Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Theoretical Linguistics

An Open Peer Review Journal

Editor-in-Chief: Krifka, Manfred

Ed. by Gärtner, Hans-Martin

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2013: 1.000
Rank 41 out of 169 in category Linguistics in the 2013 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.677
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.460

ERIH category 2011: INT1

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

Some Remarks on Fox and Pesetsky: ‘‘Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure’’

Molly Diesing1

1.

Citation Information: Theoretical Linguistics. Volume 31, Issue 1-2, Pages 127–136, ISSN (Online) 1613-4060, ISSN (Print) 0301-4428, DOI: 10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.127, July 2005

Publication History

Published Online:
2005-07-27

Abstract

Fox and Pesetsky (F&P) make the claim that certain constraints on Object Shift and Quantifier Movement in Scandinavian can be explained within their model of the mapping between syntax and phonology. Among the salient features of this model are: Spell-out occurs phase-by-phase (as in recent work by Chomsky 2000, 2001a,b), and linearization relations established at each Spell-out point must be preserved (F&P’s property of Order Preservation). As F&P demonstrate quite elegantly, this system enforces successive cyclicity in wh-movement, in that non-successive-cyclic derivations will result in an ordering contradiction (violating Order Preservation). Thus, the ‘‘cyclicity’’ of successive cyclicity is shifted to being a by-product of the cyclic spelling-out process. One might still ask why Spell-out itself is cyclic, but this is certainly a welcome simplification.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.