|Full Title:||Workshop: Lexical Categories United|
|Start Date:||22-Jul-2013 - 27-Jul-2013|
|Meeting Email:||click here to access email|
|Meeting Description:||Many people have proposed that the functional make-up of nominals and clauses (as extended projections of a lexical verb (Grimshaw 1990, 1991/2005)) is to some extent similar. One of the first explicit proposals along these lines was Szabolcsi’s (1983) work on Hungarian noun phrases, where she likens the possessor inside a noun phrase to the sentential subject. Abney (1987) follows her lead and pushes the parallelism between clauses and noun phrases even further by postulating a similar functional structure for both. Subsequently, more evidence was brought forward supporting such a parallel approach, from a typologically diverse range of languages (Alexiadou&Stavrou 1998; Cardinaletti&Starke 1999; Bernstein 2001; Aboh 2004; Koopman 2005; Rijkhoff 2008, among others).
Nominals and clauses are not the only categories that have been compared structurally. Van Riemsdijk (1978), Starke (1995), Koopman (2000) and den Dikken (2003, 2010) postulate a functional layer on top of adpositions, parallel to that postulated for clauses. Stowell (1983) generalizes the subject position across all lexical categories, and Starke (1995) postulates that even small clauses actually are projected to the CP layer. Moreover, Leu (2011) proposes that there is movement in extended projections of nouns and adjectives comparable to V-to-T-to-C movement.
Questions we would like to see addressed include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Given that there is variation in clause types, is there similar variation in nominal, adjectival, adverbial and prepositional domains?
2. Some questions arise regarding the privileged status of clauses (verbal extended projections). For instance, why can only clauses be used on their own? And is there an equivalent to V2 or V-final in subordinate clauses in other categories?
3. Can the cross-categorial parallels be extended to (sub-)morphemic structure (Caha 2009; Starke 2011)?
4. Can all types of nominals be analysed as parallel to clauses? How can we explain differences between deverbal nominals and ordinary nominals, e.g., in the availability of adverbials (*[Kim’s version of the event thoroughly] was a big help vs. ?[Kim’s explanation of the event thoroughly] was a big help. (Fu, Roeper and Borer 2001))?
5. Voice alternation is possible in the verbal and nominal extended projections (Chomsky 1970). Can similar phenomena be observed in other domains?
6. If the tripartite CP>IP>XP hierarchy is plausible enough for VP/NP, (how) does it extend to PP (Starke 1993; Koopman 2000; Den Dikken 2010) and to AP (Corver 1997)?
7. Can features or functional heads be identified across categories? For instance, is the category ‘finiteness’ in the extended projection of V to be related in any way to ‘definiteness’ in the projection of N?
Jane Grimshaw (Rutgers University)
| This is a session of the following meeting:
19th International Congress of Linguists
|Calls and Conferences main page|