Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2015
Edited by Björn Köhnlein and Jenny Audring
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 32] 2015
► pp. 88–104

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

Crossover restrictions, A-bar pronouns and discourse antecedents

 | Uil OTS Utrecht University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 17 December 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.32.07kam
The difference between weak crossovers and weakest crossovers is usually derived from a distinction between quantifiers and non-quantifiers (Lasnik & Stowell 1991). In this paper I will derive crossover restrictions from a new example set, long movement constructions with Dutch A-bar pronouns. Besides question wh-pronouns and relative pronouns, the set of Dutch A-bar pronouns includes topic d-pronouns not available in English. I will argue that A-bar pronouns constitute a uniform set of quantifiers, be it quantifiers with a discourse antecedent. To explain the present analysis, I take Safir (2004) and Ruys (2004) as a starting point. A major difference between these approaches and my own is that my analysis will make a distinction between strong crossovers as binding failures versus weak and weakest crossovers as a matter of discourse dependency, whereas it is more usual to see a related explanation for strong and weak crossovers versus weakest crossovers.
References (24)
Barbiers, Sjef, et al. 2005. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects, Volume 11. Amsterdam University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentine. 2001. “Antisymmetry and the leftness condition”. Studia Linguistica 551.1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boef, Eefje. 2012. Doubling in relative clauses. PhD diss., Utrecht University.
Broekhuis, Hans & Marcel den Dikken. 2012. Syntax of Dutch: Nouns and noun phrases 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Falco, Michelangelo. 2007. “Weak crossover, specificity and LF chains”. Coreference, Modality and Focus ed. by L. Eguren & O. Fernàndez-Soriano, 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1983. “Logical form, binding and nominals”. Linguistic Inquiry 14:3.395–420.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinterwimmer, Stefan & Sophie Repp. 2009. “Fixed Abode: What topical indefinites and wh-terms have in common”. Proceedings of NELS 38 ed. by M. Abdurrahman, A. Schardl & M. Walkow, 259–270. Amherst: GLSA Publications.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. “Syntax and semantics of questions”. Linguistics and Philosophy 11.3–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kampen, Jacqueline van. 1997. First steps in wh-movement. PhD diss. Utrecht Univerity.
. 2007. “Relative agreement in Dutch”. Linguistics in the Netherlands ed. by Marjo van Koppen & Bettelou Los, 112–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Anaforische middelen voor topicverschuiving”. Nederlandse Taalkunde 15:2/3.189–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Tim Stowell. 1991. “Weakest crossover”. Linguistic Inquiry 221.687–720.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. “Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding”. The Representation of (In)definitess ed. by Eric Reuland & Alice ter Meulen, 98–129. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1971. Crossover Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. “Remarks on weak crossover effects”. Linguistic Inquiry 241.539–556.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface Strategies. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruys, Eddy. 1992. The scope of indefinites. PhD diss., Utrecht University.
. 2000. “Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon”. Linguistic Inquiry 311.513–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. “A note on weakest crossover”. Linguistic Inquiry 351.124–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2004. The Syntax of (In)dependence. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. PhD diss., MIT.
Wiltschko, Martina. 1997. “D-linking, scrambling and superiority in German”. GAGL 411.108–142.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. “On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns”. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21.143–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue