LINGUIST List 13.1893

Wed Jul 10 2002

Qs: CP/DP Parallelism, Parallelism/Morphology

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <>

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate. In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.


  1. Joost Kremers, CP/DP parallellism
  2. Cristina Ximenes, parallelism in morphology

Message 1: CP/DP parallellism

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 22:20:22 +0200
From: Joost Kremers <>
Subject: CP/DP parallellism

Dear colleagues,

In the (generative) literature on noun phrases, there exists the idea
that the functional categories of the noun phrase are direct
equivalents of the functional categories in the clause. E.g. according
to Abney (1987), K (for Case) is the equivalent of C, and D is the
equivalent of Infl. Others, such as Szabolcsi (1987, 1994) argue that
D is the equivalent of C, and Poss (or some such head) is seen as the
equivalent of Infl or T. From what I understand, a similar
parallellism is seen between Num and Asp.

The past few days I have been trying to find more literature
discussing these parallellisms, but I have not been very
successful. So I am turning to this List. If you should know of papers
or articles discussing some of these parallellisms, even if it is just
in a single section, I would be very grateful if you would let me know
about them.

Thanks in advance.


Joost Kremers

Joost Kremers
University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Department of Arabic and Islam

Erasmusplein 1
PO Box 9103
6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: parallelism in morphology

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:21:37 +0000
From: Cristina Ximenes <>
Subject: parallelism in morphology

 The contrast between (i) and (ii) (from Postal and Pullum 1982)
suggests that the Parallelism Requirement may also impose restrictions
on morphological operations: if contraction happens in the first
conjunct, it must also occur in the second conjunct. Does anyone know
of other cases of morphological parallelism like this one?

(i)	I want to dance and to sing.
(ii)	*I wanna dance and to sing.


Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue