Features, Categories and the Syntax of A-Positions

Haeberli, Eric

doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0604-0

Cited by 65 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…He reaches the conclusion that the CA paradigm resembles the verbal paradigm of the verbs that have the same morpho-phonological shape as the complementizer: so polysyllabic complementizers match the inflection on polysyllabic verbs and monosyllabic complementizers that on monosyllabic verbs. Hoekstra and Smits (1997;1999) argue that auxiliaries are the relevant group of verbs. Van Craenenbroeck and Van Koppen (2002) claim that CA resembles the inflection on the verb to be in inversion in the present tense.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19. Hoekstra and Smits (1997;1999) base their generalization on the agreement patterns in seven Dutch dialect areas. It is unclear if it works for the German CA dialects especially since, as an anonymous reviewer notes, most of these dialects lack a preterite.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…40 Haegeman and Van Koppen (2012) discuss similar examples from Lapscheure Dutch, a West Flemish dialect just like De Panne Dutch discussed in (47). Lapscheure Dutch has CA when a direct object intervenes between the complementizer and the subject, see example (50), and also when an adverb intervenes, see example (51) Weiß (2005) provides an example from Zürich German where an indirect object intervenes between the subject and the CA (see Haeberli 1999 for similar data from this dialect):…”

Section: Intervention Of An Adverb or A Scrambled Objectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hoekstra and Smits (1997;1999) have proposed the so-called identity generalization that describes and predicts the defectiveness of CA paradigms. 18 This generalization states that the CA paradigm uses the verbal affixes (of auxiliary verbs) that are identical in the present tense and the preterite.…”

Section: 23mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Complementizer Agreement

Koppen

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complementizers agree in phi‐features with the embedded subject in dialects of German and Dutch, in Tense with the embedded clause in Irish and in phi‐features with the matrix subject in certain African languages. These complementizer agreement phenomena will be the main empirical focus of this chapter. In particular it discusses the empirical generalizations and analyses of complementizer agreement itself as well as the relevance of this phenomenon for the theoretical debate on the interaction between the syntactic and the PF module of the grammar, the analysis of agreement, the relation between T 0 and C 0 , and the layout of the left periphery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intervention Of An Adverb or A Scrambled Objectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 23mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Complementizer Agreement

Koppen

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For OE, the order XP-SubjPron-V fin is 'used consistently' (Haeberli 1999b: 335) when an element other than þa, þonne 'then' or a whphrase is fronted. In the Heliand, by contrast, there are 462 examples of V2 declarative main clauses in which the subject pronoun follows the finite verb, e.g.…”

Section: The Structure Of the Left Periphery In Old High Germanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verb-third in early West Germanic: A comparative perspective

Walkden¹

2015

Syntax Over Time

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Object shift and subject shift

Broekhuis

2007

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adopting the hypothesis that both NP-movement of subjects and scrambling of objects are instances of A-movement, this article aims at accounting for the similarities and differences between these movements within the so-called derivation-and-evaluation framework, which combines certain aspects from the minimalist program and optimality theory. KeywordsA-scrambling AE A¢-scrambling AE Derivation-and-evaluation model AE Minimalist program AE NP-movement AE Object shift AE Optimality theory AE Subject shift IntroductionThis article is concerned with comparing scrambling of objects and NP-movement of the subject, and aims at accounting for the similarities and differences between these movement types within the derivation-and-evaluation (D&E) framework developed in Broekhuis and Dekkers (2000) and subsequent work. Before I present this framework in Sect. 2, I will first briefly introduce the topic of discussion, starting with the notion of object scrambling.The existing approaches to object scrambling can be divided into three different groups depending on the question whether it is considered to be A-or A¢-movement or to involve base-generation; a representative sample of these approaches can be found in Corver and Van Riemsdijk (1994). Webelhuth (1989Webelhuth ( , 1992 has shown that Dutch/German object scrambling has properties of both A-and A¢-movement, a fact that is often referred to as Webelhuth's paradox. For example, the fact that scrambling feeds binding is a typical A-movement property (cf. Vanden Wyngaerd 1988, whereas the fact that scrambling licenses parasitic gaps is generally considered an A¢-movement property (cf. Bennis and Hoekstra 1984; see De Hoop andKosmeijer 1991 andBroekhuis 1992, however, for some problems for this claim). The binding facts are illustrated in (1); note that example (1a) slightly improves if the adverbial phrase namens elkaar 'on behalf of each other' is assigned contrastive accent, which might be due to the fact that (1a) might then be derived from (1b) by means of (reconstructable) focus movement (see below example (2)). The parasitic gap facts are illustrated in (2). (1) The, to my mind, most plausible solution to Webelhuth's paradox is to assume that the notion of scrambling is not a unitary phenomenon, but actually refers to (at least) two different phenomena (cf. Vanden Wyngaerd 1988De´prez 1989;Mahajan 1990;Neeleman 1994a), which one might refer to as object shift and focus/negation movement, respectively. The fact that the object in (3) is able to both bind the anaphor and to license the parasitic gap can then be accounted for as follows: binding of the anaphor elkaar 'each other' is made possible by object shift, that is, by the intermediate trace t¢ i , which occupies an A-position; the parasitic gap is licensed by focus movement, that is, by the DP preceding the adjunct clause, which presumably occupies the specifier position of a FocusP.(3) Hij had de gasten i [zonder pg te bekijken] t¢ i aan elkaar he had the guests without to look.at to each.other t i v...

show abstract

Features, Categories and the Syntax of A-Positions

Cited by 65 publications

References 0 publications

Complementizer Agreement

Complementizer Agreement

Verb-third in early West Germanic: A comparative perspective

Object shift and subject shift

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About