Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry
This content downloaded from 202.92.128.130 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 07:19:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
haus. 2008. Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science 32:685-712.
Xiang, Ming, Brian Dillon, and Colin Phillips. 2009. Illusory licensing
effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain and
Language 108:40-55.
able to strand prepositions - (1) - but those that move elements to the
Alex Drummond
University of Maryland
Norbert Hornstein
University of Maryland
Howard Lasnik
University of Maryland
b. John saw t' in the living room yesterday [the man who
lived next door] i .
(3) a. John looked at [the man who lived next door] in the
living room yesterday.
b. *John looked at tx in the living room yesterday [the man
We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for pointing out some
errors and ambiguities in an earlier version of this squib.
This content downloaded from 202.92.128.130 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 07:19:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ric theory; Kayne 1994) specifiers are typically or always on the left.
For current purposes, any linearization procedure that situates PP es-
Fox and Pesetsky (2005) do not assume that movement out of a linearization
domain must necessarily proceed via the edge of that domain; this is only
necessary insofar as it is necessary to avoid linearization conflicts. It seems to
follow (we believe contrary to fact) that for a in the configuration [Xp ...
[yp [zp <*]]] with XP, YP, ZP linearization domains and a rightmost
in each, a should be able to move to right-adjoin to XP in a single step.
3 Abels hypothesizes that PPs are not phases in languages that allow Pstranding (since if they were phases, the complement of P would have to move
However, Abels notes (p. 227) that an alternative to assuming that P is not a
phase head in P-stranding languages is to assume that in these languages a
further projection intervenes between P and its (apparent) complement.
This content downloaded from 202.92.128.130 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 07:19:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The same logic seems to apply to recent antisymmetric approaches to rightward movement (Kayne 2000:250), where apparent
rightward movement of XP is taken to be leftward movement of XP
followed by remnant movement of a constituent immediately (or very
nearly immediately) below the landing site of XP. Once Spell-Out has
applied at the point in the derivation shown in (6), any future derivational operations must respect the ordering statement "DP precedes
P." Thus, whatever the intricacies of the syntactic operations that
eventually place the DP on the right, a linearization conflict will arise.
Assumptions (a)-(c) have implications for the analysis of rightward movement in general, since they have the consequence that successive-cyclic rightward movement is impossible. If finite clauses are
always "strong" phases, a form of Ross's (1967) Right Roof Constraint is derived. The constraint derived will be stricter than the origi-
nal in those cases where vP is a strong phase, and (as we have shown)
in the case of extraction from PP.
References
This content downloaded from 202.92.128.130 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 07:19:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Published as Infinite syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex (1986).
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple Spell-Out. In Working minimalism,
ed. by Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 251-282.
to Buerle 1983
Ezra Keshet
University of Michigan
ing (translated loosely from German), which create a paradox for the
STI:
(1) George thinks every Red Sox player is staying in some fivestar hotel downtown.
the Boston Red Sox baseball team, but George does not know this.
Furthermore, George does not know which hotel they are staying at;
he is only of the opinion that they are all staying together in a fivestar establishment. In fact, there may not even be any five-star hotels
downtown; the sentence can be true even if the players' hotel actually
has only four stars.
In this context, the quantificational force of the existential quanti-
fier some five-star hotel takes wider scope than that of the universal
quantifier every Red Sox player, since there is only one hotel in which
The universal quantifier should therefore take wider scope than the
Thanks are due to Kai von Fintei and Alan Bale for their invaluable assistance in the preparation of this squib.
This content downloaded from 202.92.128.130 on Tue, 05 Apr 2016 07:19:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms