Movement Operations after Syntax

By David Embick, R. Noyer. Linguistic Inquiry, 2001

1,064 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Cultural Studies, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/491ab808c2eaf5fa5673bb5096a2439afd814bcb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. Ruth Kramer
2. I. Landau
3. J. Griffiths
4. A. Lipták
5. Peter Svenonius
6. David Embick
7. R. Noyer
8. Rajesh Bhatt

In Cultural Studies

1. Ruth Kramer
2. I. Landau
3. J. Griffiths
4. A. Lipták
5. Peter Svenonius
6. David Embick
7. R. Noyer
8. Ora Matushansky

In Language and Linguistics

1. Ruth Kramer
2. I. Landau
3. David Embick
4. Peter Svenonius
5. R. Noyer
6. J. Griffiths
7. A. Lipták
8. Morris Halle

Citations in the corpus

• Late Merger of Degree Clauses (2004, background): “For instance, Embick and Noyer (2001) argue that, because the forms in (9) are lexically conditioned, and those in (10) are prosodically conditioned, they are formed after vocabulary insertion.”
• Distributed Morphology and the Syntax—Morphology Interface (2007, methodology): “Marantz’s formulation allows for Merger to operate either in terms of linear order or in terms of hierarchical structure, a position that is maintained in the approach to Merger presented in Embick and Noyer (2001) .”
• Spans and words (2016, background): “In general, the rules of Local Dislocation posited in Embick & Noyer (2001), Embick (2007), and other works are not motivated by conceptual concerns, but are responses to empirical problems for the X0 theory of word formation.”
• On the Status of Stems in Morphological Theory (2003, background): “At PF, a Lowering operation combines Tense and v-Root into a single complex head (for a discussion of this operation see Embick and Noyer 2001): 2 In special cases, PF rules manipulate the syntactic structure in sharply constrained ways.”
• Contrast and Island Sensitivity in Clausal Ellipsis (2014, positive): “Not wishing to entertain the idea of post-(narrow) syntactic movement (contrary to Embick & Noyer 2001), we interpret this research as providing sufficient evidence to show that PF-constraints alone determine whether focus-fronting is acceptable in a particular construction or not.”
• Chain Resolution In Hebrew V(P)-fronting (2006, result): “This is still compatible with the idea that PF feeds a morphological component, where further local (re-)arrangements of items occurs ( Embick & Noyer 2001 ).”