Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

VP-Ellipsis is not licensed by VP-Topicalization

Lobke Aelbrecht UGent and Liliane Haegeman UGent (2012) LINGUISTIC INQUIRY. 34(4). p.591-614
abstract
Starting from the observation that the constraints on VP-ellipsis (VPE) closely match those on VP-topicalization (VPT), Johnson (2001) proposes a movement account for VPE: in order for a VP to be deleted, it must first undergo topicalization. We show that although this proposal is attractive, making VPE dependent on VPT is problematic because VPE and VPT are not distributionally equivalent. While VPT targets the left periphery and consequently is subject to constraints on movement, VPE is not so restricted. We outline some alternatives for capturing the observed parallelism in the licensing of VPT and VPE.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
restrictions on movement, left periphery, VP-topicalization, main clause phenomena, VP-ellipsis, FOCUS, ENGLISH, ROMANCE, SYNTAX, GOVERNMENT, OPERATOR MOVEMENT, ellipsis licensing, DELETION
journal title
LINGUISTIC INQUIRY
volume
34
issue
4
pages
591 - 614
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000310662800003
JCR category
LINGUISTICS
JCR impact factor
1.59 (2012)
JCR rank
13/158 (2012)
JCR quartile
1 (2012)
ISSN
0024-3892
project
Odysseus Project Liliane Haegeman
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
2988265
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-2988265
date created
2012-09-17 13:59:08
date last changed
2015-06-17 10:14:37
@article{2988265,
  abstract     = {Starting from the observation that the constraints on VP-ellipsis (VPE) closely match those on VP-topicalization (VPT), Johnson (2001) proposes a movement account for VPE: in order for a VP to be deleted, it must first undergo topicalization. We show that although this proposal is attractive, making VPE dependent on VPT is problematic because VPE and VPT are not distributionally equivalent. While VPT targets the left periphery and consequently is subject to constraints on movement, VPE is not so restricted. We outline some alternatives for capturing the observed parallelism in the licensing of VPT and VPE.},
  author       = {Aelbrecht, Lobke and Haegeman, Liliane},
  issn         = {0024-3892},
  journal      = {LINGUISTIC INQUIRY},
  keyword      = {restrictions on movement,left periphery,VP-topicalization,main clause phenomena,VP-ellipsis,FOCUS,ENGLISH,ROMANCE,SYNTAX,GOVERNMENT,OPERATOR MOVEMENT,ellipsis licensing,DELETION},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {4},
  pages        = {591--614},
  title        = {VP-Ellipsis is not licensed by VP-Topicalization},
  volume       = {34},
  year         = {2012},
}

Chicago
Aelbrecht, Lobke, and Liliane Haegeman. 2012. “VP-Ellipsis Is Not Licensed by VP-Topicalization.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (4): 591–614.
APA
Aelbrecht, L., & Haegeman, L. (2012). VP-Ellipsis is not licensed by VP-Topicalization. LINGUISTIC INQUIRY, 34(4), 591–614.
Vancouver
1.
Aelbrecht L, Haegeman L. VP-Ellipsis is not licensed by VP-Topicalization. LINGUISTIC INQUIRY. 2012;34(4):591–614.
MLA
Aelbrecht, Lobke, and Liliane Haegeman. “VP-Ellipsis Is Not Licensed by VP-Topicalization.” LINGUISTIC INQUIRY 34.4 (2012): 591–614. Print.