Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
Date
Availability
1-4 of 4
Nicholas Sobin
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 1–13.
Published: 16 January 2025
Abstract
View article
PDF
Thoms et al. (2023) propose a system of negation involving two basegenerated NegPs, one below T and the other above T, claiming that negative inflections do not syntactically attach to T, but merge with T morphophonologically. Their analysis is driven by the distribution of the contracted negative inflection - nae in Scots negative imperatives and assumptions about adverbial positioning. Clitic vs. affix is claimed insufficient to characterize - nae vs. - n’t . However, further considerations of adverb positioning and other phenomena demonstrate that the two-NegP analysis is unnecessary and that the clitic/affix distinction can characterize - nae and - n’t , respectively.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2010) 41 (1): 131–148.
Published: 01 January 2010
Abstract
View article
PDF
English echo questions present numerous challenges to the analysis of interrogatives, including (a) simple wh -in-situ ( You saw who ? ); (b) apparent Superiority violations ( What did who see? ); (c) apparent verb movement without wh -movement ( Has Mary seen what ? ); and (d) requisite wide scope only for echo-question-introduced wh -phrases (underlined in these examples—only who in What did who see? is being asked about). Such apparently contrary features may be explained in terms of independently necessary scope assignment mechanisms and a complementizer that subordinates the utterance being echoed and “freezes” its CP structure. No norms of question formation are violated.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2008) 39 (1): 147–160.
Published: 01 January 2008
Abstract
View article
PDF
Culicover and Jackendoff (2005) argue that VP structure with adjunct modifiers is “flat”: both complements and adjuncts are equally sisters of V. Their arguments center around the apparent misbehavior of do so as a replacement for a syntactic VP constituent. However, several of these arguments are inconclusive. The rule that Culicover and Jackendoff offer for do so does not fare better overall than does the hierarchic VP account of do so .
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2004) 35 (3): 503–508.
Published: 01 July 2004