Weak crossover - Revision history

Chen Shuyi at 02:48, 6 August 2021

2021-08-06T02:48:53Z

NBlöcher: Edited the format and removed the block {{format}}

2014-09-04T18:02:04Z

Edited the format and removed the block {{format}}

Wohlgemuth: utrecht

2009-06-10T15:29:28Z

utrecht

New page

'''Weak crossover''' is a one kind of [[crossover]]:

(i) *whoi did hisi mother see ti 

''Who'' is moved across ''his'' in (i). The fact that ''who'' is moved across ''his'' is referred to as 'weak crossover', because the ungrammaticality is not due to a [[Condition C]] violation as in the case of [[strong crossover]]. [[Binding theory]] has nothing to say on the possibility of coreference between ''who'' and ''his''. ''Who'' is moved to an A'-position, therefore, ''his'' cannot be A-bound by ''who''. Moreover, since ''his'' does not c-command the ''wh''-trace, ''his'' cannot bind it (which would be a condition C violation). Still, coreference between ''who'' and ''his'' is ungrammatical. A wide range of analyses have been proposed, including Chomsky's (1976) [[Leftness Condition]], Higginbotham's (1980) [[Accessibility]] Condition, Safir's (1984) PCOB, Reinhart's (1983) S-Structure c-command requirement. Best-known among these is Koopman & Sportiche's (1982) [[Bijection Principle]]. Weak crossover also occurs at LF, in cases such as (ii) containing the quantified expression ''everyone''.

(ii) *Hisi mother loves everyonei 
(iii) *everyonei hisi mother loves ti 

In the [[LF]] (iii), derived by [[Quantifier Raising]], the interpretation of ''his'' as a bound variable is also ruled out by the Bijection Principle.

=== Links ===

[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Weak+crossover&lemmacode=80 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]

=== References ===

* Chomsky, N. 1976. ''Conditions on Rules in Grammar,'' in: Chomsky 1977a., .
* Higginbotham, J. 1980. ''Pronouns and Bound Variables,'' Linguistic Inquiry, 679-708
* Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche 1982. ''Variables and the Bijection Principle,'' Kaye, J., H. Koopman and D. Sportiche (eds.), Projet sur les langues kru: Premier rapport, pp.176-202, Univ. du Quebec a Montreal
* May, Robert 1985. ''Logical form,'' MIT Press
* Reinhart, T. 1983. ''Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation,'' Croom Helm:London.
* Ruys, E. 1992. ''The scope of indefinites,'' diss. Utrecht University.
* Ruys, E.G. 1994. ''A global economy analysis of weak crossover,'' in:R. Bok & C. Cremers (eds.) Linguisitcs in the Netherlands 1994, Benjamins:Amsterdam/New York.
* Safir, K. 1984. ''Multiple Varaible Binding,'' Linguistic Inquiry 15-4, 603-638

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

{{stub}}{{cats}}{{format}}

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
   (i)   *who<sub>i </sub>did his<sub>i </sub>mother see t<sub>i </sub>
-''Who'' is moved across ''his'' in (i). The fact that ''who'' is moved across ''his'' is referred to as 'weak crossover', because the ungrammaticality is not due to a [[Condition C]] violation as in the case of [[strong crossover]]. [[Binding theory]] has nothing to say on the possibility of coreference between ''who'' and ''his''. ''Who'' is moved to an A'-position, therefore, ''his'' cannot be A-bound by ''who''. Moreover, since ''his'' does not c-command the ''wh''-trace, ''his'' cannot bind it (which would be a condition C violation). Still, coreference between ''who'' and ''his'' is ungrammatical. A wide range of analyses have been proposed, including Chomsky's (1976) [[Leftness Condition]], Higginbotham's (1980) [[Accessibility]] Condition, Safir's (1984) PCOB, Reinhart's (1983) S-Structure c-command requirement. Best-known among these is Koopman &amp; Sportiche's (1982) [[Bijection Principle]]. Weak crossover also occurs at LF, in cases such as (ii) containing the quantified expression ''everyone''.
+''Who'' is moved across ''his'' in (i). The fact that ''who'' is moved across ''his'' is referred to as 'weak crossover', because the ungrammaticality is not due to a [[Condition C]] violation as in the case of [[strong crossover]]. [[Binding theory]] has nothing to say on the possibility of coreference between ''who'' and ''his''. ''Who'' is moved to an A'-position, therefore, ''his'' cannot be A-bound by ''who''. Moreover, since ''his'' does not c-command the ''wh''-trace, ''his'' cannot bind it (which would be a condition C violation). Still, coreference between ''who'' and ''his'' is ungrammatical. A wide range of analyses have been proposed, including Chomsky's (1976) [[Leftness condition]], Higginbotham's (1980) [[Accessibility]] Condition, Safir's (1984) PCOB, Reinhart's (1983) S-Structure c-command requirement. Best-known among these is Koopman &amp; Sportiche's (1982) [[Bijection Principle]]. Weak crossover also occurs at LF, in cases such as (ii) containing the quantified expression ''everyone''.
   (ii)  *His<sub>i </sub>mother loves everyone<sub>i </sub>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''Weak crossover''' is a one kind of [[crossover]]:
@@ Line 10: / Line 11: @@
 In the [[LF]] (iii), derived by [[Quantifier Raising]], the interpretation of ''his'' as a bound variable is also ruled out by the Bijection Principle.
-=== Links ===
+== Links ==
+*[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Weak+crossover&lemmacode=80 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]
 * Chomsky, N. 1976. ''Conditions on Rules in Grammar,'' in: Chomsky 1977a., .
 * Higginbotham, J. 1980. ''Pronouns and Bound Variables,'' Linguistic Inquiry, 679-708
@@ Line 28: / Line 27: @@
 [[Category:Syntax]]
-{{stub}}{{cats}}{{format}}
+{{stub}}{{cats}}