Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:07:18.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modern Greek clitic pronouns and the ‘surface structure constraints’ hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Irene P. Warburton
Irene P. Warburton
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistic Science, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his (1970) article ‘Surface structure constraints in syntax’ Perimutter has argued that the restrictions on the combination of the weak atonic forms of the object pronouns in Spanish and restrictions on their order cannot be accounted for naturally either in the deep structure, by constraints on the phrase structure rules, or by constraints on the rules which introduce these pronouns.1 He concludes that a transformational generative grammar must be supplemented by positive output constraints which act as a filter accepting only sequences which match the filter and rejecting the rest as ungrammatical.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , September 1977 , pp. 259 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds) Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. 184–221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1972). Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1976). Syntax. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1975). A transformational analysis of French clitics without positive output constraints. Linguistic Analysis I. 3–24.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax: root, structure preserving and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1965). Indirect object constructions in English and ordering of transformations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Goodwin, W. W. (1894). A Greek grammar. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jannaris, A. N. (1897). An historical Greek grammar. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.(1975) The transformational cycle in French syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A. (1960). Elements of functional syntax. Word 16. 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1970). Surface structure constraints in syntax. Lln I. 187–256.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1974). On raising. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1976). Avoiding reference to subject. Lin 7, 151–191.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1959). Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tzartzanos, A. (1946). Neoellēnikē synsaxis. Athens: Organismos Ekdoseōs Scholikōn Vivliōn.Google Scholar
Warburton, I. P. (1970). Rules of accentuation in classical and modern Greek. Glottn 48. 107–125.Google Scholar
Warburton, I. P. (1975). The passive in English and Greek. FL 13. 563–578.Google Scholar