User:Cedricha/sandbox

This is the user sandbox of Cedricha. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Domain

M. Rita Manzini starts her work on Locality by defining the concepts of minimal domain and domain as follow

minimal domain
The minimal domain (X) of a head X consists of all and only the elements that are immediately contained by, and do not immediately contain a projection of X.

^[1]

domain
The domain of a head X consists of (X) and of all the elements that members of (X) contain.

^[1]

Locality

Manzini's observation that many theories, such as Rizzi's (1990) Reletavized Minimality, amount to economy constraints, forcing movement from X to the head closest to it, drives her to define adjacency between minimal domainsCite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page).

Manzini can then define Locality as requiring two elements in a dependency to be minimally distant in the tree, with minimal distance now defined as adjascency of minimal domains.

Locality
For all i, let A_i be in (X_i). Given a dependency (A_i,......,A_n), for all i, (X_i) and (X_i+1) are adjascent

^[2]

Manzini's explanation of Locality accounts for instances of head movement and wh-islands accounting for the results of Rizzi's Reletavized Minimality, and Manzini's earlier theory on Locality^[3].

Subject and Adjunct islands

In order to explain adjunct and subject islands Manzini notes that we must consider ordering in conjunction with Locality^[4]. However she also notes that ordering is governed by the notion of c-command which is defined for single points in a tree while her definition of Locality is defined for sets of elements in a tree^[5]. As a result she redefines ordering to maintain consistency with her definition of Locality.

First she defines superiority as and analogue to c-command for minimal domains.

superiority
(Y) is superior to (X) iff there is no node that dominates a member of (Y) and does not dominate a member of (X)

^[6]

By embedding this definition into a new definition of dependency Manzini is able to account for ordering of minimal domains.

dependency
For all i, let A_i be in (X_i). (A_i,......,A_n) is a dependency only if for all i, (X_i) is superior to (X_i+1)

^[6]

This allows Manzini to account for subject and adjunct islands for head and phrasal dependencies without allowing for movement to adjoined positions.

refs

^ ^a ^b Manzini, M., (1994). Locality, Minimalism, and Parasitic Gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 482
^ Manzini, M., (1994). Locality, Minimalism, and Parasitic Gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 483
^ Manzini, M., (1994). Locality, Minimalism, and Parasitic Gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 484-485
^ Manzini, M., (1994). Locality, Minimalism, and Parasitic Gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 485
^ Manzini, M., (1994). Locality, Minimalism, and Parasitic Gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 486
^ ^a ^b Manzini, M., (1994). Locality, Minimalism, and Parasitic Gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 487

[p482-1] Manzini, M., (1994). Locality, Minimalism, and Parasitic Gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 482

[p483-2] Manzini, M., (1994). Locality, Minimalism, and Parasitic Gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 483

[p484-3] Manzini, M., (1994). Locality, Minimalism, and Parasitic Gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 484-485

[p485-4] Manzini, M., (1994). Locality, Minimalism, and Parasitic Gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 485

[p486-5] Manzini, M., (1994). Locality, Minimalism, and Parasitic Gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 486

[p487-6] Manzini, M., (1994). Locality, Minimalism, and Parasitic Gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(3), 487

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]