This thesis examines the syntactic structures within which a theory of predication may operate. The range of investigation includes saturation in adjectival structures, predicate nominal structures, genitive structures, and superlative nominal structures. ;A theory of adjectival structure and predication forms the basis for the remaining structures proposed in the thesis. It is assumed that when in construction with nouns adjectives are generated in either of two positions: as transitive heads of adjectival phrases, selecting noun phrase complements, or as intransitive heads (...) of adjectival phrases, adjoined to noun phrases. How saturation becomes complete in either of these two possible configurations is demonstrated via a theory of thematic role percolation and discharge in which thematic attributes of adjectives found in one position are distinct from the thematic attributes of adjectives found in the other position. ;The theory of syntactic structure and predication is extended to simple predicate nominals introduced by "indefinite" determiners . It is shown that the configurations for intransitive adjectives and the nouns they modify generalize to the appropriate structures for predicate nominals. This partially relies on analyses proposing a similarity in logical form between adjectival modification and the behavior of the indefinite determiners. ;A look at the class of predicate nominals introduced by a genitive reveals that their distribution is the same as that of simple predicate nominals. Similar structures to those of the predicate nominals introduced by determiners are proposed for the genitive variety of predicate nominal. The theory of saturation is shown to support the proposed structures for genitive constructions, and evidence from Swedish, Finnish and Greek provides some cross-linguistic support for the structural claims. ;Superlative nominals may occur in the same distribution as other predicate nominals . As an expansion on proposals made earlier in the thesis about adjectival structure and the structure of predicate nominals, predication structures are provided for these superlative nominals. The superlative complement is argued to be sister to the superlative morpheme in these structures, following several proposals in the recent literature. (shrink)

Argues that certain conditional clauses are irreducibly adnominal, so that 'if' cannot be treated purely as a sentential connective. A unified analysis of adnominal if-clauses and ordinary if-clauses is possible, however, if we assume a semantic theory in which sentences denote sets of events rather than truth values.

This paper argues that “covert” operations like Quantifier Raising (QR) can precede “overt” operations. Specifically we argue that there are overt operations that must take the output of QR as their input. If this argument is successful there are two interesting consequences for the theory of grammar. First, there cannot be a “covert” (i.e. post-spellout) component of the grammar. That is, what distinguishes operations that affect phonology from those that do not cannot be an arbitrary point in the derivation (“spellout”) (...) before which the former apply and after which the latter do; all syntactic operations apply in the same component (henceforth ‘single component grammar’). Second, there must be some alternative means for distinguishing “overt” from “covert” operations. One such alternative, which we can call the ‘phonological theory of QR’, was suggested by Bobaljik (1995), Pesetsky (1998), Groat and O’Neil (1994). These authors proposed that the distinguishing property has to do with principles of the syntax-phonology interface. Assume that movement is a copying operation with phonology targeting one copy in a chain for pronunciation. The distinction between “overt” and “covert” movement, these authors suggest, is this: “overt” movements are the result of phonology targeting the head of a chain for.. (shrink)

Conditional sentences with quantifying expressions are systematically ambigous. In one reading, the if -clause restricts the domain of the overt quantifier; in the other, the if -clause restricts the domain of a covert quantifier, which defaults to epistemic necessity. Although the ambiguity follows directly from the Lewis- Kratzer line on if, it is not generally acknowledged, which has led to pseudoproblems and spurious arguments.