Total Reconstruction, PF Movement, and Derivational Order

By Uli Sauerland, Paul D. Elbourne. Linguistic Inquiry, 2002

269 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control (2004, background): “For terminological clarity, I will label the semantic feature distinguishing group names Mereology [Mer] (following Sauerland and Elbourne 2002).”
Chain Resolution In Hebrew V(P)-fronting (2006, background): “& O'neil 1997, Aoun & Benmamoun 1998, Sauerland & Elbourne 2002 ), since they burden syntax with a task independently accomplished by the interfaces.2 The present article”
Free Word Order, (Non)configurationality, and Phases (2008, background): “…for further syntactic operations and is transferred to Spell-Out and to semantic interpretation.8 Thus, no final, unique level LF is assumed. v*P and CP are generally regarded as phases, whereas the phasehood of TP is debated (see Grohmann 2000 and Sauerland and Elbourne 2002, contra Chomsky 2005).”
Head Movement in Linguistic Theory (2006, background): “…lack of semantic effects cannot be a diagnostic for post-Spell-Out movement, since then all reconstructing movement should be treated as phonological (as suggested in Sauer- land and Elbourne 2002 for phrasal movement), which would be incompatible with other assumptions that Chomsky makes.”
QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD (2001, methodology): “However, Sauerland (2000) argues for a version of crossover movement that gets around these problems, using the PF movement approach to reconstruction developed in Sauerland and Elbourne 1999.”