1990
DOI: 10.3928/0098-9134-19900101-11
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

To the Editor

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1994
1994
1994
1994

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The argument can actually be turned against those theories that assume head-movement with XO-fonnation also in cases where there is no morphological XO-correlate, because purported XO's like German gekUflt haben woUen ('kissed have want') never move to an XO-position like C. Since NEG is semantically a sentential operator, NEG+NP will have to move in LF. See Bayer (1990) for argumentation in connection with focusing particles such as only, which extends to NEG, showing that it must in this case be a focusing particle.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The argument can actually be turned against those theories that assume head-movement with XO-fonnation also in cases where there is no morphological XO-correlate, because purported XO's like German gekUflt haben woUen ('kissed have want') never move to an XO-position like C. Since NEG is semantically a sentential operator, NEG+NP will have to move in LF. See Bayer (1990) for argumentation in connection with focusing particles such as only, which extends to NEG, showing that it must in this case be a focusing particle.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%