Abstract

This article argues against the conclusion in Postal 1994 that there are no instances of parasitic gap licensing by the rightward displacement of a DP. The evidence presented in Postal 1994 allows us to conclude only that right node raising is able to target adjunction structures when a parasitic gap derivation is otherwise blocked. Three cases are then provided to support the argument that, in principle, both parasitic gap licensing and right node raising can target adjunction structures.

You do not currently have access to this content.