We reply to Erlewine and Kotek’s (2018) claim that the phenomenon of covariation under focus (Tanglewood sentences; Kratzer 1991) is subject to syntactic islands and that it should therefore be handled by a focus movement theory (contra Kratzer’s view). We present novel data that are at odds with Erlewine and Kotek’s conclusions and demonstrate the necessity of an island-insensitive mechanism to capture focus covariation. We revisit Erlewine and Kotek’s main arguments against such a system and show that they are systematically confounded. Moreover, removing the confounds cancels the force of the arguments, corroborating the central point of this article.

You do not currently have access to this content.