Office of Academic Resources
Chulalongkorn University
Chulalongkorn University

Home / Help

AuthorTellier, Christine. author
TitleLicensing Theory and French Parasitic Gaps [electronic resource] / by Christine Tellier
ImprintDordrecht : Springer Netherlands : Imprint: Springer, 1991
Connect tohttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3596-2
Descript XIV, 216 p. online resource

SUMMARY

The study of parasitic gap constructions (e. g. these are the reports; which you corrected _; before filing _i) has been a very lively area of research over the last decade. The impetus behind this lies mostly in the margiยญ nality of the construction. Clearly, the intuitions that native speakers have about parasitic gaps do not stem from direct instruction; hence, it is reasoned, such knowledge follows from the restrictions imposed by Universal Grammar. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any principle of Universal Grammar refers specifically to parasitic gap constructions; their syntactic and interpretive properties must instead follow entirely from independent principles. My own interest in the phenomenon was sparked a few years ago, when, in a novel, I came across a sentence like the following: Chait un armateur; dont Ie prestige _; reposait largement sur la fortune _;, 'he was a shipbuilder of whom the prestige was largely based on the wealth'. As the indices indicate, the interpretation of the French sentence is unยญ ambiguous: both the prestige and the wealth necessarily pertain to the same individual. In this aspect, the sentence much resembles the English parasitic gap construction above: in the former case too, the compleยญ ments of correct and file must corefer with the noun phrase heading the relative (the reports). Yet, there is an important difference between the two constructions. Verbs like correct and file subcategorize their comยญ plements


CONTENT

1 /Theoretical Background -- 1.1. Government-Binding Theory -- 1.2. Parasitic Gaps -- Notes -- 2 / Universal Licensing -- 2.0. Introduction -- 2.1. Licensing -- 2.2. Licensing at D-Structure -- 2.3. Licensing at S-Structure: Null Operators -- 2.4. Universal Licensing and Parasitic Gaps -- 2.5. Summary -- Notes -- 3 / Double Dont Constructions -- 3.0. Introduction -- 3.1. Genitival Relatives -- 3.2. Non-Movement Relatives With Dont -- 3.3. Double Constructions with Dont -- 3.4. Identifying the Gaps -- 3.5. Summary -- Notes -- 4/Null Operators In DPs -- 4.0. Introduction -- 4.1. Null Operators in Noun Phrases at S-Structure -- 4.2. Null Operators in Noun Phrases at D-Structure -- 4.3. Easy-Type Constructions in Noun Phrases: Inalienable Possession -- 4.4. Summary -- Notes -- 5 / Locality In Double Dont Constructions -- 5.0. Introduction -- 5.1. Two Chain Approaches to External Locality -- 5.2. DDCs and Chain Composition -- 5.3. Deriving the Properties of PG Constructions -- Notes -- References -- Index Of Names -- Index Of Subjects


Linguistics Grammar Romance languages Syntax Linguistics Syntax Romance Languages Grammar



Location



Office of Academic Resources, Chulalongkorn University, Phayathai Rd. Pathumwan Bangkok 10330 Thailand

Contact Us

Tel. 0-2218-2929,
0-2218-2927 (Library Service)
0-2218-2903 (Administrative Division)
Fax. 0-2215-3617, 0-2218-2907

Social Network

  line

facebook   instragram