Phrasal Movement and Its Kin

By D. Pesetsky. 2000

558 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aca64247162d42026fab831681136bb14d2a69b3

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD (2001, background): “…of QR to resolve ACD might permit a movement that would 10 It is worth noting that the works cited (especially Kennedy 1997, Fox 1995a, and Pesetsky 2000) have shown that covert movement for the resolution of ACD is crucially phrasal and that quantifier movement cannot be feature movement…”
Locality and Accessibility in Wh-Questions (2007, background): “There is growing evidence (Pesetsky, 2000; Featherston, 2005) that the ordering of multiple wh-phrases within a sentence is conditioned by non-syntactic factors, unlike early proposals along the lines of Kuno and Robinson (1972), which appeal to the grammatical notion of Superiority to account for t”
Intervention effects on NPIs and feature movement: towards a unified account of intervention (2007, background): “3 Fol lowing a recent proposal within Minimalist syntax (Chomsky, 1995; Pesetsky, 2000) I will adopt a richer inventory of movement dependencies than previ ously assumed (cf.”
Intervention Effects are Focus Effects (2001, background): “…Effect, Pesetsky (1999) proposes an alternative formulation which does not assume LF phrasal wh-movement, which is given in (21): (21) Intervention Effect (Pesetsky 1999: 88) A semantic restriction on a quantifier (including wh) may not be separated from that quantifier by a scope-bearing element.”
Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: a missing uninterpretable feature account (2006, background): “4Adger’s account differs in its technical detail from the account of wh-movement proposed by Chomsky (1998), and there are other conceivable alternatives; see, for example, Pesetsky, 2000.”
Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation* (2006, methodology): “Then, there are, for English wh-questions in particular, the arguments by Pesetsky (2000) that the wh-phrases that are sensitive to intervention are just the ones of which we would like to say that they do NOT move.”
Explaining the locality conditions of QR: Consequences for the theory of phases (2004, background): “11 A theory that combines feature movement and phrasal covert movement has been proposed by Pesetsky (2000). THE LOCALITY CONDITIONS OF QR 363”
Intervention Effects in Alternative Questions (2007, background): “Intervention effects in English wh-constructions have been found by Pesetsky (2000) .”
Multiple Wh-Fronting (2001, background): “Given the evidence that Pesetsky (2000) (among others) provides for invisible movement of (at least features of) wh-arguments in situ in German, we can analyze the absence of successivecyclic movement as the absence of the feature that determines successive-cyclic movement in the overt case.”
Overt Scope in Hungarian (2003, background): “Pesetsky (2000) proposes to reinterpret Beck's LF-movement as feature movement and to adopt Honcoop's (1998) operator/restrictor split semantics.”