Gaps and Dummies
āĻŽā§â ā§¨ā§Ļā§§ā§§ ¡ Linguistic Models āĻāĻŋāĻ¤āĻžāĻĒ 9 ¡ Walter de Gruyter
ā§Š.ā§Ļstar
ā§§ āĻāĻž āĻĒā§°ā§āĻ¯āĻžāĻ˛ā§āĻāĻ¨āĻžreport
āĻāĻŦā§āĻ
338
āĻĒā§āĻˇā§āĻ āĻž
reportāĻŽā§āĻ˛ā§āĻ¯āĻžāĻāĻāĻ¨ āĻā§°ā§ āĻĒā§°ā§āĻ¯āĻžāĻ˛ā§āĻāĻ¨āĻž āĻ¸āĻ¤ā§āĻ¯āĻžāĻĒāĻ¨ āĻā§°āĻž āĻšā§ā§ąāĻž āĻ¨āĻžāĻ  āĻ
āĻ§āĻŋāĻ āĻāĻžāĻ¨āĻ
āĻāĻ āĻāĻŦā§āĻāĻāĻ¨ā§° āĻŦāĻŋāĻˇā§ā§
In this study the syntactic properties of empty categories and dummy pronouns are investigated within the framework of Government-Binding theory.
The assumption that clauses must have a subject is present in most, if not all, linguistic theories. In GB theory the requirement that clauses have a subject is stipulated as a consequence of the base rules or the Extended Projection Principle. In this book it is claimed that no such stipulation is necessary. The presence of a subject is exclusively determined by the theories of thematic roles and Case.
This view is supported by the fact that the alleged dummy subjects Dutch, i.e. er and het, show a variety of properties, which can only be explained if they are not analyzed as dummy subjects. Further confirmation is derived from the fact that Dutch, subjectless sentences are found in precisely those circumstances in which neither -theory nor Case theory requires a subject to be present.
Chapter 1 presents a theory of empty categories. This theory enables us to explain the distribution of gaps, and makes precise and correct predictions with respect to the occurrence of parasitic gaps.
The non-dummy status of het, discussed in chapter 2, is supported by the fact that it can be the antecedent of PRO, reflexives, and parasitic gaps, and by an asymmetry in wh-movement from sentential complements. The analysis of het leads to a discussion of a variety of constructions, including constructions with raising, ergative, and psychological verbs.
The adverbial pronoun er displays several distinct syntactic functions. In chapter 3 it is argued that none of these different functions justifies an analysis of er as a dummy subject.
In chapter 4 some of the consequences of the theory introduced in the preceding chapters are investigated. These include a discussion of the status of the subject position in languages such as English, Italian, French, and Spanish, the structure of Old English, and the status of dummy pronouns in German and English.
The assumption that clauses must have a subject is present in most, if not all, linguistic theories. In GB theory the requirement that clauses have a subject is stipulated as a consequence of the base rules or the Extended Projection Principle. In this book it is claimed that no such stipulation is necessary. The presence of a subject is exclusively determined by the theories of thematic roles and Case.
This view is supported by the fact that the alleged dummy subjects Dutch, i.e. er and het, show a variety of properties, which can only be explained if they are not analyzed as dummy subjects. Further confirmation is derived from the fact that Dutch, subjectless sentences are found in precisely those circumstances in which neither -theory nor Case theory requires a subject to be present.
Chapter 1 presents a theory of empty categories. This theory enables us to explain the distribution of gaps, and makes precise and correct predictions with respect to the occurrence of parasitic gaps.
The non-dummy status of het, discussed in chapter 2, is supported by the fact that it can be the antecedent of PRO, reflexives, and parasitic gaps, and by an asymmetry in wh-movement from sentential complements. The analysis of het leads to a discussion of a variety of constructions, including constructions with raising, ergative, and psychological verbs.
The adverbial pronoun er displays several distinct syntactic functions. In chapter 3 it is argued that none of these different functions justifies an analysis of er as a dummy subject.
In chapter 4 some of the consequences of the theory introduced in the preceding chapters are investigated. These include a discussion of the status of the subject position in languages such as English, Italian, French, and Spanish, the structure of Old English, and the status of dummy pronouns in German and English.
āĻŽā§āĻ˛ā§āĻ¯āĻžāĻāĻāĻ¨ āĻā§°ā§ āĻĒā§°ā§āĻ¯āĻžāĻ˛ā§āĻāĻ¨āĻžāĻ¸āĻŽā§āĻš
ā§Š.ā§Ļ
ā§§ āĻāĻž āĻĒā§°ā§āĻ¯āĻžāĻ˛ā§āĻāĻ¨āĻž
āĻāĻ āĻāĻŦā§āĻāĻāĻ¨āĻ āĻŽā§āĻ˛ā§āĻ¯āĻžāĻāĻāĻ¨ āĻā§°āĻ
āĻāĻŽāĻžāĻ āĻāĻĒā§āĻ¨āĻžā§° āĻŽāĻ¤āĻžāĻŽāĻ¤ āĻāĻ¨āĻžāĻāĻāĨ¤
āĻĒāĻĸāĻŧāĻžā§° āĻ¨āĻŋāĻ°ā§āĻĻā§āĻļāĻžā§ąāĻ˛ā§
āĻ¸ā§āĻŽāĻžā§°ā§āĻāĻĢâāĻ¨ āĻā§°ā§ āĻā§āĻŦāĻ˛ā§āĻ
Android āĻā§°ā§ iPad/iPhoneā§° āĻŦāĻžāĻŦā§ Google Play Books āĻāĻĒāĻā§ āĻāĻ¨āĻˇā§āĻāĻ˛ āĻā§°āĻāĨ¤ āĻ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦāĻ¯āĻŧāĻāĻā§āĻ°āĻŋāĻ¯āĻŧāĻāĻžā§ąā§ āĻāĻĒā§āĻ¨āĻžā§° āĻāĻāĻžāĻāĻŖā§āĻā§° āĻ¸ā§āĻ¤ā§ āĻāĻŋāĻāĻ āĻšāĻ¯āĻŧ āĻā§°ā§ āĻāĻĒā§āĻ¨āĻŋ āĻ¯'āĻ¤ā§ āĻ¨āĻžāĻĨāĻžāĻāĻ āĻ¤'āĻ¤ā§āĻ āĻā§āĻ¨ā§ āĻ
āĻĄāĻŋāĻ
'āĻŦā§āĻ āĻ
āĻ¨āĻ˛āĻžāĻāĻ¨ āĻŦāĻž āĻ
āĻĢāĻ˛āĻžāĻāĻ¨āĻ¤ āĻļā§āĻ¨āĻŋāĻŦāĻ˛ā§ āĻ¸ā§āĻŦāĻŋāĻ§āĻž āĻĻāĻŋāĻ¯āĻŧā§āĨ¤
āĻ˛ā§āĻĒāĻāĻĒ āĻā§°ā§ āĻāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻŋāĻāĻāĻžā§°
āĻāĻĒā§āĻ¨āĻŋ āĻāĻŽā§āĻĒāĻŋāĻāĻāĻžā§°ā§° ā§ąā§āĻŦ āĻŦā§āĻ°āĻžāĻāĻāĻžā§° āĻŦā§āĻ¯ā§ąāĻšāĻžā§° āĻā§°āĻŋ Google PlayāĻ¤ āĻāĻŋāĻ¨āĻž āĻ
āĻĄāĻŋāĻ
'āĻŦā§āĻāĻ¸āĻŽā§āĻš āĻļā§āĻ¨āĻŋāĻŦ āĻĒāĻžā§°ā§āĨ¤
āĻ-ā§°ā§āĻĄāĻžā§° āĻā§°ā§ āĻ
āĻ¨ā§āĻ¯ āĻĄāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻāĻ
Kobo eReadersā§° āĻĻā§°ā§ āĻ-āĻāĻŋā§āĻžāĻāĻšā§ā§° āĻĄāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻāĻāĻ¸āĻŽā§āĻšāĻ¤ āĻĒā§āĻŋāĻŦāĻ˛ā§, āĻāĻĒā§āĻ¨āĻŋ āĻāĻāĻž āĻĢāĻžāĻāĻ˛ āĻĄāĻžāĻāĻ¨āĻ˛âāĻĄ āĻā§°āĻŋ āĻ¸ā§āĻāĻā§ āĻāĻĒā§āĻ¨āĻžā§° āĻĄāĻŋāĻāĻžāĻāĻāĻ˛ā§ āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāĻ¨āĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻ¤ā§°āĻŖ āĻā§°āĻŋāĻŦ āĻ˛āĻžāĻāĻŋāĻŦāĨ¤ āĻ¸āĻŽā§°ā§āĻĨāĻŋāĻ¤ āĻ-ā§°āĻŋāĻĄāĻžā§°āĻ˛ā§ āĻĢāĻžāĻāĻ˛āĻā§ āĻā§āĻ¨ā§āĻā§ āĻ¸ā§āĻĨāĻžāĻ¨āĻžāĻ¨ā§āĻ¤ā§° āĻā§°āĻŋāĻŦ āĻāĻžāĻ¨āĻŋāĻŦāĻ˛ā§ āĻ¸āĻšāĻžāĻ¯āĻŧ āĻā§āĻ¨ā§āĻĻā§ā§°āĻ¤ āĻĨāĻāĻž āĻ¸āĻŦāĻŋāĻļā§āĻˇ āĻ¨āĻŋā§°ā§āĻĻā§āĻļāĻžā§ąāĻ˛ā§ āĻāĻžāĻāĻāĨ¤
