Difference between revisions of "L-marking"
Wohlgemuth (talk | contribs) m (ye-haw!) |
(Edited the format and removed the block {{format}}) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | ==Definition== | |
| − | |||
'''L-marking''' is process which plays a crucial role in the definition of a [[blocking category]] and thus in that of a [[barrier]]. Roughly, a category is L-marked iff it is theta-marked by a lexical head. | '''L-marking''' is process which plays a crucial role in the definition of a [[blocking category]] and thus in that of a [[barrier]]. Roughly, a category is L-marked iff it is theta-marked by a lexical head. | ||
| − | + | ==Example == | |
| − | + | In (i) | |
| − | |||
(i) John fixed the car in a stupid way | (i) John fixed the car in a stupid way | ||
| Line 21: | Line 19: | ||
This definition entails that it is not only the theta-marked category itself which can be L-marked, but also its head (which of course agrees with itself) and its specifier if this agrees with the head under [[specifier-head agreement]]. | This definition entails that it is not only the theta-marked category itself which can be L-marked, but also its head (which of course agrees with itself) and its specifier if this agrees with the head under [[specifier-head agreement]]. | ||
| − | + | ==Link == | |
| − | + | *[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=L-marking&lemmacode=626 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics] | |
| − | [http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=L-marking&lemmacode=626 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | == References == | ||
* Chomsky, N. 1986b. ''Barriers,'' MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. | * Chomsky, N. 1986b. ''Barriers,'' MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. | ||
{{dc}} | {{dc}} | ||
[[Category:Syntax]] | [[Category:Syntax]] | ||
Latest revision as of 07:15, 16 August 2014
Definition
L-marking is process which plays a crucial role in the definition of a blocking category and thus in that of a barrier. Roughly, a category is L-marked iff it is theta-marked by a lexical head.
Example
In (i)
(i) John fixed the car in a stupid way
the verb fix L-marks its direct object NP the car, but not the subject John (because this is assumed to receive its theta-role not from V0 directly, but from VP, which is not a lexical head), nor the adjunct in a stupid way (which is not theta-marked at all). (Absence of) L-marking is invoked to explain the Subject Condition and the Adjunct Condition. EXAMPLE: : only in (ii)a is who moved out of an L-marked phrase (=/= barrier), hence the contrast between (ii)a and b.
(ii) a who did you see [ a picture of t]?
b * who did [a picture of t] upset you?
Chomsky's (1986b) definition of L-marking is (iii).
(iii) Where alpha is a lexical category, alpha L-marks beta iff beta
agrees with the head of gamma that is theta-governed by alpha
This definition entails that it is not only the theta-marked category itself which can be L-marked, but also its head (which of course agrees with itself) and its specifier if this agrees with the head under specifier-head agreement.
Link
References
- Chomsky, N. 1986b. Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
