German: Syntactic Problems – Problematic Syntax 1997
DOI: 10.1515/9783110914726-009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Toward a uniform account of scrambling and clitic doubling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…linked readings are admissible in CD contexts. Moreover, the absence of weak crossover effects with doubled quantifiers, already pointed out in Suñer (1988Suñer ( , 1991, Dobrovie-Sorin (1990) and Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1997), is due to the disappearance of such effects with referential expressions, and the same account works for a property of doubling constructions that is known as a typical specificity restriction, i.e. opacity for extraction processes (Sánchez 2005).…”
mentioning
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…linked readings are admissible in CD contexts. Moreover, the absence of weak crossover effects with doubled quantifiers, already pointed out in Suñer (1988Suñer ( , 1991, Dobrovie-Sorin (1990) and Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1997), is due to the disappearance of such effects with referential expressions, and the same account works for a property of doubling constructions that is known as a typical specificity restriction, i.e. opacity for extraction processes (Sánchez 2005).…”
mentioning
confidence: 85%
“…This is the central issue addressed in this work, and thus I will leave its discussion for sections 3 and 4; I will use the term specificity effects to refer to the consequences of the requirement in both constructions. A number of related facts may be treated as simple by-products of the specificity condition in CD and DOM: the constraint against bare nouns and incorporated nominals, the preference for wide scope readings, and the fading of weak-crossover effects (see Dobrovie-Sorin 1990, Suñer 1991, Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 1997; also section 3).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…15 (In this I depart from Sportiche (1998) who maintains that clitics license specificity in the doubled DP.) The licensing of the feature is carried out through a spec-head agreement, which means that the doubled DP moves 15 For similar proposals see also Kallulli (1999;2000), Alexiadou-Anagnostopoulou (1997), Anagnostopoulou (1999), who follow Sportiche in analyzing the clitic as the head of ClP. These proposals, however, differ from the one given here in that the clitic is a licensor of features other than strength.…”
Section: Formal Representation Of Clitic Doublingmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…Kallulli, for example, argues that the clitic in Greek and Albanian licenses a [−focus] feature because focused elements cannot be CDed in these two languages. Alexiadou -Anagnostopoulou (1997) and Anagnostopoulou (1999) take the clitic to be an agreement marker, following Suñer (1988).…”
Section: Formal Representation Of Clitic Doublingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1997) argue that there are some striking resemblances between scrambling in Germanic and clitic doubling constructions in Greek and Romance.…”
Section: Weak Pronouns and Scrambled Dpsmentioning
confidence: 89%