Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:48:00.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

vP-fronting with and without remnant movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2018

GARY THOMS  and
GEORGE WALKDEN
GARY THOMS*
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
GEORGE WALKDEN*
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz
*
Author’s address: University of Glasgow, School of Critical Studies, 13 University Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QH, United Kingdomgary.thoms@glasgow.ac.uk
Author’s address: University of Konstanz, Universitätsstraße 10, 78464 Konstanz, Germanygeorge.walkden@uni-konstanz.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we consider two kinds of vP-fronting constructions in English and argue that they receive quite different analyses. First, we show that English vP-preposing does not have the properties that would be expected of a movement-derived dependency. Evidence for this conclusion is adduced from the licensing conditions on its occurrence, from the availability of morphological mismatches, and from reconstruction facts. By contrast, we show that English participle preposing is a well-behaved case of vP-movement, contrasting with vP-preposing with respect to reconstruction properties in particular. We propose that the differences between the two constructions follow from the interaction of two constraints: the excluded middle constraint (EMC), which rules out derivations involving spellout of linearly intermediate copies only, and the N-only constraint, which restricts movement to occurring where the trace position would license a nominal. The EMC rules out deriving vP-fronting by true movement and instead necessitates a base-generation analysis, while the N-only constraint ensures that participle preposing is only possible in limited circumstances.

Keywords

vP-frontingremnant movementlinearizationellipsisreconstruction
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , 01 February 2019 , pp. 161 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

For judgments and critical comments we would like to thank Laura Bailey, Tim Bazalgette, Alison Biggs, Jessica Brown, Liliane Haegeman, Will Harwood, Caroline Heycock, Elliott Lash, Troy Messick, Neil Myler, Ad Neeleman, Ian Roberts, Craig Sailor, Michelle Sheehan, Fiona Thomas, Hans van de Koot, David Willis, and audiences at CamCoS, LAGB, MIT, NYU, Rutgers, and UCLA, as well as editor Kersti Börjars and three anonymous reviewers.

References

Abels, Klaus. 2002. On an alleged argument for the Proper Binding Condition. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43, 1–16.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality and adposition stranding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut at Storrs.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2008. Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7, 53–120.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus.2011. Don’t fix that island! It ain’t broke. Presented at the Islands in Contemporary Linguistic Theory conference, Vitoria-Gasteiz.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2012. The Italian left periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 229–254.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus & Neeleman, Ad. 2009. Universal 20 without the LCA. In Brucart, José M., Gavarró, Anna & Solà, Jaume (eds.), Merging features: Computation, interpretation and acquisition, 60–79. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2013. A syntax of substance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Adger, David & Ramchand, Gillian. 2005. Merge and move: Wh-dependencies revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 161–193.Google Scholar
Aelbrecht, Lobke & Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. VP-ellipsis is not licensed by VP-topicalization. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 591–614.Google Scholar
Aelbrecht, Lobke & Harwood, William. 2015. To be or not to be elided: VP ellipsis revisited. Lingua 153, 66–97.Google Scholar
Ahn, Byron. 2015. Giving reflexivity a voice: Twin reflexives in English. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian, Steele, Susan & Wasow, Tom. 1979. The category AUX in universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 1–64.Google Scholar
Alrenga, Peter. 2005. A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection. Syntax 8, 175–207.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1994. Syntax textbook draft 4.0. Ms., Australian National University.Google Scholar
Asbury, Anna. 2008. The morphosyntax of case and adpositions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Authier, Jean-Marc. 2011. A movement analysis of French modal ellipsis. Probus 23, 175–216.Google Scholar
Authier, Jean-Marc & Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. An intervention account of the distribution of main clause phenomena: Evidence from ellipsis. Iberia 4, 61–91.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1981. Auxiliary-adverb word order. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 309–315.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Verbs, nouns, and adjectives: Their universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark C. 2003. The interaction of ellipsis and binding: Implications for the sequencing of Principle A. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21.2, 215–246.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark C. 2006. The nonunity of VP-preposing. Language 82, 734–766.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark C. 2012. Deletion versus pro-forms: An overly simple dichotomy? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30, 381–423.Google Scholar
Barros, Matthew. 2012. A non-repair approach to island-sensitivity in contrastive TP ellipsis. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 48, 61–75.Google Scholar
Barros, Matthew, Elliott, Patrick D. & Thoms, Gary. 2014. There is no island repair. Ms., Rutgers/UCL/Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence: On reconstruction and its implications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999. Covert modality in non-finite contexts. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10, 43–90.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian G.. 2004. Evidence that V2 involves two movements: A reply to Müller. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1, 41–61.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty. 1992. The discourse function of inversion in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan & Wurmbrand, Susi. 2012. Word order and scope: Transparent interfaces and the 3/4 signature. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 371–421.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2002. Agree or attract? A minimality solution to a proper binding puzzle. In Alexiadou, Artemis (ed.), Formal approaches to universals, 41–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 351–383.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2004. Topicalization, focalization, lexical insertion, and scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 613–638.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2011. Rescue by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners and the that-trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry 42, 1–44.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko & Takahashi, Daiko. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 347–366.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko & Nunes, Jairo. 2007. The copy theory of movement: A view from PF. In Corver, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo (eds.), The copy theory of movement, 13–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Botwinik-Rotem, Irena. 2004. The category P: Features, projections, interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Botwinik-Rotem, Irena. 2008. Why are they different? An exploration of Hebrew locative PPs. In Asbury, Anna, Dotlačil, Jakub, Gehrke, Berit & Nouwen, Rick (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591–656.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative Inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar. Language 70, 72–131.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical–Functional syntax, 1st edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Breul, Carsten. 2014. The perfect participle paradox: Some implications for the architecture of grammar. English Language & Linguistics 18, 449–470.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English locative inversion and do-support. Language 86, 43–84.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Precede-and-command revisited. Language 90, 342–388.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2016. Alignment in syntax: Quotative inversion in English. Syntax 19, 111–155.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg. 1977. Amount relatives. Language 53, 520–542.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalizations. In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On Wh-Movement. In Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Tom & Akmajian, Adrian (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William A. & McCloskey, James. 1995. Sluicing and Logical Form. Natural Language Semantics 3, 239–282.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990a. Ergative adjectives and the lexicalist hypothesis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8, 1–41.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990b. Types of A ′ -dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coopmans, Peter. 1989. Where stylistic and syntactic processes meet: Locative inversion in English. Language 65, 728–751.Google Scholar
Cresti, Diana. 1995. Extraction and reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics 3, 79–122.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Levine, Robert. 2001. Stylistic inversion in English: A reconsideration. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19, 283–310.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Winkler, Susanne. 2008. English focus inversion. Journal of Linguistics 44, 625–658.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008-. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 560 million words, 1990–present. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, William D. & Dubinsky, Stanley. 1998. Sentential subjects as complex NPs: New reasons for an old account of subjacency. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 34, 83–94.Google Scholar
Davies, William D. & Dubinsky, Stanley. 2009. On the existence (and distribution) of sentential subjects. In Gerdts, Donna B., Moore, John C. & Polinsky, Maria (eds.), Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, 111–128. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2010. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs, 74–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2009. On multidominance and linearization. Biolinguistics 3, 344–403.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Doggett, Teal Bissell. 2004. All things being unequal: Locality in movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Dorfman, Laura, Leu, Thomas & Levon, Erez. 2002. English VP-preposing and relative scope. In van Koppen, Marjo, Sio, Joanna & de Vos, Mark (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XI, 1–15. Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Drummond, Alex & Junko, Shimoyama. 2014. QR as an agent of vehicle change. In Iyer, Jyoti & Kusmer, Leland (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 44, 95–108. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Edelstein, Elspeth. 2014. This syntax needs studied. In Zanuttini, Raffaela & Horn, Laurence R. (eds.), Micro-syntactic variation in North American English, 242–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 1983. More on adverbs and stressed auxiliaries. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 542–549.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2001. Features, theta-roles, and free constituent order. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 405–437.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2002. Against remnant VP movement. In Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Barbiers, Sjef & Gärtner,  Hans-Martin (eds.), Dimensions of movement: From features to remnants, 91–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Semantic conditions on surface structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert. 1977. On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 35–61.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert & May, Robert. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 1995. Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics 3, 283–341.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 157–196.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 63–96.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Nissenbaum, Jon. 1999. Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. In Bird, Sonya, Carnie, Andrew, Haugen, Jason D. & Norquest, Peter (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18, 132–144. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Sauerland, Uli. 1996. Illusive scope of universal quantifiers. In Kusumoto, Kiyomi (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 26, 71–85. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 1986. Fundamental issues in the theory of binding. In Lust, Barbara (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, vol. 1, 151–188. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki. 1993. Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 399–420.Google Scholar
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2012. On headless XP-movement/ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 519–562.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Ms., Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2000. Locality and extended projections. In Coopmans, Peter, Everaert, Martin & Grimshaw, Jane (eds.), Lexical specification and lexical insertion, 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane & Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1990. Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 187–222.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef & Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 69–102.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander & Landman, Fred. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6, 125–170.Google Scholar
Haddican, Bill. 2007. The structural deficiency of verbal pro-forms. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 539–547.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD, and the left periphery. In Zanuttini, Rafaella, Campos, Héctor, Herburger, Elena & Portner, Paul H. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics. Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture, 27–52. Georgetown, WA: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2008. Speculations on subject positions, predication and predicate inversion in English. Ms., Université Charles de Gaulle – Lille III.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1990. Topicalization and other puzzles of German syntax. In Grewendorf, Günther & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Scrambling and Barriers, 93–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert & Rosengren, Inger. 2003. Scrambling: Non-triggered chain formation in OV languages. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15, 203–267.Google Scholar
Han, Jin-Hye. 2005. A DP/NP-shell for subject CPs. In Cover, Rebecca T. & Kim, Yuni (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Prosodic Variation and Change, 133–143. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Hartman, Jeremy. 2009. When e-GIVENness overpredicts identity. Ppresented at BCGL4.Google Scholar
Hartman, Jeremy. 2012. Varieties of clausal complementation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Harwood, William. 2015. Being progressive is just a phase: Celebrating the uniqueness of progressive aspect under a phase-based analysis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33, 523–573.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 547–570.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2012. Relative reconstructions: Can we arrive at a unified picture? Ms., University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hicks, Glyn. 2009. Toughconstructions and their derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 535–566.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2006. The Phase Condition and cyclic spell-out: Evidence from VP-topicalization. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 237–259. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2003. Eliminating the PBC: Multiple spellout, scrambling and the edge operation. In Kaiser, Elsi & Arunachalam, Sudha (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Penn Linguistics Colloquium, volume 9 of UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics, 89–103. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & Mulder, René. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7, 1–79.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 103–138.Google Scholar
Hulsey, Sarah & Sauerland, Uli. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14, 111–137.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Izvorski, Roumyana. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 189–238. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janke, Vikki & Neeleman, Ad. 2012. Ascending and descending VPs in English. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 151–190.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In Baltin, Mark & Collins, Chris (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 439–479. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2010. Towards deriving differences in how wh-movement and QR are pronounced. Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1993. Towards a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47, 3–31.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Movement and silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kim, Kwang-sup. 2011. Movement paradoxes are not paradoxes: A raising approach. Lingua 121, 1009–1041.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 2007. Topic and focus: Two structural positions associated with logical functions in the left periphery of the Hungarian sentence. In Féry, Caroline, Fanselow, Gisbert & Krifka, Manfred (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure, vol. 6, 69–81. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1997. Elementary operations and optimal derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2000. String vacuous overt verb movement. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9, 227–285.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, Sportiche, Dominique & Stabler, Edward P.. 2013. An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1987. Domains and dynasties: The radical autonomy of syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Joshi, Aravind. 1985. The linguistic relevance of Tree Adjoining Grammars. Ms., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not. Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1–47.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2007. Constraints on partial VP-fronting. Syntax 10, 127–164.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1985. Bare NP-adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 595–621.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meet the minimalist program. In Campos, Héctor & Kempchinsky, Paula (eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory, 251–275. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move 𝛼. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Stowell,  Tim. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687–720.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1990. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. In Carter, Juli, Déchaine, Rose-Marie, Philip, Bill & Sherer, Tim (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 20, 318–332. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where does Binding Theory apply? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1960. The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Levin, Lorraine. 1986. Operations on lexical forms: Unaccusative rules in Germanic languages. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lipták, Aniko & Vicente, Luis. 2009. Pronominal doubling under predicate topicalization. Lingua 119, 650–686.Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing and identification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Mchombo, Sam A. (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 1, 113–151. Stanford University: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marelj, Marijana. 2004. Middles and argument structure across languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Marelj, Marijana & Matushansky, Ora. 2015. Mistaking  for: Testing the theory of mediated predication. Linguistic Inquiry 46.1, 43–76.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13.1, 91–106.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 2006. Resumption. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 94–117. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2000. Economy, the copy theory, and antecedent contained deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 566–575.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2003. Subject–auxiliary inversion in comparatives and PF output constraints. In Schwabe, Kerstin & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, 55–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 77–108.Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2006. Small antecedents: Syntax or pragmatics?In Elfner, Emily & Walkow, Martin (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 37, 45–58. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2013. Not moving clauses: Connectivity in clausal complements. Syntax 16, 250–291.Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2015. CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry 46, 305–342.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1995. On extraposition & successive cyclicity. In Lutz, Uli & Pafel, Jürgen (eds.), On extraction and extraposition in German, 213–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1998a. Incomplete category fronting. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1998b. Verb-second as vP-first. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7, 179–234.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon & Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 461–508.Google Scholar
Müller, Natascha, Crysmann, Berthold & Kaiser, Georg A.. 1996. Interactions between the acquisition of French object drop and the development of the C-system. Language Acquisition 5, 35–63.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2015. German clause structure: An analysis with special consideration of so-called multiple frontings (with contributions by Felix Bildhauer & Philippa Cook). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad. 1994. Complex predicates. Utrecht: Onderzoeksinstituut voor Taal en Spraak.Google Scholar
Oku, Satoshi. 1996. Perfective participle paradox in English VP-fronting. In Dubach Green, Antony & Motapanyane, Virginia (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 96 (ESCOL), 282–293. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Oku, Satoshi. 1998. A theory of selection and reconstruction in the minimalist perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut at Storrs.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1991. Zero syntax II: Infinitives. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 37–90.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1986. Studies of passive clauses. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2004. A paradox in English syntax. In Postal, Paul M. (ed.), Skeptical linguistic essays, 15–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2009. Analysing English sentences: A Minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reeve, Matthew. 2014. On control and envy . UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 26, 43–71.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1978. Syntactic domains for semantic rules. In Guenthner, Franz & Schmidt, Siegfried J. (eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages, 107–130. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Affix Support and the EPP. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2014. Contiguity theory. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Rimell, Laura & Leu, Thomas. 2004. VP-preposing and relative scope. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 241–251.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 2005. Principles and parameters in a VSO language: A case study in Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. In Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, Series One. Evanston, Illinois: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain. 2012. VP ellipsis, phases, and the syntax of morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30, 897–963.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze & Sigrid, Beck. 1998. Reconstruction and the interpretation of which-phrases. In Katz, Graham, Kim, Shin-Sook & Winhart, Heike (eds.), Reconstruction: Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen Workshop, 223–256. Universities of Tübingen & Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction in A ′ -chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 587–620.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A.1976. Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1978. Floated quantifiers, adverbs, and extraction sites. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 146–150.Google Scholar
Sailor, Craig. 2014. The variables of VP ellipsis. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Additional-WH effects and the adjunction site theory. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3, 195–240.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 2002. Towards the unification of scramblings. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 41, 287–303. MITWPL.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 2003. A derivational approach to the interpretation of scrambling chains. Lingua 113, 481–518.Google Scholar
Samko, Bern. 2014. A feature-driven movement analysis of English participle preposing. In Santana-LaBarge, Robert E. (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 371–380. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2003. Unpronounced heads in relative clauses. In Schwabe, Kerstin & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, 205–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2004. The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics 12, 63–127.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli & Elbourne, Paul. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF-movement, and the derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 283–319.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49, 19–46.Google Scholar
Schuyler, Tamara. 2001. Wh-movement out of the site of VP ellipsis. In Bhloscaidh, Séamas Mac (ed.), Syntax at Santa Cruz, 1–20. UC, Santa Cruz: Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2010. Extraposition and antisymmetry. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen (ed.), Linguistic variation yearbook, vol. 10, 203–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Shoichi. 2010. The hidden side of clausal complements. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28, 343–380.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji. 1995. Predicate fronting and internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 327–340.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji. 2000. Illicit remnant movement: An argument for feature-driven movement. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 141–156.Google Scholar
Tancredi, Christopher. 1992. Deletion, deaccenting and presupposition. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Terzi, Arhonto. 2010. Locative prepositions and place. In Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs, 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Toda, Tatsuhiko. 2007. So-inversion revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 188–195.Google Scholar
Thoms, Gary. 2010. Verb floating and VPE: Towards a movement account of ellipsis licensing. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 10, 252–297.Google Scholar
Thoms, Gary. 2014. On an alleged argument against the Proper Binding Condition. Ms., University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Thoms, Gary. to appear. From Last Resort insertion to locality: English do-support. In Surányi, Balázs (ed.), Minimalist approaches to syntactic locality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thoms, Gary & Walkden, George. 2015. Discontinuous deletion and remnant movement. Ms., University of Edinburgh/University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Thoms, Gary & Caroline, Heycock. 2014. Reconstruction and modification in relative clauses. Presented at LAGB 2014, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Trinh, Tue. 2009. A constraint on copy deletion. Theoretical Linguistics 35, 183–227.Google Scholar
Urushibara, Saeko. 1997. Facets of the English past participle. In Ukaji, Masatomo, Nakao, Toshio, Kajita, Masaru & Chiba, Shuji (eds.), English linguistics: A festschrift for Akira Ota on the occasion of his 80th birthday, 130–146. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. The syntax of ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch dialects. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van de Koot, Hans. 2004. Explaining Barss’ generalization. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16, 177–195.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1990. Functional prepositions. In Pinkster, Harm & Genee, Inge (eds.), Unity in diversity: Papers presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th birthday, 229–242. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Vicente, Luis. 2007. The syntax of heads and phrases: A study of verb (phrase) fronting. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and parameters of syntactic saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 1999. Right Node Raising and the LCA. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18, 586–598.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 2008. Shared constituents and linearization. In Johnson, Kyle (ed.), Topics in ellipsis, 229–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin S. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1, 81–114.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004. No TP fronting meets Nearly Headless Nick. Ms., University of Connecticut at Storrs (Lingbuzz 000146).Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2006. Licensing Case. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18, 175–236.Google Scholar
Yatsushiro, Kazuko. 1997. VP-scrambling in Japanese. In Kim, Jeong-Seok, Oku, Satoshi & Stjepanović, Sandra (eds.), Is the logic clear: Papers in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 1988a. Proper government of antecedentless VPs in English and Spanish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6, 95–128.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 1988b. Verb phrase syntax: A parametric study of English and Spanish. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1991. Clitics in Dutch: Evidence for the position of INFL. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 33, 71–92.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 2011. The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 1997. Lexical and functional properties of prepositions. In Haumann, Dagmar & Schierholz, Stefan J. (eds.), Lexikalische und grammatische Eigenschaften präpositionaler Elemente, 1–18. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar