This paper proposes that the restricted distribution of MCP follows from locality conditions on movement. The focus is the well-known absence of argument fronting in English adverbial clauses, but the account extends naturally to other clause types and to other MCP. Underlying most syntactic accounts of the distributional restrictions on MCP is the intuition that certain clause types cannot fully exploit their left-peripheral space. This intuition is directly expressed in configurational terms in what I will be calling ‘truncation’ accounts which postulate that a segment of the articulated left periphery is unavailable. In this paper I develop an intervention-based account for MCP. In this account the effect of ‘truncation’ is no longer stated as a primitive but is syntactically derived.
2014. No Such Thing as “Parameterized Structural Deficiency” in the Left Periphery1. In Language Use and Linguistic Structure, ► pp. 33 ff.
Averina, A.
2016. THE NATURE OF NON-SUBMITTED SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES (OBSERVING THE MATERIAL OF GERMAN LANGUAGE). Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University (Linguistics) :3 ► pp. 140 ff.
Bonilla Carvajal, Camilo Andrés
2020. The syntax of the Latin presentative adverb ecce: Relation to focus phrase. Journal of Latin Linguistics 19:1 ► pp. 27 ff.
Elordieta, Arantzazu & Bill Haddican
2018. Truncation feeds intervention. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36:2 ► pp. 403 ff.
2019. InfinitiveWh‐Relatives in Romance: Consequences for the Truncation‐versus‐Intervention Debate. Syntax 22:2-3 ► pp. 303 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 may 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.