that word. This entails that the
rightmost constituent determines all the properties of the whole. The RHR
explains, among other things, the fact that the righthand member of compounds
as well as the suffix of derived words determine uniquely the lexical category.
EXAMPLE: Compare the following examples:
(i) offP + whiteA -> off whiteA
dryA + dockN -> dry dockN
barN + tendV -> bar tendV
(ii) feverN + ishA -> feverishA
instructV +ionN -> destructionN
standardN + izeV -> standardizeV
LIT.
Williams (1981a),
Selkirk (1982),
Di Sciullo & Williams (1987).
Rightward movement
°Extraposition,
°Heavy-NP shift.
Rigid designator
SEMANTICS: an expression that refers to the same entity in every
possible world. According to Kripke (1972), this is the case with proper
names, i.e. names of individuals. The definite description the president
of the US may refer to different persons in different worlds, but the
denotation of the proper name Richard Nixon is the same person in
every possible world. Kripke accounts for the relation between a name and its
bearer by a causal theory of reference: the first use of a name for an individual
determines its designation independent of its meaning properties (initial
baptism). Kripke (1972) made the claim that natural kind terms (i.e. names
of biological sorts, natural or mineral substances) are also rigid designators.
LIT.
Kripke (1972),
Gamut (1991).
Root
MORPHOLOGY: a term which is not uniquely defined. Some linguists consider
the root to be the basic free morpheme in a derived form.
EXAMPLE: if we take the form disagreement, this word contains
the basic free morpheme agree and the two bound morphemes (or affixes)
dis- and -ment. Some linguists
(e.g. Spencer (1991)) call
agree the root. Others
(e.g. Halle (1973)) assume that
agree is the stem, and reserve the notion 'root' for bounded morphemes
which cannot be considered as affixes. For example, if we take the words
receive, conceive and deceive, we can isolate the prefixes
re-, con- and de- and the bound morpheme ceive.
Only Halle (1973) calls ceive the root.
Root clause
SYNTAX: main clause which is not embedded. In
°Verb Second languages root clauses
differ from embedded clauses in that the finite verb is in second position.
LIT.
Emonds (1976),
Den Besten (1989).
Root compound
MORPHOLOGY: compound whose head is not deverbal or whose non-head does
not have the function of argument of the verb from which the head is derived.
EXAMPLE: English compounds such as housewife, blackbird, overcoat,
rattlesnake, well-formed, off-white, overlook, and so on do not have a
deverbal head, and therefore can be called root compounds. A compound such as
truck driver on the other hand has a deverbal head and the non-head is
an argument of the embedded verb drive. The distinction between root
compounds and synthetic compounds has played a major role in theoretical
discussions since the late seventies. Another term for root compound is
primary compound. °Synthetic compound.
LIT.
Roeper & Siegel (1978),
Selkirk (1982),
Lieber (1983),
Fabb (1984),
Sproat (1985),
Roeper (1987,
1988),
Spencer (1991).
Root-and-pattern morphology
°Nonconcatenative morphology.
Round
PHONOLOGY: a °feature which
characterizes sounds that are produced by rounding the lips.
EXAMPLE: In English, [o] is [+round] and [i] is [-round].
Rule feature
MORPHOLOGY: a type of diacritic feature which triggers (or blocks) the
application of a phonological rule. This feature is usually assumed to account
for irregular word formation.
EXAMPLE: Alternations such as foot:feet, goose:geese
and tooth:teeth can be accounted for by assuming that the words foot,
goose and tooth, have a rule feature [+U] which triggers the
phonological umlaut rule.
LIT.
Chomsky & Halle (1968),
Zonneveld (1978),
Kenstowics & Kisseberth
(1979).
Rule of referral
°Syncretism.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981,
1986a).