Pesetsky (1991) proposes that there are two types of C, that and null C, and that the null C is an affix that must move up to the matrix V. This proposal is revived in the minimalist context by Bo'ković and Lasnik (2003). While assuming that the C-as-an-affix approach is on the right track, I suggest a drastic modification of previous versions of this approach: namely, that (a) there is just one type of C in the lexicon, affixal null C; (b) it can both hop down onto the embedded V and move up to the matrix V; and (c) that/for is inserted at PF as a last resort if affixation is structurally prohibited. This amounts to saying that the English tense and complementizer systems display the same paradigm: both T [‫ם‬finite] and C [‫ע‬finite] are affixes, and do and that/for are inserted as a last resort when syntactic affixation is impossible. This approach, especially the C-hopping approach, allows a uniform, principled account for the distribution of that and for, including that-trace effects, ameliorating effects of subject extraction, anti-thattrace effects, For-To Filter effects, and the distribution of that in relative clauses.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper aims to apply the dependent marking theory to shed light on the distribution of the information markers in Shilluk, which can be divided into two types: marked and unmarked. Focus belongs to the marked type, while Topic belongs to the unmarked type. This paper claims that information marking in Shilluk consists of two steps, with the marked type assigned in Step 1 and the unmarked type in Step 2. In Step 1, if an NP is c-commanded by another NP in a domain, it is assigned the feature [FOC]. In Step 2, if there is a remaining NP that has received no marking in Step 1, it is assigned [TOP]. Topic carries no marking, which gives rise to the pattern "no marking before the verb.

No abstract