[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-292305-105":59,"doc-detail-292305-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","pdet-adjacency-lsa-2020","P+Det Adjacency LSA 2020","","Slides for the LSA Annual Meeting (January 3, 2020) presenting a study of “Strict Linear and Hierarchical Adjacency” in P and Determiner combinations, focusing on why linear adjacency matters. The material contrasts correct and incorrect predictions for German data, including French P+Det forms, local dislocation sensitivity, and constraints involving adverbs, embedded possessors, embedded adjuncts, and stranded “von.” It evaluates architecture proposals such as local dislocation and span/“stretching” approaches, deriving implications for grammar structure.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/pdet-adjacency-lsa-2020/292305/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/pdet-adjacency-lsa-2020/292305.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Liam","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What central claim do the slides make about P+Det combinations?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"They argue for strict linear and hierarchical adjacency in P plus D determiner combinations, where the relevant processes are constrained by adjacency relations.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How do the slides explain cases where German data are predicted correctly vs incorrectly?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"They present German examples where P and Det show expected interactions (e.g., embedded possessor cases) and contrasting examples where the grammar’s predictions fail (e.g., embedded adjunct cases and stranded “von”).",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why are span and “stretching” theories considered insufficient in the analysis?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The slides report that portmanteau-like realization and span-based assumptions either block too much (excluding necessary configurations like German possessor case) or fail to exclude the wrong configurations, motivating the insufficiency of these approaches.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},292305,1789650066,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},8796095461564,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Strict Linear and Hierarchical Adjacency: P + Det Combinations  \nBenjamin Bruening (University of Delaware)  \nLSA Annual Meeting, January 3, 2020  \nBruening P+Det Adjacency LSA 2020 1 / 41  \nTable of Contents  \n 1 P + Det Combinations  \n 2 Proposal: Both Hierarchical and Linear Adjacency  \n 3 Irish Case  \n 4 Bracketing Paradoxes  \n 5 Implications: Architecture of the Grammar  \n 6 References  \nBruening P+Det Adjacency LSA 2020 2 / 41  \nFrench P + Det Combinations  \n(1) a. de la mère ‘of the mother’  \nb. à la mère ‘to the mother’  \nc. aux mères (*à les mères) ‘to the mothers’  \nd. du chat (*de le chat) ‘of the cat’  \ne. au chat (*à le chat ‘to the cat’  \nf. aux chats (*à les chats) ‘to the cats’  \nBruening P+Det Adjacency LSA 2020 3 / 41  \nEmbick (2003, 2010): Local Dislocation Analysis  \n(2) P-D Af􀀂xation (Embick 2010: 88, (35b))  \nP+⌢D[def]+ → [P+ [D+ ]]  \nwhere + is a diacritic for the particular terminals that are subject to this process  \nLocal Dislocation is sensitive only to linear adjacency.  \nBruening P+Det Adjacency LSA 2020 4 / 41  \nAdjacency: Adverb in German  \nAdverb genau must precede Det:  \n(3) (van Riemsdijk 1998: 662, (41–42))  \na. von genau dem Gegenteil from exactly the.Dat opposite  \nb. * von dem genau Gegenteil  \nc. * vom genau Gegenteil  \nd. ? genau von dem Gegenteil  \ne. genau vom Gegenteil  \n Could not be lowering in framework of Embick & Noyer 2001, that can skip over adverbs, e.g., af􀀂x hopping in English.  \n Cannot be head movement of D to P, for same reason.  \nBruening P+Det Adjacency LSA 2020 5 / 41  \nCorrect Prediction: P+ Det of an Embedded Possessor  \nGerman zu + der = zur, von + dem = vom.  \n(4) (van Riemsdijk 1998: 658–659, (32b), (33b))  \na. zur Prinzessin ihrem Palais  \nto-the.Dat princess her.Dat palace  \n‘to the princess’s palace’  \nb. vom Hans seiner Mutter ihrem Freund seinem of-the.Dat Hans his.Dat mother her.Dat boyfriend his.Dat Geld  \nmoney  \n‘of Hans’s mother’s boyfriend’s money’  \nBruening P+Det Adjacency LSA 2020 6 / 41  \nIncorrect Prediction: P + Det of Embedded Adjunct  \n(5) (van Riemsdijk 1998: 655, (23–24))  \na. von dem (*vom) König treu ergebenen Dienern of the.Dat king faithfully devoted servants‘of servants faithfully devoted to the king’  \nb. zu der (*zur) Direktion zur Verfügung zu to the.Dat board to.the.Dat availability tostellenden Zimmern  \nput rooms  \n‘to rooms that are to be made available to the board’  \nBruening P+Det Adjacency LSA 2020 7 / 41  \nIncorrect Prediction: Stranded von  \nExample from Martin Salzmann (p.c.) .  \n(6) a. . . . dass ich gestern da-von dem Peter erzählte. that I yesterday there-of the.Dat Peter told  \n‘... that I told Peter about it yesterday.’  \nb. ?? . . . dass ich da gestern von dem Peter erzählte. that I there yesterday of the.Dat Peter told  \nc. * . . . dass ich da gestern vom Peter erzählte. that I there yesterday of-the.Dat Peter told  \nBruening P+Det Adjacency LSA 2020 8 / 41  \nInsuf􀀂ciency of Spans  \n Williams (2003), Svenonius (2012), Merchant (2015): portmanteau morphemes realize hierarchically adjacent heads, spans.  \n A span is a sequence of heads such that each head selects the maximal projection of the next.  \n Correctly rules out German adjunct case;  \n But fails to allow German possessor case:  \n P does not select maximal projection of Det in embedded possessor.  \n(7) PP  \nP NP1  \nvon  \n‘of’  \nNP2  \nDet  \ndem  \nN  \nHans  \nNP1  \nXP seinem  \n‘his’  \nN  \nGeld‘money’  \nBruening P+Det Adjacency LSA 2020 9 / 41  \nInsuf􀀂ciency of “Stretching”(Ostrove 2018)  \n A stretch is a sequence of linearly ordered terminal nodes (in the same extended projection) .  \n (Same notion as the “post-linearization contiguous morpheme insertion”of Haugen & Siddiqi 2016.)  \n Either rules out both German possessor and adjunct case, because Det isnot in same extended projection as P,  \n Or allows them both, because they are both linearly adjacent.  \nBruening P+Det Adjacency LSA 2020 10 / 41","cbCaiaATejuWa9iy","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiaATejuWa9iy","pdf",405446,41,"English","# Table of Contents\n## P + Det Combinations\n## Proposal: Both Hierarchical and Linear Adjacency\n## Irish Case\n## Bracketing Paradoxes\n## Implications: Architecture of the Grammar\n## References","[{\"question\":\"What central claim do the slides make about P+Det combinations?\",\"answer\":\"They argue for strict linear and hierarchical adjacency in P plus D determiner combinations, where the relevant processes are constrained by adjacency relations.\"},{\"question\":\"How do the slides explain cases where German data are predicted correctly vs incorrectly?\",\"answer\":\"They present German examples where P and Det show expected interactions (e.g., embedded possessor cases) and contrasting examples where the grammar’s predictions fail (e.g., embedded adjunct cases and stranded “von”).\"},{\"question\":\"Why are span and “stretching” theories considered insufficient in the analysis?\",\"answer\":\"The slides report that portmanteau-like realization and span-based assumptions either block too much (excluding necessary configurations like German possessor case) or fail to exclude the wrong configurations, motivating the insufficiency of these approaches.\"}]","P+Det Adjacency LSA 2020 | PDF",103]