Wohlgemuth: utrecht

2009-02-19T11:52:21Z

utrecht

Haspelmath: Parasitic Gap moved to Parasitic gap

2008-10-23T11:19:28Z

Parasitic Gap moved to Parasitic gap

Haspelmath: New page: {{other}} ===Other languages=== German parasitäre Lücke, Schmarotzerlücke {{dc}} Category:Syntax

2007-10-31T10:18:23Z

New page: {{other}} ===Other languages=== German parasitäre Lücke, Schmarotzerlücke {{dc}} Category:Syntax

New page

{{other}}

===Other languages===
German [[parasitäre Lücke]], [[Schmarotzerlücke]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:52, 19 February 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	{{~~other~~}}	+	'''Parasitic gap''' is an [[empty category]] which is [[licensing\|licensed]] by the occurrence of another empty category in the [[sentence]]. Thus in a sentence like
		+
		+	(i) which books did you file t without reading e
		+
		+	the [[operator]] ''which'' is interpreted not only as binder of the [[direct object]] ''t'' of ''file'', but also as licenser of the direct object ''e'' of ''reading''. Evidence that the gap in the [[adjunct clause]] is really 'parasitic', i.e. that we do not have something like a 'double trace' configuration, is provided by the pair of sentences in (ii) and (iii) (Kearney (1983), cited in Chomsky 1986b).
		+
		+	(ii) which books about himself did John file t [before Mary read e]
		+	(iii) * which books about herself did John file t [before Mary read e]
		+
		+	Since a moved [[wh-phrase\|''wh''-phrase]] can be interpreted as if it were in its [[base]]-position (see [[reconstruction]]), an anaphor in it may be bound as if it were in the ''wh''-phrase's base-position. From the fact that the [[anaphor]] in these examples can only be bound by the [[subject]] of the [[matrix clause]] (''John'') and not by the subject of the adjunct clause (''Mary''), we can conclude that the ''wh''-phrase can only have been moved from t, not from e. Also see [[operator movement]], [[chain composition]], [[empty operator]].
		+
		+	=== Links ===
		+
		+	[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Parasitic+gap&lemmacode=377 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]
		+
		+	=== References ===
		+
		+	* Chomsky, N. 1986b. ''Barriers,'' MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
		+	* Chomsky, N. 1982. ''Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding,'' MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
		+	* Engdahl, E. 1983. ''Parasitic Gaps,'' in: Lingusitics and Philosophy 6, pp.5-34
		+	* Kearney, K. 1983. ''Governing Categories,'' Ms.U. of Connecticut, Storrs.
		+	* Taraldsen, K.T. 1981. ''The Theoretical Interpretation of a Class of Marked Extractions,'' in:A. Belletini, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi (eds.) Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference, 475-616, Scuola Normale Superiore: Pisa.
		+
		+	{{dc}}
		+	[[Category:Syntax]]
		+

	===Other languages===		===Other languages===

← Older revision	Revision as of 11:19, 23 October 2008
(No difference)

Parasitic gap - Revision history

Wohlgemuth: utrecht

Haspelmath: Parasitic Gap moved to Parasitic gap

Haspelmath: New page: {{other}} ===Other languages=== German parasitäre Lücke, Schmarotzerlücke {{dc}} Category:Syntax