[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Secondly, it avoids a potential violation of a UG principle which Chomskyterms the Inclusiveness Condition and which he says (1999, p.2) bars introduction of new elements(features) in the course of a derivation.Under the analysis sketched in (8), THEY enters the derivationwith an unvalued case feature which is then assigned the value nominative via agreement with a Tconstituent which has person, tense and number features.So it would seem that the value nominative isintroduced into the derivation via a case-valuation operation like (9), leading to a potential violation of theInclusiveness Condition.By contrast, under the alternative tense-copying analysis of nominative case, nonew feature value is introduced into the derivation: instead, the existing [Past] value for the [Tns] featureon T is copied onto the subject.8.4 Uninterpretable features and feature-deletionOur discussion of how case and agreement work in a sentence such as (5B) has widerimplications.One of these is that items may enter the derivation with some of their features alreadyvalued and others as yet unvalued: e.g.BE enters the derivation in (6) with its tense feature valued, but its-features unvalued; and THEY enters with its -features valued but its case feature unvalued.This raisesthe question of which features are initially valued when they first enter the derivation, which are initiallyunvalued and why.Chomsky (1998) argues that the difference between valued and unvaluedgrammatical features correlates with a further distinction between those grammatical features which areinterpretable (in the sense that they play a role in semantic interpretation), and those which areuninterpretable (and hence play no role in semantic interpretation).For example, it seems clear that thecase feature of a pronoun like THEY is uninterpretable, since a subject pronoun surfaces as nominative,accusative or genitive depending on the type of [bracketed] clause it is in, without any effect on meaning as the examples in (11) below illustrate:(11)(a) It is said [they were arrested](b) He expected [them to be arrested](c) He was shocked at [their being arrested]By contrast, the (person/number) -features of pronouns are interpretable, since e.g.a first personsingular pronoun like I clearly differs in meaning from a third person plural pronoun like they.In the case 199of finite auxiliaries, it is clear that their tense features are interpretable, since a present-tense form like isdiffers in meaning from a past tense form like was.By contrast, the (person/number) -features ofauxiliaries are uninterpretable, in that they serve purely to mark agreement with a particular nominal.Thissuggests a correlation such as (12) below between whether or not features are interpretable and whether ornot they are initially valued:(12) Feature Value Correlation(i) Interpretable features enter the derivation already valued(ii) Features which enter the derivation unvalued are uninterpretableThe correlation between valuedness and interpretability turns out to be an important one.(It should benoted that Chomsky 1998 offers a rather different formulation of (12ii) to the effect that uninterpretablefeatures enter the derivation unvalued, but his claim seems problematic e.g.for languages in which nounsmay enter the derivation with an uninterpretable gender -feature with a fixed but arbitrary value: e.g.thenoun Mädchen girl is inherently neuter in gender in German, though denotes a feminine entity)As we saw in the simplified model of grammar which we presented in §1.3, each structure generatedby the syntactic component of the grammar is subsequently sent to the PF component of the grammar tobe spelled out (i.e.assigned a PF representation which provides a representation of its Phonetic Form).If we assume that unvalued features are illegible to (and hence cannot be processed by) the PFcomponent, it follows that every unvalued feature in a derivation must be valued in the course of thederivation, or else the derivation will crash (i.e.fail) because the PF component is unable to spell outunvalued features.In more concrete terms, this amounts to saying that unless the syntax specifies whetherwe require e.g.a first person singular or third person plural present-tense form of BE, the derivation willcrash because the PF component cannot determine whether to spell out BE as am or are [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl centka.pev.pl
.Secondly, it avoids a potential violation of a UG principle which Chomskyterms the Inclusiveness Condition and which he says (1999, p.2) bars introduction of new elements(features) in the course of a derivation.Under the analysis sketched in (8), THEY enters the derivationwith an unvalued case feature which is then assigned the value nominative via agreement with a Tconstituent which has person, tense and number features.So it would seem that the value nominative isintroduced into the derivation via a case-valuation operation like (9), leading to a potential violation of theInclusiveness Condition.By contrast, under the alternative tense-copying analysis of nominative case, nonew feature value is introduced into the derivation: instead, the existing [Past] value for the [Tns] featureon T is copied onto the subject.8.4 Uninterpretable features and feature-deletionOur discussion of how case and agreement work in a sentence such as (5B) has widerimplications.One of these is that items may enter the derivation with some of their features alreadyvalued and others as yet unvalued: e.g.BE enters the derivation in (6) with its tense feature valued, but its-features unvalued; and THEY enters with its -features valued but its case feature unvalued.This raisesthe question of which features are initially valued when they first enter the derivation, which are initiallyunvalued and why.Chomsky (1998) argues that the difference between valued and unvaluedgrammatical features correlates with a further distinction between those grammatical features which areinterpretable (in the sense that they play a role in semantic interpretation), and those which areuninterpretable (and hence play no role in semantic interpretation).For example, it seems clear that thecase feature of a pronoun like THEY is uninterpretable, since a subject pronoun surfaces as nominative,accusative or genitive depending on the type of [bracketed] clause it is in, without any effect on meaning as the examples in (11) below illustrate:(11)(a) It is said [they were arrested](b) He expected [them to be arrested](c) He was shocked at [their being arrested]By contrast, the (person/number) -features of pronouns are interpretable, since e.g.a first personsingular pronoun like I clearly differs in meaning from a third person plural pronoun like they.In the case 199of finite auxiliaries, it is clear that their tense features are interpretable, since a present-tense form like isdiffers in meaning from a past tense form like was.By contrast, the (person/number) -features ofauxiliaries are uninterpretable, in that they serve purely to mark agreement with a particular nominal.Thissuggests a correlation such as (12) below between whether or not features are interpretable and whether ornot they are initially valued:(12) Feature Value Correlation(i) Interpretable features enter the derivation already valued(ii) Features which enter the derivation unvalued are uninterpretableThe correlation between valuedness and interpretability turns out to be an important one.(It should benoted that Chomsky 1998 offers a rather different formulation of (12ii) to the effect that uninterpretablefeatures enter the derivation unvalued, but his claim seems problematic e.g.for languages in which nounsmay enter the derivation with an uninterpretable gender -feature with a fixed but arbitrary value: e.g.thenoun Mädchen girl is inherently neuter in gender in German, though denotes a feminine entity)As we saw in the simplified model of grammar which we presented in §1.3, each structure generatedby the syntactic component of the grammar is subsequently sent to the PF component of the grammar tobe spelled out (i.e.assigned a PF representation which provides a representation of its Phonetic Form).If we assume that unvalued features are illegible to (and hence cannot be processed by) the PFcomponent, it follows that every unvalued feature in a derivation must be valued in the course of thederivation, or else the derivation will crash (i.e.fail) because the PF component is unable to spell outunvalued features.In more concrete terms, this amounts to saying that unless the syntax specifies whetherwe require e.g.a first person singular or third person plural present-tense form of BE, the derivation willcrash because the PF component cannot determine whether to spell out BE as am or are [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]