Possessors and (in)definiteness

Αλεξιαδου, Αρτεμισ

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.005

Cited by 48 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A clearer argument is provided by Greek, a DP language where nouns assign genitive to their complement, which is base-generated following the noun, just as in SC (see also Alexiadou 2005 for arguments against the presence of a null P with Greek adnominal genitives). Significantly, unlike in SC, genitive complements can be extracted in Greek.…”

Section: (14) This Student I I [ Vp T I [ Vp Teach T I ]]mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Now I’m a Phase, Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the basis of a number of cases where the status of X with respect to phasehood changes depending on the syntactic context in which X occurs, I argue for a contextual approach to phasehood whereby the highest phrase in the extended projection of all lexical categories-N, P, A, and V ( passive and active)-functions as a phase. The relevant arguments concern extraction and ellipsis. I argue that ellipsis is phaseconstrained: only phases and complements of phase heads can in principle undergo ellipsis. I show that Ā -extraction out of an ellipsis site is possible only if the ellipsis site corresponds to a phasal complement. I also provide evidence for the existence of several AspectPs, all of which have morphological manifestations, in the VP domain of English and show that they crucially affect the phasehood of this domain. The article provides a uniform account of a number of superficially different constructions involving extraction and ellipsis from SerboCroatian, Japanese, Turkish, and English.

show abstract

Section: (14) This Student I I [ Vp T I [ Vp Teach T I ]]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also relevant is possessorstranding ellipsis (see (34)), another case of phasal complement ellipsis, given that a number of authors (e.g., Munn 1995, Radford 2000, Alexiadou 2005) have argued that English possessors undergo movement to Spec,DP. (34) then also involves movement out of an elided phasal complement.…”

Section: Ellipsis and Phasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Now I’m a Phase, Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The problem of the interpretation of features is particularly relevant for cases of 'definiteness spreading', discussed in Alexiadou (2005). Interestingly, Winter (2005, Section 6), citing work by Danon, suggests that at least in some cases 'definiteness agreement' does not transmit uniqueness/maximality, but a purely formal syntactic feature.…”

Section: (5)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The structure of (in)definiteness

Zamparelli

2005

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In fact, a condition on the compatibility of prepositions cannot be formulated in a subextraction analysis of these data. Alexiadou 2004, Tellier 2001. The following data show that apparent subextraction is ameliorated whenever we add a restrictive modifier (to either LVs or RVs) if it helps make the DP reference more precise:…”

Section: The Role Of Prepositionsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Alexiadou 2004, Bach & Horn 1976, Fiengo & Higginbotham 1981, Uriagereka 1993, Yoshida 2003 Ormazabal's (1992) account of definiteness (not specificity) effects is based on a parallelism between that-trace effects and D-trace effects. Although such a connection is consistent with approaches where DPs behave like CPs, we find the basic idea far-fetched: that-trace effects are absent in Romance, and even in English they seem to be subject to dialectal variation.…”

Section: Problem 5 a Condition On Specificitymentioning

confidence: 99%