Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Theoretical Linguistics

An Open Peer Review Journal

Editor-in-Chief: Krifka, Manfred

Ed. by Gärtner, Hans-Martin

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2015: 1.167
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.302
Rank 44 out of 179 in category Linguistics in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.298
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.719
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.650

Online
ISSN
1613-4060
See all formats and pricing



Select Volume and Issue

Issues

Re: CycLin and the role of PF in Object Shift

Jonathan David Bobaljik
  • University of Connecticut.
Published Online: 2005-07-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.111

Abstract

This volume’s two target articles explore novel approaches to word order alternations, especially Scandinavian Object Shift. They share the common perspective that aspects of linear order long considered the exclusive purview of syntax may be better understood if the burden of explanation is split between phonological and syntactic modules. The two articles differ substantially, however, in how this general hunch plays out, in particular in the amount of the explanation that is attributed to extra-syntactic factors. Fox and Pesetsky’s ‘‘Cyclic Linearization’’ model (hereafter F&P, CycLin) is compatible with familiar syntactic models, and can be seen as a filter running (cyclically) on the output of syntactic derivations. F&P suggest that their proposal can explain various heretofore stipulated conditions on syntactic operations as consequences of the architecture of their system and a single axiom about linearization. Erteschik-Shir’s proposal in ‘‘Sound Patterns of Syntax’’ (hereafter E-S) is more radical, in the sense that far less of the familiar syntax is retained; where for CycLin movement is still a syntactic process, on E-S’s view a good deal of traditionally syntactic movement must be rethought in linear, rather than hierarchical terms. Both articles are largely exploratory and leave many of the details still to be spelled-out. To engage the ideas on specifics, then, will involve to some degree making some educated guesses about what ancillary assumptions the relevant authors might condone. I will therefore restrict myself to a few comments at a general level, though it will be impossible to do justice to these authors’ ideas in the allotted space.


Published Online: 2005-07-27

Published in Print: 2005-05-20


Citation Information: Theoretical Linguistics. Volume 31, Issue 1-2, Pages 111–125, ISSN (Online) 1613-4060, ISSN (Print) 0301-4428, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.111, July 2005

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.