Free Relatives

Riemsdijk, Henk van

doi:10.1002/9780470996591.ch27

Cited by 105 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…21 The analysis of free relatives that we put forth is illustrated in (57) (see Caponigro 2002 for an analysis of free relatives along this line and Van Riemsdijk 2006 for discussion of various properties of free relatives that we cannot go into here). Notice that the structure of free relatives in (57) shares properties with the raising structure of restrictive relative clauses in (44).…”

Section: S H O I C H I T a K A H A S H I A N D S A R A H H U L S E Ymentioning

confidence: 99%

Wholesale Late Merger: Beyond the A/Ā Distinction

Takahashi

Hulsey

2009

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we develop a substantially expanded theory of late merger. Adopting related insights by Fox (2002), we argue that late merger is permitted whenever an output representation can be interpreted in the semantic component. A consequence of our approach is that late merger is available not only for the well-known case of adjuncts, but also for restrictors of determiners (wholesale late merger). We demonstrate that this theory can explain the different reconstruction possibilities of A-movement and Ā -movement, as well as various otherwise puzzling facts about movement and ellipsis, while still maintaining the copy theory of movement.

show abstract

Section: S H O I C H I T a K A H A S H I A N D S A R A H H U L S E Ymentioning

confidence: 99%

Wholesale Late Merger: Beyond the A/Ā Distinction

Takahashi

Hulsey

2009

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of different analyses are conceivable with respect to which item, if any, heads the relative. See Van Riemsdijk (2006) for a survey of the problem and the analyses proposed. 19 As pointed out by a reviewer for Folia Linguistica, such an intervention effect might at first sight be argued to be unexpected since the fronting of an adjunct (when) should not interfere with the fronting of an argument.…”

Section: Argument/adjunct Asymmetriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operator movement and topicalisation in adverbial clauses

Haegeman¹

2007

Folia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the restriction on argument fronting in English adverbial clauses, as in *While this paper I was revising last week, I suddenly thought of another analysis, this in contrast with the fact that Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) patterns are allowed in the Romance analogues.An analysis is elaborated which explores the hypothesis that adverbial clauses are derived by movement of an operator to their left periphery. Intervention effects are thus predicted in English because the movement of the operator interacts with the movement of the fronted argument. No such intervention effects will arise with Romance CLLD as the latter is independently known not to give rise to the same intervention effects. Some cross-linguistic consequences of the proposal are explored.

show abstract

“…(6) je kaar hai uu koTvaa hamar hai rel black is corr coat mine is "The coat which is black is mine." (7) uu koTvaa je kaar hai se hamar hai corr coat rel black is corr mine is "The coat which is black is mine.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In subtype 2 the embedded verb is [-finite]." EHRC may be right adjoined as illustrated in (5), left adjoined as illustrated in (6) or embedded as illustrated in (7).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%