Clauses in Noncanonical Positions at the Syntax‐Phonology Interface

An, Duk‐Ho

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00096.x

Cited by 33 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…35 There is also an alternative rescue-by-PF-deletion analysis that retains the assumption that (68a) involves a locality violation. The gist of this analysis was in fact suggested by An (2007a) in a way that is not quite compatible with the current *-marking system. I will therefore implement the analysis within this system, following An's insight.…”

Section: (61) the Empty Left Edge Condition (Elec)mentioning

confidence: 79%

Rescue by PF Deletion, Traces as (Non)interveners, and the That-Trace Effect

Bošković

2011

Linguistic Inquiry

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rescue by PF Deletion, Traces as (Non)interveners, and the That-Trace Effect äeljko Bo'kovićThe article demonstrates that the rescue-by-PF-deletion account of the amelioration effect of island violations under ellipsis, originally noted by Ross (1969), can be extended to account for the that-trace effect, including the adverb amelioration effect, and the lack of intervention effects with certain null arguments that are otherwise found with their overt counterparts, as well as to deduce the generalizations that traces do not count as interveners for relativized minimality effects and that traces void islandhood. The fact that the rescue-by-PF-deletion analysis makes it possible to unify a number of previously unrelated phenomena should be taken as a strong argument in its favor. The current extension of the rescue-by-PF-deletion approach, on which the rescue can arise not only through the deletion process involved in ellipsis but also through regular copy deletion, also accounts for the different behavior of the Superiority Condition and the Wh-Island Condition with respect to the amelioration effect under ellipsis, a surprising difference given that both of these are generally subsumed under relativized minimality effects in current research.

show abstract

Section: (61) the Empty Left Edge Condition (Elec)mentioning

confidence: 79%

Rescue by PF Deletion, Traces as (Non)interveners, and the That-Trace Effect

Bošković

2011

Linguistic Inquiry

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, our proposal is not in conflict with An's [56]. If his null C generalization holds true, it is predicted that overt that clauses can appear in non-canonical positions, for its head Force is lexicalized by the COMP that.…”

mentioning

confidence: 71%

“…30 Under our proposal that non-factive predicates select either a ForceP (overt that clauses) or a FinP (null that clause), it is indeed unexpected that the COMP is required when there is an intervening material between the matrix predicate and its complement. An [56] suggests that syntax alone cannot account for this behavior and offers a syntax-phonology account. He assumes that the null COMP is a result of PF (Phonetic Form) deletion of C and proposes that if a clause is obligatorily parsed as a separate intonational phrase (I-phrase), it cannot be headed by a null C (null C generalization, [56] (p. 58)).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An [56] suggests that syntax alone cannot account for this behavior and offers a syntax-phonology account. He assumes that the null COMP is a result of PF (Phonetic Form) deletion of C and proposes that if a clause is obligatorily parsed as a separate intonational phrase (I-phrase), it cannot be headed by a null C (null C generalization, [56] (p. 58)). 20 While a clausal complement in its canonical position, as in (30a), is optionally parsed as separate I-phrase, it is obligatorily parsed as a separate I-phrase at a non-canonical position in (30b); the clausal complement is extraposed to the right.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A New Outlook of Complementizers

Shim

Ihsane

2017

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates clausal complements of factive and non-factive predicates in English, with particular focus on the distribution of overt and null that complementizers. Most studies on this topic assume that both overt and null that clauses have the same underlying structure and predict that these clauses show (nearly) the same syntactic distribution, contrary to fact: while the complementizer that is freely dropped in non-factive clausal complements, it is required in factive clausal complements by many native speakers of English. To account for several differences between factive and non-factive clausal complements, including the distribution of the overt and null complementizers, we propose that overt that clauses and null that clauses have different underlying structures responsible for their different syntactic behavior. Adopting Rizzi's (1997) split CP (Complementizer Phrase) structure with two C heads, Force and Finiteness, we suggest that null that clauses are FinPs (Finiteness Phrases) under both factive and non-factive predicates, whereas overt that clauses have an extra functional layer above FinP, lexicalizing either the head Force under non-factive predicates or the light demonstrative head d under factive predicates. These three different underlying structures successfully account for different syntactic patterns found between overt and null that clauses in various contexts.

show abstract

“…In this approach, then, we expect to find a close match between spell‐out domains and prosodic domains, as they are coextensive in the default case. Other work, like An (2007), Cheng & Downing (2007; 2009) and Kandybowicz (2009), incorporates the phase into asymmetrical Edge‐based alignment theory (Selkirk 1986; 1995; Truckenbrodt 1995; 1999; 2007), an indirect reference theory of the interface. Phases simply provide a new type of constituent edge for prosodic domains to align with.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An edge-based approach to the alignment of syntactic phases and prosodic phrases1

Downing

2010

Transactions of the Philological Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In phase‐based syntax, syntactic structure is sent in chunks – spell‐out domain by spell‐out domain – for phonological interpretation. The spell‐out domain of an embedded clause would, then, form a separate phonological domain from its matrix. In this paper, I test this theory on the prosodic phrasing of relative clauses in some Bantu languages, and show that the phrasing contradicts the proposal that embedded spell‐out domains necessarily form distinct prosodic domains. Instead, the phrasing is most consistent with a non‐cyclic Edge‐based analysis, in which only one edge of a syntactic phase constituent is aligned with the edge of a prosodic phrase.

show abstract

Clauses in Noncanonical Positions at the Syntax‐Phonology Interface

Cited by 33 publications

References 31 publications

Rescue by PF Deletion, Traces as (Non)interveners, and the That-Trace Effect

Rescue by PF Deletion, Traces as (Non)interveners, and the That-Trace Effect

A New Outlook of Complementizers

An edge-based approach to the alignment of syntactic phases and prosodic phrases1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About