- Research Article
- 10.17250/khisli.31.1.201404.004
Copy theory of movement and apparent ECM constructions
- Apr 01, 2014
- Linguistic Research
- 이우승
Copy theory of movement and apparent ECM constructions
Abstract. The copy theory of movement receives the strongest form of support from instances of movement leaving phonetically visible copies. Such is the case in Hebrew V(P)‐fronting, where the fronted verb surfaces as an infinitive, and its “trace” is pronounced as an inflected verbal copy. This paper argues that V‐doubling is explained by the same algorithm that determines pronunciation of single copies in canonical chains. The phonetic resolution of chains is PF‐internal, strictly local, and need not appeal to cross‐interface recoverability constraints. Crosslinguistic variation in predicate clefts largely reflects different morpho‐phonological strategies of realizing the fronted predicate head.
Copy theory of movement and apparent ECM constructions
Copy theory of movement and apparent ECM constructions
Focus association into copies and the scope of even
Nakanishi 2012 presents a novel argument for the so-called “scope theory” of English VP-even, based on examples with antecedent-contained deletion (ACD). Nakanishi’s argument is based on the assumption that even cannot associate with a focus which has moved out of its scope. I show that this assumption is incorrect, defusing Nakanishi’s argument. I propose that when even associates with a focus which has moved out of its scope, it actually associates with focused material in the lower copies of movement (trace positions). I show that a closer look at ACD examples of Nakanishi’s type in fact forms a new argument against the scope theory. I conclude that English VP-even must always be interpreted in its pronounced position. The patterns of focus association with even presented here constitute a new argument for the copy theory of movement.
Read moreGapping is not only low coordination
This squib is concerned with the validity of an approach to Gapping that exploits low coordination and ATB-movement (Johnson 2009). In this squib, I show that low coordination combined with ATB-movement has the following problems: (1) ATB-movement is not compatible with the Copy theory of Movement; (2) there is no universal correlation between partial vP/VP-topicalization and Gapping; (3) Gapping is possible in CP coordination, violating the low coordination requirement.
Read more