Untitled

Grewendorf, Günther; Sabel, Joachim

doi:10.1023/a:1006068326583

Cited by 146 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…27 Typical examples involving remnant VP topicalization in German are given in (31) (cf. Thiersch (1985), den Besten & Webelhuth (1990), Grewendorf & Sabel (1994), and Müller (1998)): A VP from which some item (here, DP 1 ) has been scrambled subsequently undergoes topicalization, thereby producing an unbound trace. However, the former must be lower on the hierarchy -they become accessible only after all sub- see Grewendorf & Sabel (1999) and Sauerland (1999)…”

Section: (30) Freezing Generalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On Deriving CED Effects from the PIC

Müller

2010

Linguistic Inquiry

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: (30) Freezing Generalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…32 The present approach does not simply draw the line between freezing effects with bound traces, and an absence of freezing effects with unbound traces (i.e., remnant movement). Remnant movement constructions of the type in (i-ab) (see Takano (1994), Grewendorf & Sabel (1994), Kitahara (1997), andMüller (1998) …”

Section: Meltingmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Deriving CED Effects from the PIC

Müller

2010

Linguistic Inquiry

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; see Lenerz (1977, 27 & 62f), Hoberg (1981, 62), Lötscher (1981, 58-59), Uszkoreit (1984, 174ff;1986, 896-899), Lerot (1985, 141), Reis (1986, 27ff), Jacobs (1988, 17ff), Stechow & Sternefeld (1988, 455), Siewierska (1993, 830ff), Dietrich (1994, 41), and 1 Suggestions that have been advanced in the literature include (a) semantic factors (cf. Diesing (1992), de Hoop (1992), Meinunger (1995), Büring (1997), Kidwai (1997), Neeleman & Reinhart (1997), and much related work); (b) Case reasons (cf., e.g., van den Wyngaerd (1989), Zwart (1993)); (c) purely formal features (cf., e.g., Sauerland (1997), Müller (1998), Grewendorf & Sabel (1999)); and (d) combinations thereof (cf. some of the above).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimality, markedness, and word order in German

Müller¹

1999

Linguistics

129

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main goal of this article is to develop an approach to free word order structures in German that reconciles the findings of two different lines of research: competition-based models that center around the interaction of factors like definiteness, animacy, Case, and focus on the one hand, and optimality theoretic syntax with its violable and ranked constraints on the other. The analysis relies on the existence of a syntactic scrambling operation. The major claims are: (i) Scrambling is triggered by a subhierarchy of violable and ranked linearization constraints. (ii) Optimality under at least one linearization constraint results in grammaticality, optimality under the whole subhierarchy results in an unmarked structure (unmarked structures do not correspond to D-structures, as is often assumed). (iii) The distinction between subhierarchies and matrix hierarchies in optimality theory parallels the traditional distinction between weak and strong rules. It accounts for the difference between weak pronoun fronting to a Wackernagel position, which results in a fixed order, and scrambling to VP, which does not. (iv) Language-specific variation with respect to scrambling options is due to constraint reranking. * For helpful comments and discussion, I would like to thank

show abstract

“…Thus, the exceptional examples tend to involve ofphrases (or their equivalents in other languages), which are known to be independently available as optional arguments in many cases. For instance, this is the only possibility in a German example like (35), which would otherwise have to involve long-distance scrambling from a finite clause in German (indicated here by "(*t 1 )") -an operation that is known to be strongly excluded, with no variation whatsoever involved (see Ross (1967), Müller & Sternefeld (1993), Bayer & Kornfilt (1994), Sabel (1994), andFanselow (2001a), among others).…”

Section: Predictions Of the Analysis So Farmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraints on Displacement

Müller

2011

Language Faculty and Beyond

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This monograph sets out to derive the effects of standard constraints on displacement like the Minimal Link Condition (MLC) and the Condition on Extraction Domain (CED) from more basic principles in a minimalist approach. Assuming that movement via phase edges is possible only in the presence of edge features on phase heads, simple restrictions can be introduced on when such edge features can be inserted derivationally. The resulting system is shown to correctly predict MLC/CED effects (including certain exceptions, like intervention without c-command and melting). In addition, it derives operator-island effects, a restriction on extraction from verb-second clauses, and island repair by ellipsis. The approach presupposes that syntactic operations apply in a fixed order: Timing emerges as crucial. Thus, the book provides new arguments for a strictly derivational organization of syntax. Accordingly, it should be of interest not only to all syntacticians working on islands, but more generally to all scholars interested in the overall organization of grammar.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 146 publications

References 24 publications

On Deriving CED Effects from the PIC

On Deriving CED Effects from the PIC

Optimality, markedness, and word order in German

Constraints on Displacement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About