Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences
CTJ Huang - Linguistic inquiry, 1993 - JSTOR
Linguistic inquiry, 1993•JSTOR
It is well known that certain sentences that have had their constituents reordered under
Move a behave with respect to binding theory as though movement had not taken place. In
current literature, such sentences are known as examples of reconstruction. This term
derives from Chomsky's (1976) treatment of sentences like (1).(1)*[Whosei motherl] does hei
love tj? This sentence is apparently a case of strong crossover and should presumably be
ruled out by Principle C of the binding theory, but in (1) no R-expression is actually A-bound …
Move a behave with respect to binding theory as though movement had not taken place. In
current literature, such sentences are known as examples of reconstruction. This term
derives from Chomsky's (1976) treatment of sentences like (1).(1)*[Whosei motherl] does hei
love tj? This sentence is apparently a case of strong crossover and should presumably be
ruled out by Principle C of the binding theory, but in (1) no R-expression is actually A-bound …
It is well known that certain sentences that have had their constituents reordered under Move a behave with respect to binding theory as though movement had not taken place. In current literature, such sentences are known as examples of reconstruction. This term derives from Chomsky's (1976) treatment of sentences like (1).(1)*[Whosei motherl] does hei love tj?
This sentence is apparently a case of strong crossover and should presumably be ruled out by Principle C of the binding theory, but in (1) no R-expression is actually A-bound. Chomsky's proposal was that the phrase whose mother is reconstructed to its base position as in (2a) or equivalently (2b), so that the pronoun he does c-command a trace of who, and the impossibility of coindexing he with whose follows from Principle C, as a standard case of strong crossover.
JSTOR以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果