| 1. |
- Sigurðsson, Halldor Armann, et al.
(författare)
-
The Silence Principle.
- 2003
-
Ingår i: Grammatik i fokus : festskrift till Christer Platzack den 18 november 2003 = Grammar in focus : festschrift for Christer Platzack 18 November 2003. Vol. II. - Institutionen för nordiska språk, Univ. Lund. - 91-631-4571-5 ; s. 325-334
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt)
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Sigurðsson, Halldor Armann
(författare)
-
Agree in Syntax, Agreement in Signs.
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax. ; 74, pp. 1-42
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt)abstract
- This paper explores the idea that abstract Agree is a precondition on Merge and an integrated part of it. That is, an element F merges with the structure X only if the relation of Agree holds between the two (the Agree Condition on Merge). The relation of Agree holds between F and X iff X contains an active feature fx that matches F. Move is forced by an inactive intervener ?x between F and fx, which, if not crossed by fx, would block matching, F <-> fx. It follows that Move and Merge are fundamentally different, Move tucking in, as a ‘rescuing operation’ in an already existing structure, whereas Merge adds information to structure, thereby expanding it. Whenever Merge applies, the possibility of agreement arises, i.e. languages make parametric (PF) choices whether or not to signal each instance of Merge morphologically, that is, agreement is in effect a ‘sign of compositionality’. The various agreement phenomena of Icelandic illustrate that agreement involves feature copying processes that take place exclusively in PF. Thus, morphological agreement is quite distinct from (albeit preconditioned by) abstract syntactic Agree. In addition, the Icelandic facts discussed suggest that also ‘head movement’ is confined to PF. If this is on the right track, PF is a multilayered and a highly complex system, producing strings that can be radically different from underlying syntactic structures
|
|
| 8. |
- Sigurðsson, Halldor Armann, et al.
(författare)
-
Agree in syntax, agreement in signs
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Agreement Systems. - John Benjamins Publishing Company. - 90-272-3356-X ; s. 201-237
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt)abstract
- This paper explores the idea that abstract Agree is a precondition on Merge and an integrated part of it. That is, an element F merges with the structure X only if the relation of Agree holds between the two (the Agree Condition on Merge). The relation of Agree holds between F and X iff X contains an active feature fx that matches F. Move is forced by an inactive intervener x between F and fx, which, if not crossed by fx, would block matching, F ↔ fx. It follows that Move and Merge are fundamentally different, Move tucking in, as a ‘rescuing operation’ in an already existing structure, whereas Merge adds information to structure, thereby expanding it. Whenever Merge applies, the possibility of agreement arises, i.e. languages make parametric (PF) choices whether or not to signal each instance of Merge morphologically, that is, agreement is in effect a ‘sign of compositionality’. The various agreement phenomena of Icelandic illustrate that agreement involves feature copying processes that take place exclusively in PF. Thus, morphological agreement is quite distinct from (albeit preconditioned by) abstract syntactic Agree. In addition, the Icelandic facts discussed suggest that also ‘head movement’ is confined to PF. If this is on the right track, PF is a multilayered and a highly complex system, producing strings that can be radically different from underlying syntactic structures.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Sigurðsson, Halldor Armann, et al.
(författare)
-
Argument features, clausal structure and the computation.
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Argument Structure. - John Benjamins Publishing Company. - 978 90 272 3372 ; s. 121-158
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt)abstract
- This paper claims that case is vP-internally interpretable and that high NP-movement is driven by (minimally) two other ‘forces’: Person checking in a position higher than Tense, and EPP (Fin) checking in a still higher position, ‘Spec,IP’. This is evidenced by ´low’ nominatives, quirky agreement, Stylistic Fronting and expletive-distribution. Another central claim of the paper is that grammar interprets event features in relation to speech features. In particular, Person drives NP-movement because it computes event participants (cased θ-roles) in relation to speech participants, much as Tense links event time to speech time. As evidenced by both tense interpretation and pronoun interpretation, the finite clause is a Speech Phrase, SP, containing syntactic speech features.
|
|
