Novedad bibliografica: BRUGE, L., ed. Studies in Spanish Syntax.

[Carlos Subirats]

-------------------          INFOLING          --------------------
Lista de distribución sobre lingüí­stica del español (ISSN: 1576-3404):  http://elies.rediris.es/infoling/
Enví­o de información: infoling-request at listserv.rediris.es
EDITORES:
Carlos Subirats Rüggeberg, UAB <carlos.subirats at uab.es>
Mar Cruz Piñol, U. Barcelona <mcruz at ub.edu>
Eulalia de Bobes Soler, U. Abat Oliba-CEU <debobes1 at uao.es>
Equipo de edición: http://elies.rediris.es/infoling/editores.html
Estudios de Lingüí­stica del Español (ELiEs): http://elies.rediris.es
es una red temática de lingüística del español asociada a INFOLING.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

            INFOLING: una lista independiente y global
© Infoling Barcelona (España), 2006. Reservados todos los derechos

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Novedad bibliográfica:
BRUGÈ, Laura, ed. 2006. Studies in Spanish Syntax. Venezia: Libreria
Editrice  Cafoscarina (ISBN 10:88-7543-146-9, 174 págs. Precio: 20
euros).
Compra-e: http://www.cafoscarina.it/centro_dettaglio.asp?id=261
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ÍNDICE

Anna BARTRA; VILLALBA, Xavier
Spanish non Agreeing Quantificational Nominals

BOSQUE, Ignacio
Coordinated Adjectives and the Interpretation of Number Features

GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, Luis
A Stativistic Theory of Lexical Aspect and its Impact on Grammatical Aspect

HERNANZ, M. Lluïsa
Emphatic Polarity and C in Spanish

MARTÍNEZ-ATIENZA, María
A Comparative Analysis between the English and Spanish Aspectual Systems


RESUMEN:

The volume  collects five papers that approach different topics of
Spanish Syntax  from the theoretical perspective of generative
grammar, and the analyses  proposed build on recent formal
developments of this theory.

The contribution  by Anna Bartra and Xavier Villalba —Spanish non
Agreeing Quantificational  Nominals—proposes an interesting analysis
of one of those Spanish  constructions headed by the so-called 'neuter
determiner' lo,  namely constructions such as Me asusta lo peligroso
de la empresa.  The authors show that the derivation of such
constructions—i.e.,  lo-de constructions—cannot share the same
analysis of constructions  such as Me gusta lo peligrosa que es la
empresa, despite the  common property concerning the interpretation of
the adjective as a  maximal degree adjective. Bartra and Villalba also
offer compelling  evidence for the conclusion that lo-de constructions
show remarkable  similarities to DP-internal predicate-inversion
constructions (DP-PIC)—i.e.,  El idiota del alcalde: besides sharing a
high degree interpretation,  both constructions allow only referential
nominal expressions inside  the DP headed by de, and, among other
common properties, they  do not allow either the extraction of some
constituent internal to the  DP or the extraction of the de-DP,
demonstrating, in this way,  that de is not a true preposition and
does not form a constituent  with the DP itself. According to these
properties, the authors propose  that in lo-de constructions the
element that carries the focus  interpretation is the inverted
predicate, while the DP is interpreted  as a topic: in fact, a DP
requiring focus interpretation is not allowed  in such constructions:
*Me sorprendió lo caro de sólo aquella casa.  Bartra and Villalba also
propose that the quantificational value of  the construction is
provided both by a maximal degree operator, OPmax,  modifying the
adjective, predicate of a small clause XP, and by the  merging of a
functional category F, which immediately dominates the  small clause
itself: de is realized in the head position of FP  as the result of
the incorporation of X to F and as the overt manifestation  of the
quantificational nature of the construction. The predicate of  the
small clause, AP, is in turn dominated by a DegP, and OPmax  raises
from inside the AP to Spec.DegP in order to bind the degree variable
of the gradable adjective. Such movement will later prevent the
agreement  between the adjective and the noun in the DP, which merges
in the specifier  position of the small clause XP (cf. Kayne, 1994).
As a further step,  DegP moves to the specifier position of the FP
projection giving rise  to predicative inversion: such syntactic
movement, as the authors argue,  should be pragmatically motivated,
namely focus-driven. As a final step,  the merging of D above FP
provides the construction with its nominal  nature, and the obligatory
raising of OPmax to Spec.DP, in  order to check the max features,
triggers the realization of the features  in D as the 'neuter
determiner' lo, through the Spec-Head  agreement mechanism.


Ignacio  Bosque's contribution —Coordinated Adjectives and the
Interpretation  of Number Features—is of great relevance for the
discussion underlying  the issue of plurality inside coordination,
since it illustrates how  some coordinated constructions whose member
are neither nouns nor pronouns  can obtain plural features. The author
observes that in Spanish, coordinated  expressions composed of
singular relational adjectives give rise to  a plural expression
enabled to agree with the plural noun they modify,  as in Los
embajadores mexicano y argentino. At first sight, such  constructions
represent a strong counterexample to the general hypothesis  that
number features are interpretable only in nouns and pronouns. At  the
same time, such constructions constitute counterexamples to the
hypothesis formalized by Bosque, and inspired by the idea that number
features in a coordination are obtained through a computational
process,  according to which plural features of a coordinated
expression can be  made of two or more singular expressions only if
their respective number  features are interpretable. In addition the
author presents compelling  evidence that these particular
constructions provide the cardinality  value of the plural DP they
belong to and allow the identification of  individuals: Los
embajadores mexicano y argentino refers to two  ambassadors. Bosque
then claims that all these morphosyntactic and interpretive
properties can be derived syntactically. The syntactic configuration
he suggests allows for the general hypotheses expressed above to be
maintained. Following Kayne's (1994) proposal for genitive PPs, the
author argues that a null nominal pro qualifies as the subject  of a
C/P projection hosting abstract grammatical content that can be
matched by relational adjectives, among other categories. Pro,  being
an argument, is provided with interpretable f-features, and
consequently,  interpretable number features. When pro is provided
with singular  number features in this configuration, then a singular
relational adjective  can be inserted in C/P, since this adjective can
match prosing.  The projection C/P in turn establishes a complement
relation with a  null head D which agrees with the subject pro and
builds its  maximal projection: DP. Therefore, according to this
syntactic configuration,  each member of the coordinated phrase &P is
a DP and not an Adjective,  as apparently it might seem. The &P
projection is in turn analyzed  as the subject of a small clause,
PredP, which is the complement of  the higher D; while the noun of the
nominal expression—i.e., embajadores—qualifies  as the predicate of
the same construction. Being a predicate, the noun  will be
characterized by non-interpretable f-features, and must move  to
Spec.PredP where it can inherit the interpretable f-features from  the
subject of the PredP itself—i.e., &P. Therefore, in the higher  D the
definite article with plural features—i.e., los—is  realized, since it
agrees with the nominal moved to Spec.PredP, even  though the
cardinality value of the whole DP—i.e., Los embajadores  mexicano y
argentino—comes from the DPs which are contained in  the &P
projection. According to this syntactic analysis, the plural
interpretable features of the &P comes from the "sum" of the  singular
interpretable features of each coordinated null nominal  pro, and not
from the relational adjectives, predicates of these  null nominals.


Luis  García Fernández's essay —A Stativistic Theory of Lexical Aspect
 and its Impact on Grammatical Aspect—constitutes an important
contribution to the discussion of some problematic issues concerning
the temporal-aspectual field in Spanish. According to Moreno Cabrera's
 (2003) theory on subevent structure, García Fernández comes to a
lexical-aspectual  classification which distinguishes between: states,
made up of  state events (i.e., estar enfermo); activities, made up
of relationships between states—either temporally or non-temporally
related to each other—(i.e., caminar); accomplishments,  made up of
relationships between states in which the final state is  a goal-state
(i.e., construir una casa); achievements,  made up of an origin-state
and a goal-state (i.e., morir); and  punctual atelics, made up of
transitions between states lacking  in a goal-state (i.e.,
estornudar). In this classification, furthermore,  stativity,
durativity and telicity are not considered  primitive features but, as
the author shows, properties that can be  derived both by the number
of states underlying each lexical-aspectual  class and by the
characteristics of the states themselves. García Fernández  applies
this lexical-aspectual model to the Spanish temporal-aspectual  field
since, as he argues, it offers solutions to some theoretical problems
concerning, among others, the properties of the progressive
periphrasis,  the granularity of the event, the difference between
Resultative and  Experiential Perfects in relation to
lexical-aspectual classes, and  the possibility of quantifying the
goal-state in some aspectual varieties  different from the
Resultative. As for the progressive periphrasis,  the author shows
that the lexical-aspectual model he adopts can explain  why in certain
cases such as Juan está siendo inteligente the  construction behaves
syntactically like a stative predicate but it is  interpreted as
dynamic, giving an answer to the so-called "progressive  paradox". In
fact, in cases like these, the syntactic behavior is  determined by
the fact that the progressive focuses on a single state  of those that
make up the event. The dynamic interpretation, on the  other hand,
comes from the temporal relationships between the states  that make up
the event: those predicates that permit the sequentialisation  of the
event are compatible with the progressive periphrasis. As for  the
Perfect Aspect, García Fernández shows that the difference in
interpretation between Resultative and Experiential Perfects that
affects  the different lexical-aspectual classes can be ascribed, in
his theory,  to the presence or absence of the goal-state in the
subevent structure  of the event itself, given that Resultative
Perfects focus on the goal-state.  In this way, constructions such as
Ya he estado en París  / Ya he bailado tangos are interpreted only as
Experiential  because of the absence of a goal-state in states and
activities;  the presence of the goal-state with accomplishments and
achievements,  on the other hand, accounts for the immediate
interpretation as resultative  of constructions such as Ya han
construido el nuevo hotel  / Ya han muerto. Finally, as García
Fernández argues, the analysis  he defends enables him to account for
the quantification of the goal-state  of the subevent structure of the
events also in constructions such as  Me dormí (durante) una hora, an
example of Aorist Perfect. In cases  like these, in fact, the
possibility of quantifying the resulting state—i.e.,  estar
dormido—can be determined by the subevent structure of this  type of
achievements which, unlike the other type—i.e.,  llegar, includes an
origin-state that follows the goal-state.


Lluïsa Hernanz's  contribution —Emphatic Polarity and C in Spanish—is
of particular  interest for the discussion concerning the main
interpretive and syntactic  conditions for the activation of the left
periphery of the sentence.  The analysis the author advances clearly
shows that emphatic affirmative  elements involve the left periphery
of the sentence and, moreover, that  the crucial properties which
characterize negative sentences may extend,  in a natural way, to
affirmative sentences as well. Hernanz observes  that the particle
bien that appears in constructions such as  Bien ha comido Pepito is
used to emphasize the positive value of  the sentence, indicating that
the event denoted really took place;  bien, in fact, cannot appear in
negative sentences: *Bien no  ha comido Pepito. These peculiarities,
together with the impossibility  for bien to co-occur with the
affirmative marker sí,  leads Hernanz to suggest that bien, like sí,
merges in  Spec.Pol(arity)P when the head of this position, which is
immediately  above IP, takes the positive value. Moreover, the author
presents evidence  supporting the idea that the distinct
interpretations that bien  and sí provide to the sentence is due to
their different illocutionary  force, and she suggests that in
Spanish, affirmative polarity can be  expressed in three ways: through
a null affirmation marker—i.e.,  Ha llovido en Barcelona, through an
affirmative emphatic marker—i.e.,  Sí ha llovido en Barcelona—and
through a presuppositional affirmative  emphatic marker—i.e., Bien ha
llovido en Barcelona. Exploring  the behavior of bien in depth,
Hernanz observes that in Spanish  this element can appear in different
positions: in front of a constituent,  as in La habitación estaba bien
sucia; in preverbal position,  as in Bien come pasta Pepito; and
followed by the complementizer  que, as in Bien que come pasta Pepito.
Comparing these constructions  from a syntactic and interpretive point
of view, the author comes to  the conclusion that in all these cases
bien should be analyzed  as the same element, i.e., the emphatic
positive marker, which may be  realized in a low position, namely in a
Spec.DegP position, as a degree  modifier; in a high position, the
pre-verbal position; and in a higher  position, preceding que. In this
way, the different semantic  interpretations these sentences receive
depend on the different scope  properties of bien according to its
position in the sentence.  As a further step, Hernanz concentrates on
the syntactic behavior of  bien in pre-verbal position and of the
sequence bien+que.  As for bien in pre-verbal position, she presents
compelling evidence  for the hypothesis that this affirmative marker
moves from its Spec.PolP  position to Spec.FocusP position, in order
to check off the interpretable  feature [emph(atic)], in this way
activating the left periphery of the  sentence. This syntactic
movement of bien, required by the focus-criterion  (see Rizzi (1997)),
is motivated both by the fact that it behaves differently  from
negative markers—it is restricted to main clauses and cannot  appear
in Root Infinitive constructions—and by the fact that bien  behaves
similarly to a wh-word. Finally, moving on to bien+que,  Hernanz
defends the analysis that this sequence, being compatible with
negative markers, is obtained by merging bien in ForceP, the
appropriate locus for the echoic interpretation that characterizes
bien+que. Comparing the interpretive and syntactic similarities
between bien+que, of course-type adverbs and evidential  adverbs
followed by the complementizer que, Hernanz proposes  that que merges
in the head of ForceP, while bien merges  in SpecForceP.


The  contribution by María Martínez-Atienza —A Comparative Analysis
between the English and Spanish Aspectual Systems—deals with another
issue concerning the syntax and semantics of tense and aspect. The
author  examines the different aspectual properties of the Present
Perfect in  English and Spanish from a comparative perspective and
provides an interesting  account for the intrinsic value of temporal
adjuncts, introduced respectively  by since in English and by desde in
Spanish, which allows  their different syntactic behavior to be
determined. To account for  contrasts such as Juan ha salido a las
cuatro  and *John has left at four, which show that in English the
Present  Perfect does not allow punctual temporal adjuncts,
Martínez-Atienza  adopts a hypothesis proposed by García Fernández
(2000). According  to this hypothesis, in Spanish two different
underlying temporal structures  correspond to the Present Perfect: a
Present temporal structure, aspectually  interpreted as Perfect, and
an "Antepresent" temporal structure,  aspectually interpreted as
Aorist. The Present Perfect in English, on  the other hand, has only
the underlying temporal structure of Present.  This basic difference
between the two languages, besides predicting  the above mentioned
contrasts, can also account, as Martínez-Atienza  observes, for the
different interpretation and syntactic behavior of  the Present
Perfect combined with temporal adjuncts introduced by  since and desde
in English and Spanish, respectively. Following  Iatridou et al.
(2001), Martínez-Atienza points out that in  the durational
interpretation the Present Perfect plus [SP  since/desde DP] can have,
the English construction always  expresses the aspectual variety of
Continuative Perfect, while the Spanish  corresponding construction
expresses the aspectual property of Aorist:  cf. *She has always lived
here but she doesn't anymore vs.  Ha vivido siempre aquí, pero ya no
vive. Then, as a final step,  Martínez-Atienza focuses on the
intrinsic properties of the temporal  adjunct [SP since/desde DP] and
provides evidence  that demonstrate that in Spanish, the temporal
adjunct introduced by  desde cannot be considered to be an adjunct of
"Perfect-level",  contrary to the corresponding temporal adjunct
introduced by since  in English.



Compra-e: http://www.cafoscarina.it/centro_dettaglio.asp?id=261

Por una organización un tanto particular --por decirlo de algún modo--
de esta web, al ir directamente al enlace de este libro sin pasar por
la página central (home page) y pinchar desde allí el enlace
correspondiente al libro, después de unos segundos, el navegador (da
igual cuál) pasa automáticamente a la página
http://www.cafoscarina.it/default2.asp. Para volver a la pagina del
libro, basta con pulsar la flecha 'volver atrás' (go back one page) de
tu navegador.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
PDF Version of Chomsky's Original 1955-56 Thesis

Chomsky's thesis draft (1955-56), the one he was preparing for publication as "The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory" is freely downloadable (436MB):
http://alpha-leonis.lids.mit.edu/chomsky/

The full document contains chapters that were left out of the LSLT
published version, e.g., an information-theoretic method to construct
linguistic categories, that Chomsky developed in conjunction with Peter Elias.
Información de Prof. Bob Berwick, distribuida por Linguist List
----------------------------------------------------------------------