Np-Structure

RIEMSDIJK, HENK VAN; Williams, Edwin

doi:10.1515/tlir.1981.1.2.171

Cited by 104 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Notice that in (11a) and (12a) the R-expression is included in the complement of the moved wh-phrase. From the perspective of the copy theory of movement, a puzzling fact is that if a relevant R-expression is instead dominated by an adjunct that modifies a wh-phrase (e.g., by a relative clause), wh-movement appears to circumvent a violation of Condition C (e.g., Fox 1999b, Freidin 1986, Lebeaux 1988, Van Riemsdijk and Williams 1981. This is illustrated in (11b) and (12b).…”

Section: The First Step: Late Mergermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, we can make the even stronger claim that Ā -movement obligatorily leaves a copy on the basis of the fact that Ā -movement does not bleed Condition C if a relevant R-expression is within the complement of a wh-phrase (Fox 1999b, Freidin 1986, Lebeaux 1988, Van Riemsdijk and Williams 1981. This fact is exemplified by (5a-b), in which the pronoun cannot corefer with the R-expression John.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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: The First Step: Late Mergermentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Wholesale Late Merger: Beyond the A/Ā Distinction

Takahashi

Hulsey

2009

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is well known that certain cases of Ā -movement cannot bleed Condition C ( Van Riemsdijk and Williams 1981, Freidin 1986, Lebeaux 1988. This inability holds independently of scope.…”

Section: ā -Reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstruction, Binding Theory, and the Interpretation of Chains

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates interactions between the scope of QPs and the restrictions imposed by binding theory. It presents new evidence that Condition C applies at (and only at) LF and demonstrates that this condition can serve as a powerful tool for distinguishing among various claims regardingthe nature of LF and the inventoryof semantic mechanisms. The conclusionsreached are these: (1) Scope reconstruction is represented in the syntax (semantic type-shifting operations are very limited). (2) Ā -chains have the following properties: (a) Scope reconstructionresults from deleting the head of the chain and interpreting a copy at the tail. (b) Non-scope-reconstruct ion results from interpreting the head of the chain with a copy of the restrictor at the tail (unless this option is impossible, as in antecedent-containeddeletion, in which case the copy is changed to a variable as in standard notations). (c) VP adjunction is an intermediate landing site. (3) A-chains are different in a way that at the moment requires a stipulative distinction.

show abstract

“…In this respect it seems to differ from related notions, e.g. the one proposed in van Riemsdijk and Williams (1980), where it plays a role in establishing the logical form of wh-constructions.…”

Section: (F(u))] ^/(U[man(a)(u)* Q [Love(a)(uf(u))]]]mentioning

confidence: 68%