The Blackwell Companion to Syntax 2006
DOI: 10.1002/9780470996591.ch23
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Embedded Root Phenomena

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
45
0
5

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 146 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
45
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Argument fronting like that illustrated in (13b) is classified as a Main Clause Phenomenon (MCP) or a root transformation (Emonds 1970(Emonds , 1976(Emonds , 2004Hooper & Thompson 1973), because this type of fronting is restricted to main clauses and a subset of embedded clauses (see Heycock 2006 for a recent survey of the relevant subset). Argument fronting like that illustrated in (13b) is classified as a Main Clause Phenomenon (MCP) or a root transformation (Emonds 1970(Emonds , 1976(Emonds , 2004Hooper & Thompson 1973), because this type of fronting is restricted to main clauses and a subset of embedded clauses (see Heycock 2006 for a recent survey of the relevant subset).…”
Section: Argument Fronting In Adverbial Clausesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Argument fronting like that illustrated in (13b) is classified as a Main Clause Phenomenon (MCP) or a root transformation (Emonds 1970(Emonds , 1976(Emonds , 2004Hooper & Thompson 1973), because this type of fronting is restricted to main clauses and a subset of embedded clauses (see Heycock 2006 for a recent survey of the relevant subset). Argument fronting like that illustrated in (13b) is classified as a Main Clause Phenomenon (MCP) or a root transformation (Emonds 1970(Emonds , 1976(Emonds , 2004Hooper & Thompson 1973), because this type of fronting is restricted to main clauses and a subset of embedded clauses (see Heycock 2006 for a recent survey of the relevant subset).…”
Section: Argument Fronting In Adverbial Clausesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As discussed by Emonds (1970Emonds ( , 1976Emonds ( , 2004, Hooper & Thompson (1973), Maki et al (1999) and Heycock (2006), among others, nonassertive complement clauses (see Hooper & Thompson 1973;Haegeman 2006b), and in particular complements of factive predicates, resist MCP, at least for many speakers. 21 In (40a) the complement clause of regret resists argument fronting; in (40b) VP preposing is illicit in the clause associated with bother; in (40c) the complement of forget is incompatible with preposing around be, and in (40d) the complement clause of surprise resists negative inversion.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…see e.g. Andersson (1975), Green (1976), den Besten (1977den Besten ( /1983, Wechsler (1991), Holmberg and Platzack (1995), Haegeman (2006), Heycock (2006), Truckenbrodt (2006), Julien (2006Julien ( , 2007, and Brandtler (2009). The relevant hypothesis may be loosely formulated as in (2).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…A third property distinguishing adjunct fronting and argument fronting that has perhaps not so often been signaled in the current literature is that while English fronted arguments are typically restricted to root clauses or clauses with root behavior (Emonds 1970, Rutherford 1970, Hooper and Thompson 1973, Andersson 1975, Green 1976, Haegeman 1984a,b, 2001, 2002a,c, Maki, Kaiser, and Ochi 1999, Heycock 2002, fronted adjuncts do not have this restriction.…”
Section: Adjunct Fronting Versus Argument Frontingmentioning
confidence: 85%