Unspecified Categories as the Key to Root Constructions

Emonds, Joseph E.

doi:10.1007/1-4020-1910-6_4

Cited by 99 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Temporal and conditional adverbial clauses resist root transformations/ main clause phenomena (MCP) such as argument fronting in English (Rutherford 1970, Hooper and Thompson 1973, Emonds 2004). …”

Section: Adverbial Clauses and Argument Fronting In Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

The internal syntax of adverbial clauses

Haegeman

2010

Lingua

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Adverbial Clauses and Argument Fronting In Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

The internal syntax of adverbial clauses

Haegeman

2010

Lingua

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is the book of which Bill approves, and this is the one of which he doesn't Ø. (Fiengo & May (1994), (99a, (Emonds 1970(Emonds , 1976(Emonds , 2004 or main clause phenomenon (Hooper and Thompson 1973), from now on MCP. Various proposals have been put forward to account for the constraints on such phenomena, which we will not go into here, but there seems to be agreement that in English, MCP are banned from occurring inside temporal adverbial clauses (cf.…”

Section: B * I Know That Some Students Presented This Article In My mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various proposals have been put forward to account for the constraints on such phenomena, which we will not go into here, but there seems to be agreement that in English, MCP are banned from occurring inside temporal adverbial clauses (cf. Hooper and Thompson 1973: 496, their (251-255); Emonds 1970Emonds , 1976Emonds , 2004Heycock 2006;andHaegeman 2006, 2010a,b for discussion and accounts). This is illustrated in (25) for argument topicalization -which is also an MCPand in (26) It can be argued (Haegeman 2010a,b;Haegeman and Ürögdi 2010a,b) that adverbial clauses are derived by operator movement to the left periphery.…”

Section: B * I Know That Some Students Presented This Article In My mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

VP-Ellipsis Is Not Licensed by VP-Topicalization

Aelbrecht

Haegeman

2012

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the observation that the constraints on VP ellipsis (VPE) closely match those on VP topicalization, Johnson (2001) proposes a movement account for VPE: in order for a VP to be deleted, it first has to undergo topicalization. Our paper shows that, although attractive, making VPE dependent on VP topicalization is problematic because VPE and VP topicalization are not distributionally equivalent. While VP topicalization targets the left periphery and consequently is subjected to constraints on movement, VPE is not so restricted.The paper outlines some alternatives for capturing the observed parallelism in the licensing of VP topicalization and VPE.

show abstract

“…Simplifying somewhat, the gist of Haegeman (2003a;b;2006a;b) is that subordinate clauses come in different sizes in terms of the left peripheral structure; and in particular, Haegeman (2006a) argues that the size of the left periphery is determined depending on whether the proposition is directly related to a speaker, which she dubs as 'speaker anchoring' (see also Bayer 2001;Grewendorf 2002;Benincà-Poletto 2004;Emonds 2004). For instance, Haegeman (2006a) suggests that adverbial clauses can be divided into two types-central adverbial and peripheral adverbial clauses-depending on the degree of the 'speaker anchoring'.…”

Section: The Left Periphery Of Complement Clauses In Japanesementioning

confidence: 99%

The left periphery of CP phases in Japanese

Yoshimoto¹

2012

Acta Linguistica Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses syntactic conditions under which complement clauses constitute a phase in Japanese. Since CPs are assumed to be phasal (Chomsky 2000;, it is predicted by the Phase Impenetrability Condition that phrasal extraction out of a CP complement must transit through the edge of the complement, i.e., Spec CP . As Spec CP is an A-position and movement through anĀ-position must create a uniformĀ-chain, phrasal extraction out of a phasal complement is expected to create anĀ-chain. However, evidence from Japanese suggests that long distance A-scrambling is permissible out of some complement clauses that are headed by an overt complementizer (Uchibori 2000). It follows therefore that the category CP is not sufficient to characterize clausal phases. In search for an alternative definition of clausal phases, I argue that main clause phenomena such as thematic topics and exhaustive foci are allowed only in phasal complements in Japanese. Assuming that Top and Foc are licensed by Force (Haegeman 2006a), I propose that phasal complements project up to Force in their clausal left periphery, independently of a complementizer. I further argue that the correlation between phasehood and the clausal left periphery can be captured if we assume that uninterpretable topic and focus features must originate on the phase head Force.

show abstract

Unspecified Categories as the Key to Root Constructions

Cited by 99 publications

References 0 publications

The internal syntax of adverbial clauses

The internal syntax of adverbial clauses

VP-Ellipsis Is Not Licensed by VP-Topicalization

The left periphery of CP phases in Japanese

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About