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


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

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: https://doi.org/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.