May 29, 2001
|Abstract||Boeckx & Stjepanovic (2001) claim to have evidence from the analysis of pseudogapping that head movement is best viewed as not occurring in the overt syntax, but rather in the PF component. In this squib, I will show that all of the movements that are needed in the analysis of pseudo-gapping are phrasal, hence demonstrating that the analysis of pseudo-gapping shows nothing about the place of head movement in the grammar.1 Their evidence is based on Lasnik’s (1995) analysis of pseudo-gapping, exemplified in..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Andrew Carnie (2007). Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Blackwell Pub..
Rui P. Chaves (2008). Linearization-Based Word-Part Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (3):261-307.
A. A. Derksen (1993). The Seven Sins of Pseudo-Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 24 (1):17 - 42.
Shalom Lappin, Achieving Expressive Completeness and Computational Efficiency for Underspecified Scope Representations.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #291,386 of 722,838 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?