Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement

Fox, Danny

doi:10.1162/002438902317382189

Cited by 305 publications

(246 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

238

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We also need to say something about the way traces are interpreted. See Fox (2000Fox ( , 2002 and Sauerland (1998Sauerland ( , 2004. 15 Given the assumptions mentioned above, the unacceptable sentence in (ia) where an object undergoes wh-movement would involve the representation in (ib).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

MaxElide and the Re-binding Problem

Fox¹

2005

SALT

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

MaxElide and the Re-binding Problem

Fox¹

2005

SALT

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I will concentrate on what can be learned about QR in these contexts of so-called Antecedent Contained Deletions (ACD), and adopt the account of them in Fox (2002). On Fox's analysis, ACD is licensed when the relative clause containing the ellipsis has extraposed from the antecedent for that ellipsis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards deriving differences in how Wh Movement and QR are pronounced

Johnson

2012

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In English, Wh Movement oftentimes has the effect of letting the phrase moved be spoken in a higher position than where it originates. That position seems to get mapped onto a portion of the resulting string that is to the left of the original position. Quantifier Raising in English, by contrast, tends to require the phrase that is moved to be spoken in the position it is moved from. And when there is material that is spoken in the higher position, that material gets mapped onto a portion of the resulting string that is to the right of the lower position. I attempt to explain these differences. The explanation comes from taking the movement operation to be remerge (giving rise to multidominant phrase markers) and letting determiners spread across distant syntactic positions but get mapped onto one word.Keywords: movement, questions, quantifiers, quantifier raising, wh movement, semantics, linearization, multidominance, merge, reconstruction The ProblemMovement is a relation widely used to model certain cases of semantic displacement. In cases of constituent questions like that in (1), for example, which dish is understood to be the object of eat and we therefore expect it to fill the syntactic position that would normally follow the verb.(1) Which dish should no one eat?Movement is invoked to fulfill this expectation. It establishes a relationship between which dish and the object position by creating a silent variable in the object position and forcing which dish to bind it. A similar situation arises in (2).(2) A marble filled every hole.6 This paper started as a talk at Leiden University in March of 2010 and had a very helpful boost from the audience at the Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar at Konkuk University in August 2010. Much of the thinking was borne in seminars I gave at MIT in the Fall of 2008 and at UMass in the Fall of 2009. It owes a great deal to the audiences at these venues. And for helping me understand hard things and rescuing me from blunders, I am especially indebted to Seth Cable, Lyn Frazier, Satoshi Tomioka, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, Paul Elbourne, David Pesetsky, Irene Heim, Lisa Matthewson, Rajesh Bhatt, Lyn Frazier and Keir Moulton. Danny Fox deserves special mention for doing all this even when I was taking potshots at his work. You and I were very lucky to have two excellent reviewers read the original submission. The paper, particularly its readability, has been vastly improved by their hard work.

show abstract

“…When movement is thought of as copying, the resulting copy-chain must be modified to be interpretable. I adopt the mechanism of Trace Conversion (TC; Rullmann & Beck 1998;Sauerland 1998;Fox 2002) whereby lower copies of DP copy-chains are turned into bound variable definite descriptions. The resulting LF is given in (15b).…”

Section: (9)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I follow Nakanishi (2012) in adopting the common approach to the resolution of ACD, first introduced by Sag (1976) and May (1985) and more recently argued for by Kennedy (1997) and Fox (2002): ACD necessitates QR of a DP containing the ellipsis site, in order to construct an appropriate antecedent VP. Here I simplify the illustration, for example by not illustrating the movement of the subject from its VP-internal position.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Focus association into copies and the scope of even

Erlewine

2016

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nakanishi 2012 presents a novel argument for the so-called "scope theory" of English VP-even, based on examples with antecedent-contained deletion (ACD). Nakanishi's argument is based on the assumption that even cannot associate with a focus which has moved out of its scope. I show that this assumption is incorrect, defusing Nakanishi's argument. I propose that when even associates with a focus which has moved out of its scope, it actually associates with focused material in the lower copies of movement (trace positions). I show that a closer look at ACD examples of Nakanishi's type in fact forms a new argument against the scope theory. I conclude that English VP-even must always be interpreted in its pronounced position. The patterns of focus association with even presented here constitute a new argument for the copy theory of movement.

show abstract

Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement

Cited by 305 publications

References 16 publications

MaxElide and the Re-binding Problem

MaxElide and the Re-binding Problem

Towards deriving differences in how Wh Movement and QR are pronounced

Focus association into copies and the scope of even

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About