Đang chuẩn bị nút TẢI XUỐNG, xin hãy chờ
Tải xuống
In the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1992) it is assumed that there are different types of projections (lexical and functional) and therefore different types of heads. This paper explains why functional heads are not treated as head-corners by the minirealist head-corner parser described here. | A Minimalist Head-Corner Parser Mettina Veenstra vakgroep Alfa-informatica University of Groningen Postbus 716 NL-9700 AS Groningen Mettina@let.rug.nl Abstract In the Minimalist Program Chomsky 1992 it is assumed that there are different types of projections lexical and functional and therefore different types of heads. This paper explains why functional heads are not treated as head-corners by the minimalist head-corner parser described here. 1 Introduction In the Minimalist Program Chomsky 1992 surface word order is determined in a very indirect way. Word order is no longer a property of phrase structure because phrase structure is universal. Furthermore movements are universal. This implies in principle that when we parse comparable sentences in different languages we always build the same tree. Word order differences are distinguished by the choice of the moment of Spell Out SO . SO is the point in the derivation where instructions are given to an interface level called PF Phonetic Form . Thus so yields what was formerly called surface structure so determines in which position in the tree a certain constituent becomes visible and consequently it determines the relative order of the constituents of a sentence. This is illustrated in the simplified tree in figure 1. Note that each cluster of co-indexed positions i.e. a chain in the figure has only one visible constituent. This is the position in which the constituent is represented at the moment of SO. This moment is not universal. The verb chain of our English example gives instructions to the interface level PF when the verb is adjoined to AgrS head of the agreement phrase of the subject . The verb chain of a comparable sentence in Dutch spells out when the verb is in V. Thus in Dutch subordinate clauses the movement of the verb to AgrO head of the agreement phrase of the object and CP c AgrSP that DP AgrS shej AgrS AgrOP V AgrS ej AgrO likes AgrO VP V AgrO ej V èk V DP e catSj Figure 1 A simplified tree for a