Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2009
  • ISSN 1568-1483
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9900
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Successive-cyclic A'–Cmovement derivations exploiting SpecCP as an intermediate landing-site deserve careful scrutiny. As a companion to Den Dikken’s (2009a) case for a typology of A'–Cdependencies that includes successive-cyclic movement via vP–edges, resumptive prolepsis, and scope marking, but not successive-cyclic movement via SpecCP, this paper demonstrates that the arguments accumulated in the generative literature in favour of successive-cyclic movement via SpecCP are invalid. To the extent that any of these arguments implicate SpecCP at all, they never make reference to SpecCP as an intermediate stopover point: they are arguments either for terminal movement to a subordinate SpecCP or for successive-cyclic movement via intermediate stopovers in positions other than SpecCP.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error