18.2548, Qs: +/-interpretable?

[LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List: Vol-18-2548. Thu Aug 30 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 18.2548, Qs: +/-interpretable?

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews: Randall Eggert, U of Utah  
         <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, 
and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Dan Parker <dan at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it
is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have
taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 28-Aug-2007
From: Michal B. Paradowski < Michal.Paradowski at uw.edu.pl >
Subject: +/-interpretable?

 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:51:19
From: Michal B. Paradowski [Michal.Paradowski at uw.edu.pl]
Subject: +/-interpretable?
E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=18-2548.html&submissionid=155003&topicid=8&msgnumber=1  


Good afternoon,

this may perhaps seem a bit trivial, but as I've only had the opportunity
to learn a smattering of minimalist developments: is there any consensus on
how the following language areas (for English) are classified in terms of
+/-interpretability and perhaps also feature strength (if they can be
classified at all)? (Or, how are they viewed from the perspective of
valuation?)

1. articles,
2. relativization (relative proNs and Advs),
3. (word order and Tn choice in) 'reported speech',
4. obligatory non-referential 'there' and 'it',
5. 'as' and 'like',
6. conditional structures (esp. the remote or 'subjunctive' type).

I would be most grateful for assistance in settling this issue.
Thank you very much in advance,
Best regards

Michal B. Paradowski
Institute of Applied Linguistics,
University of Warsaw 

Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories
                     Syntax





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-18-2548