Syntactic Reconstruction Effects

Barss, Andrew

doi:10.1002/9780470756416.ch21

Cited by 47 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lack of condition C effects in the passive also suggests that PartP not vP undergoes leftward movement. If vP underwent leftward movement, it would have to be obligatorily reconstructed according to the theory inTakano 1995 andBarss 2003. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A smuggling approach to the passive in english

Collins

2005

Syntax

338

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I propose a theory of the passive that combines aspects of the principles and parameters analysis (no specific rules, no downward movement) and Chomsky's (1957) Syntactic Structures analysis (the arguments in the passive are generated in the same positions as they are in the active).* I would like to thank Ž eljko Bošković, Yoshi Dobashi, Richard Kayne, and Joachim Sabel for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. I would also like to thank audiences at MIT

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A smuggling approach to the passive in english

Collins

2005

Syntax

338

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Before turning to Wolof clefts, it will be useful to consider the analysis of English clefts. One class of analyses for English clefts (Chomsky 1977;Barss 1986;Browning 1987;Heggie 1988Heggie , 1993Percus 1997) posits the base-generation of the clefted item in the cleft position and the presence of a null operator merged in argument position, although details of the analyses differ. 12 The clefted constituent is interpreted by entering into a relation with the A¢-chain, {Op, t i }:…”

Section: Movement Properties Of Cleftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this section, I present both crosslinguistic and Wolofspecific tests to argue for the promotion analysis. I follow Chomsky (1980Chomsky ( , 1977aChomsky ( , 1977bChomsky ( , 1981Chomsky ( , 1993, Barss (1986Barss ( , 2003, Fox (1999Fox ( , 2000, and Sportiche (2005aSportiche ( , 2005b, among others, in taking reconstruction effects as resulting from syntactic movement. A reconstruction effect obtains when an XP acts as if it were in some other (lower) position than its surface position (Sportiche 2005a).…”

Section: Reconstruction Effects In Wolof Cleftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…anything 2sg+xpl+cop think that xpl-cop-1sg cook-neg ÔItÕs anything that you think I didnÕt cook.Õ ÔYou think that I didnÕt cook ANYTHING.Õ Examples (26a,b) show that the clefted NPI reconstructs into the scope of negation in matrix clauses (26a) and into embedded clauses (26b). From the perspective of English, (26a,b) are quite surprising, as NPIs in English cannot be clefted and cannot reconstruct (Barss 1986, Johnson 1997, Kayne 1998, Takano 2003):…”

Section: Negative Polarity Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Promotion Analysis of Wolof Clefts

Torrence¹

2012

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the syntax of cleft clauses in Wolof. I argue that Wolof clefts are derived by the movement of the clefted constituent to the cleft position. Evidence for the movement anlaysis comes from several general and language-specific reconstruction tests: island sensitivity, idiom chunk reconstruction, reconstruction for Principle A and Principle C, quantifier binding, negative polarity item reconstruction, and the properties of Wolof subjunctive clauses and clitics. I compare Wolof clefts to English clefts throughout and, following work going back to Schachter 1973, suggest that English clefts are also derived by overt movement of the clefted item. Using quantifier float, clausal pied piping and a wh-copy construction, I argue that movement of the clefted item in Wolof is successive cyclic. Finally, I examine the relation between movement, Superiority, and (Strong and Weak) Crossover by comparing Wolof, English, and Yoruba.

show abstract

“…Many languages, for example, exhibit morphophonological reflexes of successive-cyclic wh-raising such as complementiser agreement in Irish (McCloskey 2000a(McCloskey ,b, 2001, deletion of the verbal prefix men-in Malay/Bahasa Indonesia (Cole & Hermon 2000, Saddy 1991, or tonal downstep in Kikuyu (Clements et al 1983, Sabel 2000. Other standard arguments in support of successive-cyclic wh-movement include floating quantifiers in Irish English dialects (McCloskey 2000b,c), certain types of reconstruction effect (Barss 2001, Fox 2000, partial wh-movement in a variety of languages including Malay/Bahasa Indonesia (Cole & Hermon 2000, Saddy 1991 and Ancash Quechua (Cole 1982), children's use of 'medial'…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%