Topics in Syntax and Semantics: NPs, Non-A Binding || NP Trace in Theta Theory

NP Trace in Theta TheoryAuthor(s): Edwin WilliamsSource: Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 10, No. 4, Topics in Syntax and Semantics: NPs, Non-A Binding (Nov., 1987), pp. 433-447Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25001285 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 20:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistics and Philosophy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.31 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 20:30:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25001285?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


EDWIN WILLIAMS

NP TRACE IN THETA THEORY

INTRODUCTION

In this paper I will explore the relation between the theory of predication and the theory of NP movement and A-chains. In the constellation of ideas that includes small clauses, A-chains, and predication, I believe that there are only two viable theories: a theory with NP movement,

A-chains, and small clauses, and a theory without NP movement, without A chains and without small clauses. Mixed theories, such as a theory with chains and predication, face immediate problems.

First of all, there is redundancy of mechanisms for theta role assign ment in a theory with both predication and NP-chains. Consider the

following example:

(1) Johni [seems ti to be here]vp,

The question is, how does "John" get a theta role? By predication theory, "John" gets a theta role by virtue of being the subject of the VP "seems t to be here"; and the VP gets the theta role it assigns to "John"

by virtue of containing a trace which the VP binds, by a kind of lambda

abstraction. By NP-chain theory, "John" gets a theta role because it

binds the trace directly (or, equivalently, one might say that theta roles are assigned to entire chains). We do not need these two modes of theta

role assignment. Which one is real, and which one is a derivative

concept? Second, Williams (1984) and Bach (1980) show that NP movement

cannot be the source for certain cases of NP trace, if the small clause

theory is rejected, as is suggested in Williams (1983); the NP trace in the

following restriction participle has no antecedent subject, since the

participle has no subject position:

(2) The man [believed ti to have left]vpi

There is no problem in "licensing" this trace in s-structure: it is bound by the index on the predicative VP that contains it (see later sections). The

problem is, where did the trace come from? Since it could not have arisen through movement, it had to be

spontaneously generated in d-stucture. Allowing NP trace to appear

Linguistics and Philosophy 10 (1987) 433-447 ? 1987 by D. Reidel Publishing Company



434 EDWIN WILLIAMS

freely in d-structure means that we will lose whatever it is about its

distribution that follows from the theory of movement, namely, its

"subjacent" relation to its "antecedent". Actually, though, it appears that we can enforce a far stricter condition on NP trace that subjacency, namely, the "strict opacity condition" (SOC) of Williams (1982). That

condition, itself derived from theta theory (see below), also renders moot whether NP trace is subject to Binding Theory principle A, again because it is far stricter than principle A.

Of course, the trace in (2) could have arisen from movement, if there were a PRO subject of the participle:

(3) The man [PRO [believed t to have left]]s

Therefore the movement theory of NP trace requires small clauses. But small clauses are redundant with predication theory, since the small clause theory posits a clausal node dominating every instance of predi cation, thus making it possible to reduce the study of predication to the

study of clauses. In sum then, chains are redundant with predication for assignment of

subject theory roles; furthermore, for cases like (2), chains entail small

clauses, which are themselves redundant with a substantive theory of

predication. It is for these reasons that it seems advisable to me to

consider at least at the beginning only the two theories mentioned earlier. In the rest of this paper I will explore the theory without NP chains, NP

movement, and small clauses, that is, an alternative to the standard GB

theory of NP trace. This alternative will have NP trace, but not arising from movement, or participating in chain formation at any level.

THETA THEORY

Only a very particular theta theory will permit this alternative to NP chains. I will outline that theory in this section. The matters to be discussed are (a) the three species of theta role assignment; (b) the theta criterion, and (c) the "projectability" of argument structures.

The Three Species of Theta Role Assignment

The three species of theta role assignment are

(4)a. Internal theta role assignment b. External theta role assignment (vertical binding) c. Predication



NP TRACE IN THETA THEORY 435

The argument structure of a verb is an unordered list of the arguments of the verb, with (at most) one of those arguments designated as the "external" argument (prefixed with a star, in the remainder of this

paper):

(5) give (*Agent, theme, Goal)

The internal theta roles are assigned to NPs internal to the maximal

projection of the V in syntax. The external argument of the verb is bound by the index of the VP itself:

(6) VPi

give(*agenti, themej, goalk) [it]i [to him]k

This is the essential difference between internal and external theta roles. We will call the binding of the external argument by the containing VP "vertical binding". It is a kind of lambda abstraction.

Prediction, the third species of theta role assignment, is really just like internal theta role assignment, except that the theta role assigner is the

maximal projection VP:

(7) Johni [gave it to him]vp,

(*,agent...)

Projectibility and sisters (TRAC)

We now turn to the question of the assignment itself. A thetata role is an

element in the representation of a verb's argument structure, and it is "assigned to" an NP. What structural relation must the verb have to the

NP for this assignment to take place? The answer to this question is the core of a least one notion of government.

The tightest possible relationship is sisterhood, and, excluding as before the subject this relationship seems to hold. It is difficult to show this for sure, because of the difficulty of showing first that there are non-maximal projections, and second showing whether or not some

argument is outside of some non-maximal projection.

(8) X" I \

X' '

X ARG



436 EDWIN WILLIAMS

We will assume that sisterhood is required for theta role assignment. This would follow if the argument structure did not "X-bar-project"-that is, if the particular argument structure of a verb were not part of the in formation passed on to higher projections - thus, argument structure is

fundamentally different from such features as tense, number, verbality and nominality, etc. It is not really a feature, but rather a complex of

information, and this is perhaps why it does not project; all of this applies only to the internal arguments. The external argument, of course, does

project, and in fact must project: this is the "vertical binding" of the external theta role. The non-projectability of the argument structure has

consequences for the syntactic activity of implicit arguments, to be considered shortly.

Theta role assignment is at least as tight as case assignment then, in the

respect that we have just considered. In another respect, it is even

tighter, in that there is no such thing as "exceptional" theta role

assignment; that is, there are no such cases as the following:

(9) V S

NP VP

Theta role assignment is strictly to sisters. Here it is worth considering whether theta role assignment is to PPs, or

to the NPs contained in PPs; that is, is the theta role "goal" assigned to "to NP" or the NP that is the object of "to". In line with the fact that

there is no "exceptional theta role marking", we might like to say that the assignment is to the PP.

Theta role assignment in all three species appears to be governed by the strictest possible structural condition. In the case of internal assign

ment and predication, the condition is sisterhood. For internal assign ment, this is because the argument structure does not percolate, and therefore is not available at higher levels. This implies that all internal

arguments must be satisfied at the lowest level of projection. For the

predication relation, the sisterhood restriction follows from the fact that the predicate is itself a maximal projection, and although it bears an external argument, that argument must be assigned to a sister NP, and cannot be passed up to higher nodes (by vertical binding), since there is no higher phrase of which the predicate is head. The vertical

binding of the external argument is also done under the strictest possible structural condition, namely, it must be bound by the immediately containing phrase. All three of these restrictions are manifestations of a




single theta role assignment restriction (TRAC):

(10) TRAC: no phrase at all can intervent between an assigner and an assignee.

The Theta Criterion

The full theta criterion consists of four propositions:

(i) Every NP in a sentence must be assigned a theta role, where a theta role is an element in the argument structure of a verb.

(ii) No NP can be assigned more than one theta role.

(iii) Every theta role must be assigned to some NP.

(iv) A theta role can be assigned to at most one NP.

If all four of these are accepted, then there is a one-to-one correlation

between theta roles and NPs in well formed sentences. The only one of the four that might not be accepted in (iii), that every theta role must be

assigned. If there are optional arguments, as we have supposed, then (iii) cannot be held. It remains an open and interesting question of current research, to which we return shortly, whether unassigned theta roles have

any syntactic life (as "implicit arguments"). If there are implicit arguments, then there are possibly more theta roles in a sentence than

NPs, but not vice versa. A question we ignore for the moment is what an NP, for the purposes

of the theta criterion, and at what level the theta criterion applies, as

these questions presuppose answers to questions not yet raised. As mentioned earlier, we are exploring a theory without small clauses,

partly because of the redundancy of small clause theory with predication. At this point the question arises, how are theta roles assigned in small clause structures like the following, in accordance with the Theta Cri terion and TRAC:

(11) John seems sad.

The full structure for this will have to be:

(12) John [seemso APi]vpi I

A i

I

sadi

Ith (*thi)



438 EDWIN WILLIAMS

The verb "seem" assigns no external theta role. Yet the VP "seems sad" does vertically bind the external theta role of the AP "sad". It is able to do this because the head of the VP does not itself assign an external theta

role; if it did, the example would be ungrammatical, for the VP would then vertically bind two theta roles, in violation of the theta criterion:

(13) *John [wantsi APi]vP,

sadi

l I (*A,th)(*th,)

To make our explanation of (13) work, we must distinguish theta role

assignment from theta role satisfaction, The external theta role of "sad" is assigned to the AP "sad" (by vertical binding), but it is not "satisfied", because it has not yet been assigned to an NP. So it must be reassigned, this time by vertical binding by the VP "seems sad". Finally, it is

reassigned again, under predication, to the subject of the matrix, and this

assignment satisfies it. (12) shows that the theta criterion governs all

assignments, not just satisfactions. Also, it should be clear that TRAC

governs all assignments as well. We have not mentioned NP trace so far. But we have set up the theta

theory that will make NP trace quite a trivial matter, and this will be the

subject of the next section.

NP TRACE

Now that we have distinguished "assignment" from "satisfaction" of theta roles, NP trace will fit in the crack between them:

(14) NP trace can be assigned a theta role, but cannot satisfy a theta role.

It is the goal of this section to show that everything we know about NP

trace will follow from this characterization. If (14) is true, what happens to a theta role that has been assigned to an

NP trace? It must be reassigned, in its quest for ultimate satisfaction:

(15) Johni was [killedo 4t]vPi

Here, "killed" assigns its internal role to the trace, but this role must be

reassigned from the trace to the dominating VP, as a case of vertical

binding; it is then reassigned, via predication, the the subject. It should be clear from this little example that we do not need chains for theta role




assignment in passives. The chain is an unnecessary construct, as the

passage of the theta role is governed by conditions on theta role

assignment quite independent of the existence of chains, or for that

matter, NP traces, apart from the characterization of NP trace in (14). There is no reason not to assume that NP traces are base generated.

What is given up with such an assumption? Whatever it is about NP traces that follows from the movement theory of NP traces. Two things follow from the movement theory: locality constraints via the subjacency and ECP conditions, and the thematic characterization of NP trace via the projection principle.

The projection principle can be dispensed with, as it is entirely supplanted by (14), our characterization of NP trace. The projection principle guaranteed one theta role per chain, the same as (14) does.

The locality conditions derived from subjacency and ECP are now

entirely superfluous. It would be hard to imagine tighter locality con ditions than TRAC, and that is the condition that governs NP trace now, as NP trace is always subject to theta role re-assignment, because of (14).

Subjacency seems entirely inadequate to characterize the locality con ditions on NP trace. Consider the following violation of subjacency:

(16) Johni seems that [(Bill's) pictures (of) ti] are on sale.

This does not "feel" like an island violation, it is far worse than that. Nor

does it feel like an ECP violation. There is some question whether it should count as an ECP violation in any case.

And finally, (16) is much worse than a binding theory (Principle A) violation. Rather it "feels" like a theta theory violation, akin to "John seems that pictures of him are on sale", so we may suppose that TRAC is

again governing these cases, not Principle A, since TRAC is again a much tighter constraint than Principle A.

The dethematization of the subject is passive and raising structures follows from the theory outlined here as well; if the verb assigns a theta role to both the subject (as external argument) and to an NP trace

internal argument, the VP will vertically bind two arguments, violating the theta criterion:

(17) (*)Johni [hit tivp, I

(*agenti, themei)

Many of the properties of chains in the BP chain theory follow as

simple consequences of the characterization of NP trace given here; for

example, the fact that a chain can have only one NP which is not an NP



440 EDWIN WILLIAMS

trace follows from the fact that (14) uniquely characterizes NP trace; that a chain gets one theta role follows from (14); that all the elements in a chain are in A-positions follows from the fact that they must all be accessible to theta role assignment, and only A-positions are accessible to theta role assignment (this does not follow in chain theory).

The important difference between the theory outlined here and the GB

theory of NP trace is that the locality condition on NP trace is derived from theta theory (principally TRAC), not from the principles that

govern Wh movement (subjacency, ECP), or anaphors (Principle A). The extreme locality of the binding of NP trace follows from the fact that it is not a theta satisfier, not from the fact that it is an empty category, the trace of movement, or an anaphor.

VERTICAL BINDING

There is some positive evidence in favor of the vertical binding of NP trace implied by the theory just outlined. When VP deletion applies to a

VP containing an NP trace, the NP is obligatorily sloppily identified:

(18) John was [seen ti]vp, and Bill was - too.

(18) means that Bill was seen-in other words, the antecedent trace and the deleted trace do not refer to the same person. Why is this? In

Williams (1977) it is suggested that the VP has a lambda operator associated with it; in the current theory, that is nothing other than the vertical binding of NP trace by the containing VP. In other words, the VP "seen t" is a one-place predicate independent of what subject it is

applied to:

(19) [see ti]vp.

This result is straightforward in the present theory, rather murky in the

theory of NP trace based on chains. Still further evidence in favor of vertical binding comes from the fact

that it appears to be needed for A-bar binding as well. Williams (forth coming) suggests that quantifier scope is not represented by adjoining a

quantifier phrase to its scope, but rather by vertically binding the

quantifier phrase to its scope:

(20) John saw everybody. [John saw everybodyi]s:i

It is suggested that this notation is to be used even when the quantifier is

already adjoined in surface structure to its scope, as is the case with Wh




quantifiers:

(21) Whoi [did you see ti]s:i

The question is, what is the real binder of the trace: the index on S:i, or the adjoined NP "who"?

There is some evidence that it is correct to regard the index on S: i as the binder, rather than the adjoined NP. The evidence derives from the rule of sluicing, and a restriction on ellipsis first discussed in Williams

(1977). The restriction says that an ellipted constituent cannot contain a free variable. But under GB assumptions, the LFs of sluiced sentences seem to contain free variables, since the binder, the WH phrase, is not contained in the ellipted material:

(22) ... but I don't know whoi [...t ...]

But under the assumptions just discussed, the representation of (22) satisfies the free variable restriction, as it is the S itself which binds the

variable, via the "i" index:

(23) ... but I don't know who [... ti .. ]s:i

A further fact of sluicing is predicted: an S with a trace bound from afar cannot be ellipted, since the trace will be free:

(24) John told me he arrested someone for some reason, but don't remember whoi he told me whyj [he arrested titi]s:j]s:i

The underlined S is correctly predicted to be undeletable, because the first t is not bound with that S. So there is good reason to submit the rule

of sluicing to the free variable restriction (already-shown to govern VP deletion in Williams (1977)), and this can be done only if variable binding is by an index on a category containing the variable, as the reduced

model requires.

IMPLICIT ARGUMENTS

As mentioned earlier, we assume that there are implicit arguments, that

is, theta roles that are not assigned to syntactic constituents. What role

do these play in syntax? They appear to serve as the antecedents for

principles A, B, C and control:

(25)a. doubts about oneself are not called for. b. pictures of him upset John (not John's pictures)



442 EDWIN WILLIAMS

c. the realization that Max was sick upset him

(not Max's realization) d. any attempt to leave (the attempter is the leaver)

On the other hand, implicit arguments do not seem to serve as con trollers for adjuncts (see recent arguments by Roeper (1982) to the

contrary):

(26) (*)Mary was arrested PRO to indict Bill

In effect, it appears that implicit arguments are 'visible' for rules that

apply to arguments (or subparts of arguments) of the verb that the

implicit argument is an argument of; but not visible for other items, such as adjunct.

Cases that appear contrary to this are subject to a different analysis (see Williams (1974), and Williams (1984)b)):

(27) [Bill was arrested]s, PROi to annoy Fred

For (27) we may say that the controller is not the implicit agent of arrest, but is rather the clause "Bill was arrested"; cases like (26) are out

because the clause is not an appropriate controller, and no other can be

found, the implicit arguments being invisible to the adjunct. Why is this? Why are implicit arguments visible to other arguments,

but not to adjuncts? It would be good if this could be connected to the

nonprojectability of arguments structures. If implicit arguments are only "available" or "visible" in the first projection, then this would explain why they cannot be the antecedent of control of adjuncts, as long as we assume that arguments, but not adjuncts, occur in the first

projection. This in turn would follow if, given some notion of the

cycle as proposed in Williams (1974) in which every node was cyclic, it were not possible to refer to the head of a phrase except with a rule

applying in the domain defined by the immediate projection of that head. Such a convention was implicit anyway in our discussion of theta role

assignment, since the nonprojectability of the argument structure would

impose no limitations at all on the location of arguments, without such a

convention. This would not mean, of course, that non-heads were inac cessible - otherwise direct objects could not be removed from VPs by

Wh-movement--only heads. The inaccessibility of heads raises certain

empirical problems (German verb-fronting, for example) which will not be gone into here.




THE A/A-BAR DIVISION OF LABOR

In a recent paper Williams (1986) I propose that there are only two levels of structure, NP-structure and S-structure, and that NP structure characterizes all A-bar binding. This model is a reduction of the van Riemsdijk and Williams (1982) model (hence I call this the reduced model), lacking LF and d-structure. In this section I would like to outline the predictions of this model, and its bearing on NP trace.

Given this reduced model, and given some linguistic relation or law, it should be automatic which level that law pertains to: if it involves A-bar

positions or binding, then it holds of s-structure, and if it does not, then it holds of NP-structure. This "division of labor" tightens up the space of available theories considerably, especially by comparison with various versions of GB, some of which differ from each other only in how the modules are assigned to the levels. In fact, it has been suggested occasionally by GB researchers that grammars themselves might differ in the assignment of modules to levels.

So, for example, the binding theory (at least A and B) applies to

NP-structure, as was amply demonstrated in van Riemsdijk and Williams

(1982):

(28)a. Which picture of himselfi did John, see ti b. John did see which picture of himself

Here, the binding of the reflexive to a c-commanding NP can be done in

NP-structure, but not S-structure. This is because the binding theory involves only relations between A positions, and thus holds of NP structure.

Quantification, on the other hand, is a relation between an A-bar

position and an A position; it therefore must hold of S-structure. One

way to put this is to say that while reconstruction can "feed" the binding theory (as in (28)) it cannot "feed" quantification.

That this is so can be demonstrated by means of a special feature of the

quantifier "each" - "each" differs from "all" and "every" in that it must

"distribute" over something - this can be accomplished in a number of

ways:

(29)a. ?Each patient left (cf. All the patients left) b. Each patient saw his own chart

c. Each patient saw a different doctor

In (29b), the quantifier binds a pronoun, whose reference varies as the



444 EDWIN WILLIAMS

subject of the sentence is varied; in (29c) there is an indefinite subor dinate to "each" whose reference varies as the subject is varied.

In S-structure, then, "each" must have in its scope something that is

dependent on "each" for its reference. The interesting thing about the

examples in (29b and c) is that they involve fundamentally different

relations; the relation in (29b) is a relation between each and the A

position occupied by "his" - this relation is therefore characterized at NP-structure. The relation in (29c), on the other hand, since it involves two quantifiers, "each" and the indefinite, must be characterized at S-structure. This predicts that in cases involving reconstruction, these two relations will behave differently:

(30)a. What each patient saw t was his own chart

(NPs: Each patient saw his own chart) b. *What each patient saw t was a different doctor

(NP-s: Each patient saw a different doctor)

The example in (30b) is ungrammatical because "each" does not have a

referentially dependent items in its scope - in S-structure, it does not have the indefinite in its scope, and in NP-structure, in a somewhat different sense it does not have the indefinite in its scope, as the indefinite is not assigned a scope in NP-structure. In (30b) on the other hand, "each" binds "his" in NP-structure, since it is in NP-structure that such

binding are characterized. To put this result in GB terms, reconstruction can "feed" the binding

of pronouns, but it cannot "feed" QR; a simple example which illustrates this is the following:

(31)a. Nowhere did [someone see Bill t] b. Someone saw Bill nowhere

The (3 la) example is not ambiguous, but its reconstructed form, (31b), is.

Clearly, reconstruction does not feed QR. In the GB model, it seems hard to do better than stipulatively add this to the characterization of the

model. After all, QR and reconstruction both derive LF from S-structure

- why can they not interact in this particular way? The advantage of the

reduced RW model is that the gross architecture of the theory simply prevents the possibility from arising in the first place.

The role of NP trace in this system follows from the role of theta role

assignment in this system, since, as we have seen, NP trace is simply a vehicle of theta role assignment.

First, it is easy to demonstrate that theta role assignment occurs in

NP-structure, not in S-structure:



NP TRACE INTHETA THEORY 445

(32)a. What John did was [leave the party]vp b. John did [leave the party]vp

Clearly, the external theta role of "leave" cannot be assigned in the S-structure (a), but rather must be assigned in the reconstruction NP structure (b). This should not be surprising, if theta role assignment is a

part of the A system, not a part of the A-bar system, as it surely is.

Now, though, it appears that NP trace is also licenced not in S

structure, but in NP-structure:

(33)a. What John did was [seem ti to leave]vp, b. John did [seem ti to leave]vp,

The movement theory of NP trace has a particular problem with these cases. It appears that NP movement relations must be licensed in reconstructed structure (b), not in S-structure (a), as would be expected if

NP movement together with Wh movement derived S-structure. Under the reduced movement on the other hand it is quite expected for NP trace licensing to be fed by reconstruction, that being the mapping from S-structure to NP structure, since NP trace is part of the A-system, and is therefore to be characterized in NP-structure.

RAISING

It remains to explain why the raising structures are possible. The problem is to explain why the theta role assignment indicated by the arrow below is a valid instance of theta role assignment (of the kind we have called vertical binding:)

(34) S

NP VPi

John V Si

seems to VP

NP, die



446 EDWIN WILLIAMS

We cannot allow vertical binding of a theta role by S in general, otherwise we will have NP trace in the subject position of all Ss, including tensed Ss.

Our solution will mimic strongly tthe description of raising structures in LGB, in that raising will only occur with S complements, never with S'

complements. This will be so not because the trace needs to be governed, but rather because of an intrinsic difference between COMP and INFL.

Suppose that COMP is the head of S', and INFL is the head of S

(S' = COMP', S = INFL'). Suppose further that COMP (like "want") is an instance of Xi (that is, COMP has an external theta role) and suppose that INFL, like "seems", is an instance of Xo (that is, it has no external theta role). Then raising structures with S and S' complements will look like (35a and b) respectively:

(35)a. VP

V INFL',

NPi INFLo VP

b. VP

V COMP'

COMPi INFL[

NPi INFLo VP

(35b), but not (35a), violates the theta criterion, sinc COMP' in (35a) is

vertically assigned two theta roles, one from COMP and the other from S. So raising will always be impossible out of S-bar. But INFL' will permit raising, since INFL does not contribute its own external theta role to INFL'.

It is quite natural that COMP should have its own external theta role, if S' = COMP'. That theta role is the analogue of the "R" theta role

postulated for nouns (see Williams (1981)). It is theta role that permits



NP TRACE INTHETA THEORY 447

the clause to have referential value, and hence to serve as an argument of a predicate.

What is not so natural perhaps is the absence of an external theta role

for INFL. This would seem to suggest that INFL' could not be an

argument. But is it not the argument of "seems" for example in such

examples as (34)? Perhaps not - we might import here a distinction from

logic between taking an argument, and a sentence operator applying to a

sentence, "seems" being an instance of the latter.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to thank the University of Texas for the opportunity to present this paper at its conference in A-bar Binding in March, 1984.

Thanks also to Carlota Smith, for reading the paper at the conference. This work was supported by the Cognitive Science Center at MIT.

REFERENCES

Bach, E.: 1980, 'In Defense of Passive', Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 297-341.

Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

Roeper, T.: 1982, 'Implicit Arguments and the Projection Principle', ???? van Riemsdijk H. and E. Williams: 1982, 'NP-Structure', The Linguistic Review 1,

171-218. Williams, E.: 1974, Rule Ordering in Syntax, MIT dissertation, Combridge, Mass.

Williams, E.: 1977, 'Discourse and Logical Form', Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101-139.

Williams, E.: 1981, 'Argument Structure and Morphology', The Linguistic Review 1, 81-114.

Williams, E.: 1982, 'The NP Cycle', Linguistic Inquiry 13, 277-295. Williams, E.: 1983, 'Against Small Clauses', Linguistic Inquiry 14, 287-308. Williams, E.: 1984, 'Grammatical Relations', Linguistic Inquiry 15, 639-673. Williams, E.: 1984b, 'PRO in NP', manuscript. Williams E.: 1986, 'A Reassignment of the Functions of LF', Linguistic Inquiry 17,

265-299.

Department of Linguistics South College, University of Massachusetts

Amherst, MA 01003 U.S.A.



Documents

Topics in Syntax and Semantics: NPs, Non-A Binding || NP Trace in Theta Theory