Detail of contribution
Auteur: Guglielmo CINQUE
Co-Auteur(s): Iliyana Krapova
Titre:
DP and CP: a Relativized Minimality approach to one of their non parallelism(s)
Abstract/Résumé: DP and CP: a Relativized Minimality approach to one of their non parallelism(s) Guglielmo CINQUE and Iliyana KRAPOVA University of Venice DPs and CPs have often been claimed to be largely parallel in their internal constituency and general syntactic behavior (both have arguments, adjuncts and modifiers; both allow the internal application of A-movement; etc.). Nonetheless they also reveal profound differences (the classes of their functional heads and modifiers are substantially different; DPs, if Kayne 2008 is right, as opposed to CPs, only appear to have arguments; etc). In our talk, we shall concentrate on another crucial difference between DPs and CPs: one concerning extraction. In many languages extraction from (complement) DPs is severely constrained, as opposed to extraction from (complement) CPs (as we show on the basis of Italian and Bulgarian, in particular). We will try to derive this difference from Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990, 2004) in interaction with a property which DPs have but CPs do not, namely the undifferentiated/non-specialized nature of their left peripheral edge specifier (with the consequence that only the highest DP/PP constituent will be extractable). References Kayne,R. 2008 "Antisymmetry and the Lexicon", Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 8, 1-31 Rizzi,L. 1990 Relativized Minimality. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. Rizzi,L. 2004 “Locality and Left Periphery”, in A.Belletti, ed., Structures and Beyond. 223-251. New York: Oxford University Press.
Co-Auteur(s): Iliyana Krapova
Titre:
DP and CP: a Relativized Minimality approach to one of their non parallelism(s)
Abstract/Résumé: DP and CP: a Relativized Minimality approach to one of their non parallelism(s) Guglielmo CINQUE and Iliyana KRAPOVA University of Venice DPs and CPs have often been claimed to be largely parallel in their internal constituency and general syntactic behavior (both have arguments, adjuncts and modifiers; both allow the internal application of A-movement; etc.). Nonetheless they also reveal profound differences (the classes of their functional heads and modifiers are substantially different; DPs, if Kayne 2008 is right, as opposed to CPs, only appear to have arguments; etc). In our talk, we shall concentrate on another crucial difference between DPs and CPs: one concerning extraction. In many languages extraction from (complement) DPs is severely constrained, as opposed to extraction from (complement) CPs (as we show on the basis of Italian and Bulgarian, in particular). We will try to derive this difference from Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990, 2004) in interaction with a property which DPs have but CPs do not, namely the undifferentiated/non-specialized nature of their left peripheral edge specifier (with the consequence that only the highest DP/PP constituent will be extractable). References Kayne,R. 2008 "Antisymmetry and the Lexicon", Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 8, 1-31 Rizzi,L. 1990 Relativized Minimality. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. Rizzi,L. 2004 “Locality and Left Periphery”, in A.Belletti, ed., Structures and Beyond. 223-251. New York: Oxford University Press.