Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-x5mqb Total loading time: 0.252 Render date: 2021-11-30T23:01:19.004Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Contrasting extraction types1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Paul M. Postal
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, New York University

Extract

This paper grounds a novel typology yielding three major types of English (L(eft)-extraction, defined by their relation to resumptive pronouns (RPs): (1) B-extractions, which require RPs in their extraction sites, (2) A1-extractions, which allow RPs in their extraction sites, and (3) A2-extractions, which forbid RPs in their extraction sites. Type B is represented by topicalization; type A1 by most instances of question extraction. The A/B distinction is supported by correlations with restrictions on definite pronouns. A2-extractions, e.g. free relative extraction, are insensitive to such and unlike A1/B-extractions are incompatible with what I call selective islands, which is explained.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brame, M. K. (1978). Base generated syntax. Seattle: Noit Amrofer.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W. (1975). Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Analysis I. 2574.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A. (eds.) Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. 71132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of Ā-dependencies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1979). Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 211243.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1985). A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frampton, J. (1991). Relativized minimality: a review. The Linguistic Review 8. 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1982). Phrase structure grammar. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G. K. (eds.) The nature of syntactic representation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 131186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. K. & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Basic Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1988). Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B. (eds.) The representation of (in) definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hukari, T. E. & Levine, R. D. (1991). On the disunity of unbounded dependency constructions. Natural Language and Linquistic Theory 9. 97144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. & Bresnan, J. W. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. W. (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 173281.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. M. & Zaenen, A. (1989). Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In Baltin, M. & Kroch, A. S. (eds.) Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1984). Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, J. (1978). Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1987). Domains and dynasties. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1989). Asymmetries in long-distance extraction in a tree-adjoining grammar. In Baltin, M. & Kroch, A. S. (eds.) Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. T. & Pullum, G. K. (1977). Preposition stranding in English: a problem and a mystery. In Fox, S. E., Woodford, A. B. & Philosoph, S. (eds.) CLS book of squibs. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1992). Move α. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Manzini, R. (1992). Locality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. (1979). Transformational syntax and model theoretic semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obenauer, H.-G. (1984). On the identification of empty categories. The Linguistic Review 4. 153202.Google Scholar
Obenauer, H.-G. (1985). Connectedness, variables, and stylistic inversion in French. In Guéron, J., Obenauer, H.-G. & Pollock, J.-Y. (eds.) Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Obenauer, H.-G. (1986). Déplacer α et Ā-liage local: dérivations vs. representations. In Ronat, M. & Couquaux, D. (eds.) La grammaire modulaire. Paris: Les éditions de minuit.Google Scholar
Obenauer, H.-G. (1992). L'interprétation des structures wh et l'accord du participe passé. In Obenauer, H.-G. & Zribi-Hertz, A. (eds.) Structure de la phrase et théorie du liage. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1972). Evidence for shadow pronouns in French relativization. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. & Phares, G. C. (eds.) The Chicago which hunt. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1987). Information-based syntax and semantics, 1: Fundamentals. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1987). Implications of English extraposed irrealis clauses. In Miller, A. & Powers, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published as Infinite syntax. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. (1986).Google Scholar
Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (1985). Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language 61. 523568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, M. (1988). Combinators and grammars. In Oehrle, R. T., Bach, E. & Wheeler, D. (eds.) Categorial grammars and natural language structures. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (1989). Constituency and coordination in a combinatory grammar. In Baltin, M. & Kroch, A. S. (eds.) Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J.-R. (1974). French relative clauses. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
6
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Contrasting extraction types1
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Contrasting extraction types1
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Contrasting extraction types1
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *