A note on movement in logical grammar

In this article, we make some brief remarks on overt and covert movement in logical grammar. With respect to covert movement (e.g. quantification), we observe how a treatment in terms of displacement calculus interacts with normal modalities for intensionality to allow a coding in logical grammar of the distinction between weak and strong quantifiers (i.e. those that may or may not scope nonlocally such as a and every respectively). With respect to overt movement (e.g. relativisation), we observe how displacement calculus can support a coding of a linear filler-gap dependency similar to that employed in lambda grammars, but we argue that this general approach does not extend to either the multiplicity nor the island-sensitivity of parasitic gaps, for which we advocate instead treatment in terms of a bracket-conditioned contraction subexponential.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Clausal tripartition, anti-locality and preliminary considerations of a formal approach to clause types

We will see how it is reasonable to speak of a minimum distance that an element must cross in order to enter into a well-formed movement dependency. In the course of the discussion of this notion of anti-localiry, a theoretical framework unfolds which is compatible with recent thoughts on syntactic computation regarding local economy and phrase structure, as well as the view that certain pronouns are grammatical formatives, rather than fully lexical expressions. The upshot will be that if an element does not move a certain distance, the derivation crashes at PF, unless the lower copy is spelled out as a pronominal element. The framework presented has a number of implications for the study of clause-typing, of which some will be discussed towards the end

The syntax of orientation shifting: Evidence from English high adverbs

This paper reviews new data supporting the inclusion of a Speech Act Phrase in the left periphery. Illocutionary and evidential adverbs in English shift orientation from speakers in declarative sentences to addressees in yes-no interrogative sentences. This orientation shift falls out of independently motivated principles: the adverbs contain a logophorically-sensitive PRO subject which is controlled by a syntactic representation of the discourse participants contained in a Speech Act Phrase high in the CP layer. It will be suggested that clause type modulates which discourse participants are available; only speakers are available in declaratives whereas addressees are also available in interrogatives

Logically speaking

In this paper I claim that, if Minimalist Premises about derivations are accepted, Logical Form as an interface level where syntactic (albeit covert) operations are performed should not be part of the model. I propose on analysis of Quantifier Raising and covert Whmovement phenomena that relies solely on features of the functional category Quantifier and on overt operations of Merging and Checking. The notions of c-command and scope are rejected as explanations for the ambiguities of sentences containing quantifiers. Consequently, covert movement of Quantifier phrases in not only unnecessary, but logically untenable

P-model Alternative to the T-model

Standard linguistic analysis of syntax uses the T-model. This model requires the ordering: D-structure $>$ S-structure $>$ LF, where D-structure is the deep structure, S-structure is the surface structure, and LF is logical form. Between each of these representations there is movement which alters the order of the constituent words; movement is achieved using the principles and parameters of syntactic theory. Psychological analysis of sentence production is usually either serial or connectionist. Psychological serial models do not accommodate the T-model immediately so that here a new model called the P-model is introduced. The P-model is different from previous linguistic and psychological models. Here it is argued that the LF representation should be replaced by a variant of Frege's three qualities (sense, reference, and force), called the Frege representation or F-representation. In the F-representation the order of elements is not necessarily the same as that in LF and it is suggested that the correct ordering is: F-representation $>$ D-structure $>$ S-structure. This ordering appears to lead to a more natural view of sentence production and processing. Within this framework movement originates as the outcome of emphasis applied to the sentence. The requirement that the F-representation precedes the D-structure needs a picture of the particular principles and parameters which pertain to movement of words between representations. In general this would imply that there is a preferred or optimal ordering of the symbolic string in the F-representation. The standard ordering is retained because the general way of producing such an optimal ordering is unclear. In this case it is possible to produce an analysis of movement between LF and D-structure similar to the usual analysis of movement between S-structure and LF. It is suggested that a maximal amount of information about a language's grammar and lexicon is stored, because of the necessity of analyzing corrupted data