Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2015Edited by Björn Köhnlein and Jenny Audring
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 32] 2015
► pp. 88–104
Edited by Björn Köhnlein and Jenny Audring
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 32] 2015
► pp. 88–104
Crossover restrictions, A-bar pronouns and discourse antecedents
The difference between weak crossovers and weakest crossovers is usually derived from a distinction between quantifiers and non-quantifiers (Lasnik & Stowell 1991). In this paper I will derive crossover restrictions from a new example set, long movement constructions with Dutch A-bar pronouns. Besides question wh-pronouns and relative pronouns, the set of Dutch A-bar pronouns includes topic d-pronouns not available in English. I will argue that A-bar pronouns constitute a uniform set of quantifiers, be it quantifiers with a discourse antecedent. To explain the present analysis, I take Safir (2004) and Ruys (2004) as a starting point. A major difference between these approaches and my own is that my analysis will make a distinction between strong crossovers as binding failures versus weak and weakest crossovers as a matter of discourse dependency, whereas it is more usual to see a related explanation for strong and weak crossovers versus weakest crossovers.
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].
References (24)
Barbiers, Sjef, et al. 2005. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects, Volume 11. Amsterdam University Press. 
Bianchi, Valentine. 2001. “Antisymmetry and the leftness condition”. Studia Linguistica 551.1–38.
Boef, Eefje. 2012. Doubling in relative clauses. PhD diss., Utrecht University.
Broekhuis, Hans & Marcel den Dikken. 2012. Syntax of Dutch: Nouns and noun phrases 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Falco, Michelangelo. 2007. “Weak crossover, specificity and LF chains”. Coreference, Modality and Focus ed. by L. Eguren & O. Fernàndez-Soriano, 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Higginbotham, James. 1983. “Logical form, binding and nominals”. Linguistic Inquiry 14:3.395–420.
Hinterwimmer, Stefan & Sophie Repp. 2009. “Fixed Abode: What topical indefinites and wh-terms have in common”. Proceedings of NELS 38 ed. by M. Abdurrahman, A. Schardl & M. Walkow, 259–270. Amherst: GLSA Publications.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. “Syntax and semantics of questions”. Linguistics and Philosophy 11.3–44.
Kampen, Jacqueline van. 1997. First steps in wh-movement. PhD diss. Utrecht Univerity.
. 2007. “Relative agreement in Dutch”. Linguistics in the Netherlands ed. by Marjo van Koppen & Bettelou Los, 112–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2010. “Anaforische middelen voor topicverschuiving”. Nederlandse Taalkunde 15:2/3.189–210.
Lasnik, Howard & Tim Stowell. 1991. “Weakest crossover”. Linguistic Inquiry 221.687–720.
Pesetsky, David. 1987. “Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding”. The Representation of (In)definitess ed. by Eric Reuland & Alice ter Meulen, 98–129. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Postal, Paul. 1971. Crossover Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
. 1993. “Remarks on weak crossover effects”. Linguistic Inquiry 241.539–556.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface Strategies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ruys, Eddy. 1992. The scope of indefinites. PhD diss., Utrecht University.
. 2000. “Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon”. Linguistic Inquiry 311.513–539.
. 2004. “A note on weakest crossover”. Linguistic Inquiry 351.124–140.
Safir, Ken. 2004. The Syntax of (In)dependence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. PhD diss., MIT.
Wiltschko, Martina. 1997. “D-linking, scrambling and superiority in German”. GAGL 411.108–142.
. 1998. “On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns”. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21.143–181.