Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNAKAJIMA, HEIZO.*
dc.creatorNAKAJIMA, HEIZO.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-31T18:49:17Z
dc.date.available2011-10-31T18:49:17Z
dc.date.issued1982en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/187714
dc.description.abstractThis thesis discusses rule incompatibility phenomena (i.e., ungrammaticality resulting from two or more applications of movement rules in particular ways) and their related theoretical problems. The discussion concludes that the transformational component is exempted from many tasks which have been assigned to it, and the component should be reduced to a great extent. Rule incompatibility phenomena cannot be accounted for well by devices in the transformational component, such as the SD and SC of transformational rules, rule ordering, or constraints on rule application. The task of explaining the phenomena must be transferred to S-structure or the LF-component. A proposal is made that the phenomena are to be handled by constraints on binding theory, which operates at S-structure. Under the assumption of the free indexing theory, instances of rule incompatibility involve ambiguity in binding, or phrases not eligible to be binders. Thus, they are ruled out by the Unique Ā-Binding Constraint (UĀBC), which states that Ā-bound expressions must be uniquely bound to binders, and the Constraint on Incomplete Ā-Binders, which states that incomplete phrases cannot Ā-bind expressions. These constraints release the transformational component from the task of explaining the grammaticality judgments. Some cases of rule incompatibility can be accounted for either by the wh-island constraint or by the UĀBC. But, Chomsky's bounding theory must be revised, and given a revised bounding theory, the wh-island constraint does not hold. Nonexistence of the wh-island constraint indicates that rule incompatibility phenomena must be accounted for by the other alternative (i.e., the UĀBC), and that the transformational component is exempt from the wh-island constraint. Of the two possible indexing theories, the free indexing theory can handle rule incompatibility phenomena, but the other theory (the simultaneous indexing theory in our terminology) cannot. The choice of the free indexing theory releases transformational rules from the task of assigning indices to traces. It is furthermore suggested that the transformational component may be exempt from even the Subjacency Condition and the rule Move-α, and therefore, may be abandoned completely.
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.subjectGrammar, Comparative and general -- Syntax.en_US
dc.titleRULE INCOMPATIBILITY PHENOMENA.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.identifier.oclc681764091en_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
dc.identifier.proquest8217444en_US
thesis.degree.disciplineLinguisticsen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-09-03T14:06:21Z
html.description.abstractThis thesis discusses rule incompatibility phenomena (i.e., ungrammaticality resulting from two or more applications of movement rules in particular ways) and their related theoretical problems. The discussion concludes that the transformational component is exempted from many tasks which have been assigned to it, and the component should be reduced to a great extent. Rule incompatibility phenomena cannot be accounted for well by devices in the transformational component, such as the SD and SC of transformational rules, rule ordering, or constraints on rule application. The task of explaining the phenomena must be transferred to S-structure or the LF-component. A proposal is made that the phenomena are to be handled by constraints on binding theory, which operates at S-structure. Under the assumption of the free indexing theory, instances of rule incompatibility involve ambiguity in binding, or phrases not eligible to be binders. Thus, they are ruled out by the Unique Ā-Binding Constraint (UĀBC), which states that Ā-bound expressions must be uniquely bound to binders, and the Constraint on Incomplete Ā-Binders, which states that incomplete phrases cannot Ā-bind expressions. These constraints release the transformational component from the task of explaining the grammaticality judgments. Some cases of rule incompatibility can be accounted for either by the wh-island constraint or by the UĀBC. But, Chomsky's bounding theory must be revised, and given a revised bounding theory, the wh-island constraint does not hold. Nonexistence of the wh-island constraint indicates that rule incompatibility phenomena must be accounted for by the other alternative (i.e., the UĀBC), and that the transformational component is exempt from the wh-island constraint. Of the two possible indexing theories, the free indexing theory can handle rule incompatibility phenomena, but the other theory (the simultaneous indexing theory in our terminology) cannot. The choice of the free indexing theory releases transformational rules from the task of assigning indices to traces. It is furthermore suggested that the transformational component may be exempt from even the Subjacency Condition and the rule Move-α, and therefore, may be abandoned completely.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
azu_td_8217444_sip1_m.pdf
Size:
6.446Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
azu_td_8217444_sip1_m.pdf

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record