Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding

By Klaus Abels. 2003

612 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/59230d88c5d99b3e3ab46069d5ba8592ea23fa13

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

On Certain Properties of Pied-Piping (2009, background): “21 If PPs are phases, too (see Abels 2003), then these instances of wh -movement can be derived by whatever derives movement to the edge of other phasal categories.”
Noun‐Phrase Structure by Reprojection (2010, methodology): “In addition to showing that an NP approach to nominal projections is viable (given reprojection), we also provide one independent argument for it: the reprojection approach to NP structure turns out to automatically derive a core assumption that must otherwise be stipulated in the theories of word-o”
On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP (2005, background): “This is in fact what Franks & Progovac (1994) assume (see also Abels 2003a, Ćavar & Wilder 1999, Franks 1998, and Schütze 1996).41 (79) [PP U veliku ti]j on ud-e tj sobui.”
Clitic doubling or object agreement: the view from Amharic (2014, background): “It has been previously argued that it is some kind of locality violation for a phrasal complement to move to the specifier of its selector head (see e.g., Pesetsky and Torrego 2001; Matushansky 2006; antilocality in Abels 2003).”
Deriving the Edge: What’s in a Phase? (2011, background): “As numerous authors have pointed out, the system smacks of arbitrariness (cf. Abels 2003, Boeckx & Grohmann 2005, who draw comparisons with GB-era Barriers).”
What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality (2019, methodology): “For the purposes of the current discussion, I will assume Abels’ (2003) version of the constraint, which simply bans movement from the complement position of a given head to the specifier of the same projection (though see section 7.5 for a refinement of this proposal): (46) a. CP C’ TPC0 ✗ b.…”
Ergatives Move Too Early: On an Instance of Opacity in Syntax (2015, unknown): “The latter may be so because displacement does not leave a reflex in the original position (see Epstein and Seely (2002), Unger (2010), Müller (2011) for some options) or because a multidominance approach is adopted (see Gärtner (2002), Starke (2001), Abels (2004), Frampton (2004), among others).”