|
Dòng
|
Nội dung
|
|
1
|
No argument–adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C / Eman Al Khalaf
// Journal of Linguistics Vol. 55- Issue 2/2019 2019.p. 247-276. The syntax literature has overwhelmingly adopted the view that Condition C reconstruction takes place in wh-chains for R-expressions contained within arguments, but
not within adjuncts of fronted wh-phrases. At the same time, this empirical picture has
been questioned by various authors. We undertake a series of grammaticality surveys
using Amazon Mechanical Turk in an attempt to clarify the empirical picture regarding
reconstruction for Binding Condition C. We find absolutely no evidence of an argument–
adjunct distinction in reconstruction for Binding Condition C. Neither arguments nor
adjuncts reconstruct for Condition C. We suggest that those speakers who report such
a contrast (linguists, primarily) are following a pragmatic bias, and not Condition C.
While we do not find reconstruction of dependents of fronted NPs for Binding Condition
C, we do find reconstruction of fronted PPs. That is, the NP complement of a fronted
P must reconstruct for Binding Condition C. The literature also finds reconstruction of
NP complements of verbs and adjectives. This means that fronted Ns are special in not
requiring reconstruction of their arguments and adjuncts. We suggest that, syntactically,
arguments of Ns are treated as adjuncts: semantic arguments simply adjoin in the same
manner as true adjuncts. Syntactic adjuncts can be left out of lower copies in chains,
something that we suggest follows from a left-to-right syntactic derivation plus an economy
condition on copying.
|
|
2
|
vP-fronting with and without remnant movement / Gary Thoms.
// Journal of Linguistics Vol. 55, Issue 1 2019.p.161-214 In this paper, we consider two kinds of vP-fronting constructions in English and argue that they receive quite different analyses. First, we show that English vP-preposing does not have the properties that would be expected of a movement-derived dependency. Evidence for this conclusion is adduced from the licensing conditions on its occurrence, from the availability of morphological mismatches, and from reconstruction facts. By contrast, we show that English participle preposing is a well-behaved case of vP-movement, contrasting with vP-preposing with respect to reconstruction properties in particular. We propose that the differences between the two constructions follow from the interaction of two constraints: the excluded middle constraint (EMC), which rules out derivations involving spellout of linearly intermediate copies only, and the N-only constraint, which restricts movement to occurring where the trace position would license a nominal. The EMC rules out deriving vP-fronting by true movement and instead necessitates a base-generation analysis, while the N-only constraint ensures that participle preposing is only possible in limited circumstances.
|
|
3
|
vP-fronting with and without remnant movement / Gary Thoms.
// Journal of Linguistics Vol. 55- Issue 1/2019 2019.p.161-214. In this paper, we consider two kinds of vP-fronting constructions in English and argue that
they receive quite different analyses. First, we show that English vP-preposing does not
have the properties that would be expected of a movement-derived dependency. Evidence
for this conclusion is adduced from the licensing conditions on its occurrence, from the
availability of morphological mismatches, and from reconstruction facts. By contrast, we
show that English participle preposing is a well-behaved case of vP-movement, contrasting
with vP-preposing with respect to reconstruction properties in particular. We propose
that the differences between the two constructions follow from the interaction of two
constraints: the excluded middle constraint (EMC), which rules out derivations involving
spellout of linearly intermediate copies only, and the N-only constraint, which restricts
movement to occurring where the trace position would license a nominal. The EMC rules
out deriving vP-fronting by true movement and instead necessitates a base-generation
analysis, while the N-only constraint ensures that participle preposing is only possible in
limited circumstances.
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|