No abstract

Antecedent-contained deletion poses a problem for theories of ellipsis, a problem that, according to much literature, is solved by Quantifier Raising. The solution, however, conflicts with the copy theory of movement. This article resolves this new conflict with the aid of a theory of extraposition and covert movement proposed by Fox and Nissenbaum (1999), together with certain assumptions about the structure of relative clauses and the way chains are interpreted. The resolution makes various new predictions and accounts for a range of otherwise puzzling facts.

This paper proposes an architecture for the mapping between syntax and phonology -in particular, that aspect of phonology that determines the linear ordering of words. We propose that linearization is restricted in two key ways. (1) the relative ordering of words is fixed at the end of each phase, or ''Spell-out domain''; and (2) ordering established in an earlier phase may not be revised or contradicted in a later phase. As a consequence, overt extraction out of a phase P may apply only if the result leaves unchanged the precedence relations established in P. We argue first that this architecture (''cyclic linearization'') gives us a means of understanding the reasons for successive-cyclic movement. We then turn our attention to more specific predictions of the proposal: in particular, the e¤ects of Holmberg's Generalization on Scandinavian Object Shift; and also the Inverse Holmberg Effects found in Scandinavian ''Quantifier Movement '' constructions (Rögnvaldsson (1987); Jónsson (1996); Svenonius (2000)) and in Korean scrambling configurations (Ko (2003(Ko ( , 2004). The cyclic linearization proposal makes predictions that cross-cut the details of particular syntactic configurations. For example, whether an apparent case of verb fronting results from V-to-C movement or from ''remnant movement'' of a VP whose complements have been removed by other processes, the verb should still be required to precede its complements after fronting if it preceded them before fronting according to an ordering established at an earlier phase. We argue that ''cross-construction'' consistency of this sort is in fact found.

No abstract

This article investigates interactions between the scope of QPs and the restrictions imposed by binding theory. It presents new evidence that Condition C applies at (and only at) LF and demonstrates that this condition can serve as a powerful tool for distinguishing among various claims regardingthe nature of LF and the inventoryof semantic mechanisms. The conclusionsreached are these: (1) Scope reconstruction is represented in the syntax (semantic type-shifting operations are very limited). (2) Ā -chains have the following properties: (a) Scope reconstructionresults from deleting the head of the chain and interpreting a copy at the tail. (b) Non-scope-reconstruct ion results from interpreting the head of the chain with a copy of the restrictor at the tail (unless this option is impossible, as in antecedent-containeddeletion, in which case the copy is changed to a variable as in standard notations). (c) VP adjunction is an intermediate landing site. (3) A-chains are different in a way that at the moment requires a stipulative distinction.