Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
TocHeadingTitle
Date
Availability
1-9 of 9
Howard Lasnik
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2018) 49 (3): 465–499.
Published: 01 July 2018
Abstract
View article
PDF
A bound pronoun in the subject position of a finite embedded clause renders the clause boundary relatively transparent to relations ordinarily confined to monoclausal, control, and raising configurations. For example, too / enough -movement structures involving a finite clause boundary are degraded in sentences like * This book is too long [for John to claim [that Bill read ___ in a day]] but improved when the finite clause has a bound pronominal subject as in ? This book is too long [for John 1 to claim [that he 1 read ___ in a day]] . This bound pronoun effect holds across a wide range of phenomena including too / enough -movement, tough -movement, gapping, comparative deletion, antecedent-contained deletion, quantifier scope interaction, multiple questions, pseudogapping, reciprocal binding, and multiple sluicing; we confirm the effect via a sentence acceptability experiment targeting some of these phenomena. Our account has two crucial ingredients: (a) bound pronouns optionally enter the derivation with unvalued ϕ-features and (b) phases are defined in part by convergence, so that under certain conditions, unvalued features void the phasal status of CP and extend the locality domain for syntactic operations.
Includes: Supplementary data
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2010) 41 (4): 689–692.
Published: 01 October 2010
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2006) 37 (1): 150–155.
Published: 01 January 2006
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2003) 34 (4): 527–546.
Published: 01 October 2003
Abstract
View article
PDF
The article provides a comprehensive account of the distribution of the null complementizer in English that does not appeal to the notion of government, thus contributing to the minimalist goal of eliminating arbitrary relations such as government. The account is based on Pesetsky's (1992) proposal that the null complementizer is a PF affix, which we instantiate through the affix-hopping approach to affixation. We also provide an account of several subject/object asymmetries with respect to extraction out of various clausal arguments.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2003) 34 (4): 649–660.
Published: 01 October 2003
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2003) 34 (1): 143–154.
Published: 01 January 2003
Abstract
View article
PDF
It is well known that in sluicing constructions wh -dependencies can cross certain projections that are otherwise barriers to movement (Ross 1969, Chomsky 1972). This fact would follow under the assumption that the relevant barriers are somehow deactivated when phonologically deleted (“island repair”). The problem, however, is that another form of phonological deletion (VP-ellipsis; VPE) seems to be impossible in certain contexts where sluicing allows for island repair (Chung, Ladusaw, and McCloskey 1995, Merchant 2001). Nevertheless, we argue against the conclusion that island repair is a special property of sluicing. The argument is based on two observations. First, the difference between sluicing and VPE seems too broad to warrant the conclusion that island repair is the distinguishing factor (Lasnik 2001). Second, the conclusion is directly refuted by other VPE environments where island repair is possible (Kennedy and Merchant 2000; Fox, in preparation). The argument leaves us with a puzzle that we attempt to resolve while still maintaining the null hypothesis that VPE and sluicing involve the same operation of deletion, differing only in the size of the deleted constituent. Our proposed resolution capitalizes on a special property of the relevant sluicing contexts—namely, the presence of an indefinite NP in the antecedent clause in a position parallel to that of a trace in the elided clause. We argue that given the parallelism conditions on ellipsis, this fact prevents the wh -phrase in the elided clause from undergoing successive-cyclic movement. The remaining option (one-fell-swoop movement) requires the deletion of all barriers, including those that would otherwise be circumvented via an intermediate landing site. Such deletion occurs in sluicing but not in VPE, which targets a smaller constituent.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2001) 32 (2): 356–362.
Published: 01 April 2001
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (1999) 30 (4): 691–703.
Published: 01 October 1999
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (1999) 30 (2): 197–217.
Published: 01 April 1999
Abstract
View article
PDF
Procrastinate (Chomsky 1993) favors covert movement; therefore, when movement is overt, it must have been forced to operate “early” by some special requirement, one that Chomsky codes into “strong features.” I compare Chomsky's three successive theories of strong features and argue that two ellipsis phenomena, pseudogapping and sluicing, provide evidence bearing on the nature of strong features. I argue that movement or ellipsis can rescue a derivation with a strong feature, and I conclude that PF crash is relevant either directly, as in Chomsky 1993, or indirectly, as in the theory presented in Chomsky 1995a augmented by the multiple-chain theory of pied-piping (especially as interpreted by Ochi (1998)).