Search

ing away from idiosyncratic properties which govern the choice of particular A, V, or N, it is clear that 13a-f exhaust the well-formed structures permissible under Case Theory. Then 13a-c are the structures in 12; in each instance, the complement subject is assigned Case by the lexical complementizerfor. Structures 13d-f are illustrated by these examples: (14) a. It is illegal/silly [s e to leave the country]. b. John promised/seemed/tried [s e to leave the country]. c. the desire/intention [S e to leave the country] In each instance, there is a sentential complement with a null complementizer. Since for is absent, no Case can be assigned to the complement subject. But then it follows that a null category is possible in these positions, since only lexical NP's must have Case; no such stricture holds for non-lexical NP's. 7 Apparently languages may differ as to which lexical categories are Case assigners; cf. Riemsdijk 1981, in which Case assignment by adjectives in German is discussed. 8 We take S to be the maximal projection of S, and ultimately of INFL (as distinct from VP, the maximal projection of V). 9 Variations can be imagined for fixing Case assignment and well-formedness (cf. Fiengo & Battistella 1980, Lasnik & Freidin 1981). 10 We follow here a suggestion of J.-R. Vergnaud. Notice that Case assignment is across S. which is not a maximal projection. 119 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.191 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 04:45:45 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms LANGUAGE, VOLUME 58, NUMBER 1 (1982) The structures of 13g-i are exemplified below: (15) a. *It is illegal/silly/likely [s him to leave the country]. b. *John promised/tried [s him to leave the country]. c. *the desire/intention [him to leave the country] The ill-formedness of these examples follows directly from the Case filter, which requires Case-marking for lexical realization. Since no for complementizer is present, no Case is assigned to the complement subject. Hence each contains a lexical NP without Case, in violation of the filter. Missing from the inventory in 13 are the following configurations containing for-to strings: (16) a. ... A [for e to VP] b. .. V [for e to VP] c. ... N [for e to VP]

MYCN transcriptionally represses CD9 to trigger an invasion-metastasis cascade in neuroblastoma Johannes Fabian, Desiree Opitz, Kristina Althoff, Marco Lodrini, Kathy Astrahantseff, Barbara Hero, Ruth Volland, Anneleen Beckers, Katleen de Preter, Nitin S Patil, Mohammed L Abba, Theresa M Thole, Jasmin Wunschel, Annette Kunkele, Jamie Hu, Leonille Schweizer, Gunhild Mechtersheimer, Daniel R Carter, Belamy B Cheung, Odilia Popanda, Andreas von Deimling, Kai-Oliver Henrich, Frank Westermann, Manfred Schwab, Jan Koster, Rogier Versteeg, Glenn M Marshall, Frank Speleman, Margot Zoeller, Heike Allgayer, Matthias Fischer, Frank Berthold, Andreas E Kulozik, Olaf Witt, Angelika Eggert, Johannes H Schulte, Hedwig E Deubzer

Ouvrage daté 2005, paru en 2006.; The topic of this paper is the hitherto unaddressed issue of differences in behaviour between Northern and Southern Dutch with respect to syllabification and vowel deletion. It is shown that the contrast in both syllabification and vowel deletion between Northern and Southern Dutch boils down to a single difference in the ranking of two well-known constraints proposed in the framework of Optimality Theory (OT), viz. ALIGN and ONSET. This difference in constraint ranking is exactly the same as the one that can be found in the OT literature in order to explain differences in behaviour between (Northern) Dutch and French. This resemblance in constraint ranking between Southern Dutch and French is striking. Therefore, it can be assumed that Southern Dutch has undergone influences of nearby Romance dialects like Picardian and French. In the literature we find that the language contact between Romance dialects in Northern France on the one hand and Southern Dutch on the other, has given rise to a number of phonological parallels in Romance and Southern Dutch. Hence, phonological change due to language contact in both languages is in no way exceptional. We therefore can assume that the French constraint order: ONSET >> ALIGN is a feature that has crossed the border between French and Dutch.; In dit artikel wordt een aspect van de verschillen tussen Noord- en Zuid-Nederlands behandeld dat tot nu toe onderbelicht is gebleven. Het betreft syllabificatie en klinkerdeletie. Ik laat zien, dat het bewuste contrast tussen het Noord- en het Zuid-Nederlands is terug te voeren is tot één enkel verschil: de onderlinge rangschikking van twee bekende beperkingen die voorgesteld zijn in het kader van de Optimaliteitstherorie (OT), t.w. ALIGN en ONSET. Het verschil in de volgorde van de beperkingen is precies dezelfde als dat, welke men in de OT-literatuur kan vinden tussen het (Noord-)Nederlands en het Frans. Vanwege deze treffende overeenkomst kom ik tot de hypothese dat het Zuid-Nederlands invloeden heeft ondergaan van naburige Romaanse dialecten zoals het Picardisch en het Frans. In de literatuur vinden we dat het taalcontact tussen de Romaanse dialecten en het Nederlands aanleiding heeft gegeven tot een behoorlijk aantal andere veranderingen in zowel de Romaanse dialecten als het Zuid-Nederlands. Het ligt daarom voor de hand om aan te nemen dat de volgorde van beperkingen: ONSET >> ALIGN een element van fonologische organisatie vormt dat de taalgrens tussen het Frans en het Nederlands heeft overschreden.

In Chomsky's minimalist framework all operation except bare concatenation must be justified as conceptually necessary in the sense that it is either an interface condition, or a general condition on computational efficacy. Phenomena that cannot be explained in this way are considered to be imperfections. The movement of constituents is well discussed from this perspective. By contrast, imperfections at the interface are less well understood. This article explores this question. I extend the theory developed in Bendjaballah and Haiden (2003) and Haiden (2005) and argue that phonetic and semantic representations are a by-product of the structure-building algorithm in phonology and syntax, respectively.; Dans le cadre minimaliste développé récemment par Chomsky, toute opération au-delà de la concaténation doit être conceptuellement nécessaire dans le sens où elle doit être soit une condition d'interface, soit une condition générale d'efficacité computationnelle. Les phénomènes qui ne peuvent pas être expliqués de cette façon sont considérés comme des imperfections. Le déplacement des constituants (opération de mouvement) a été largement discuté selon cette perspective. Les imperfections à l'interface, en revanche, ont été bien moins étudiées. Cet article examine cette question. J'étends la théorie proposée dans Bendjaballah et Haiden (2003, Templatic Architecture) et Haiden (2005, Theta Theory), et argumente que les représentations phonétiques et sémantiques sont des sous-produits, en phonologie et syntaxe respectivement, de l'algorithme générateur de structure.

International audience; The article claims that the distinct syntactic behavior of mono-morphemic and non mono-morphemic anaphors (reflexives) follow from the interaction of movement theory and hereby suggesting a relationship between binding phenomena, switch-reference and clitic climbing.