jbellik
commented
3 years ago I thought we set it up this way because you were treating bar levels as phrasal. Is that not right?
How about this set of options / sub options:
[ ] Add a clitic to every tree
-
Clitics are syntactically: XP clitic vs. x0 clitic Info: If unary XPs are treated as X0s, then clitics should be represented as X0s only. SPOT will generate structures like [clitic [TP]] or [clitic T VP]. If unary XPs are visible to phonology as phrases, then clitics should be wrapped in an XP layer. SPOT will generate structures like [[clitic][TP]] or [[clitic] T VP].
-
Clitics are sister to: an XP vs. an invisible bar level Info: If XP is selected, SPOT will generate structures like [[clitic] [TP]]. This is compatible with the assumption that clitics are located in the specifier of TP and bar levels are treated as phrasal, i.e., T' is equivalent to TP. It is also compatible with an interpretation where clitics are adjoined to the root phrase. If "invisible bar level" is selected, SPOT will generate structures like [[clitic] T VP] or [[clitic] VP]. This is compatible with the assumption that bar levels are not treated as phrasal and clitics are in the specifier of T.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 9:52 AM rbibbs notifications@github.com wrote:
Currently when "Add an XP clitic directly beneath the root" is selected, it places this clitic as an adjunct attaching to an XP sister node. However, I think more appropriate (at least for Chamorro) is having the XP clitic attach to a bar-level, as the clitic in this case is a (rightward) specifier of TP.
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/syntax-prosody-ot/main/issues/465, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC7ROKVFRXXEGLC5JEFPU3DSG6AGBANCNFSM4RUYMEKQ .
--
-- Jennifer Bellik, PhD Post-doctoral researcher & lecturer UC Santa Cruz https://people.ucsc.edu/~jbellik/
nkalivoda
rbibbs
nvh4
Currently when "Add an XP clitic directly beneath the root" is selected, it places this clitic as an adjunct attaching to an XP sister node. However, I think more appropriate (at least for Chamorro) is having the XP clitic attach to a bar-level, as the clitic in this case is a (rightward) specifier of TP.