Mayfest 2025 - Constraints on Meaning
When and why are certain meanings missing?
Research at our top-ranked department spans syntax, semantics, phonology, language acquisition, computational linguistics, psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics.
Connections between our core competencies are strong, with theoretical, experimental and computational work typically pursued in tandem.
A network of collaboration at all levels sustains a research climate that is both vigorous and friendly. Here new ideas develop in conversation, stimulated by the steady activity of our labs and research groups, frequent student meetings with faculty, regular talks by local and invited scholars and collaborations with the broader University of Maryland language science community, the largest and most integrated language science research community in North America.
This dissertation presents a Minimalist Theory of Control. As for the distribution of PRO, it provides evidence that PRO appears in a configuration of regular Structural Case assignment. This suggests that the complementary distribution between PRO and lexical subjects is not related to Case. It also provides empirical evidence against the Movement analysis of Control, which subsumes Control under Raising, and is compatible with the theoretical view that Theta Roles are configurational, rather than Features. It also renders the so-called Null Case unnecessary. The interpretation of PRO is the result of the need of the Chain of PRO to collapse with the Chain of the antecedent in order to survive at LF. Specifically, PRO is a featureless element and it is not in the Numeration. However, the system resorts to the off-line insertion of PRO to the Derivation to satisfy Theta Theory. This is a Last Resort operation that only takes place when there is no other DP in the Numeration to satisfy the existing Theta Roles. Although it appears in a local relation to a Case assigning Probe [+T], the defective nature of PRO makes it unable to host a Case Value. By FI, the Chain of PRO collapses, in the sense of Martin (1996), with a local Chain. This derives the Control effect. The complementary distribution of NP-trace, PRO and lexical subjects correlates with the degree of defectiveness in the feature composition of T's in each instance. Raising T is Defective ([-T, -person]), Control T is Partial ([+T, -person]) and T in lexical subject licensing is Complete ([+T, +person]). Minimally, [+T] assigns Case to subjects (PRO/lexical). Complete Probes license lexical subjects, where [person] relates to the presence of C. The explanation of why lexical subjects and PRO are in complementary distribution is the following: by Minimality, Partial-T prevents the definition of a Binding Domain. Unlike PRO, lexical subjects need a Domain, and Partial-T does not provide one. Complete-T excludes PRO because Complete-T involves a CP Phase. In this context PRO lacks an antecedent with which to collapse and the Chain of PRO violates FI at LF.
This dissertation investigates the topic of verbal ellipsis in English. Two main issues are addressed in this work: (i) the identity condition that restricts the application of ellipsis and (ii) the different locality restrictions that apply to elliptical constructions. The identity condition is examined from the point of view of competence, while the locality condition is given a natural answer from the processing domain. Furthermore, a parsing algorithm based on minimalist grammars is defined. Chapter 1 introduces the topic. Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 deal with the syntactic identity condition. Chapter 2 reviews some proposals in the literature, namely, Lasnik (1995b), Kitagawa (1991) and Fiengo and May (1994). All these analyses examine controversial examples where, apparently, partial syntactic identity between antecedent and gap is found. Chapter 3 presents a new analysis which assumes late lexical insertion, in the spirit of derivational morphology (Marantz 1993), and offers a unified account of all the cases of partial identity introduced in the previous chapter. It is argued that syntactic identity must be respected, and that the crucial notion for ellipsis is identity of syntactic categoriesa condition that is met before lexical items are inserted. Also, the different readings that obtain under ellipsis (i.e., sloppy and strict readings) are explained as emerging at different points in the derivation: before and after lexical insertion, respectively. Chapter 4 reviews one proposal in the parsing literature (Lappin and McCord 1990) as well as the problems it faces. Chapter 5 offers a processing account of the locality restrictions on gapping (as opposed to VPE and Pseudogapping)), those are analyzed as a result of (i) tense absence/presence (Fodor 1985), (ii) low initial attachment of coordinates, and (iii) Spell-out operations which render syntactic structure unavailable (Uriagereka 1999). A two-fold ellipsis resolution process is presented herewhere some work is done on-line, but some at the LF level. Chapter 6 defines an algorithm based on minimalist grammar operations, precisely on the preference of Merge-over-Move-over-Spell-out (as defined by Weinberg 1999); thus, showing that minimalist grammar models can be translated into computational models. Chapter 7 presents the conclusions.