Abstract
AbstractThis paper argues that not all reconstruction effects can be reduced to a syntactic mechanism that selectively interprets copies at LF. The argument is based on the novel observation that some but not all reconstruction effects induce Condition C connectivity in Hindi-Urdu. We contend that Hindi-Urdu requires the hybrid approach to reconstruction developed on independent grounds by Lechner (1998, 2013, 2019), where both copy neglect (a syntactic mechanism) and higher-type traces (a semantic mechanism) are available as independent interpretive mechanisms. We show that the interaction of these two modes of reconstruction derives the intricate reconstruction facts in Hindi-Urdu.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference119 articles.
1. Adger, David, Alex Drummond, David Hall, and Coppe van Urk. 2017. Is there Condition C reconstruction? In Proceedings of the 47th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 47), eds. Andrew Lamont and Katie Tetzloff. Vol. 1, 21–30. Amherst: GLSA.
2. Anand, Pranav, and Andrew Nevins. 2006. The locus of ergative case assignment: Evidence from scope. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, eds. Alana Johns, Diane Massam and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 3–25. Dordrecht: Springer.
3. Aoun, Joseph, and Elabbas Benmamoun. 1998. Minimality, reconstruction, and PF movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 569–597.
4. Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence: On reconstruction and its implications, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
5. Barwise, Jon, and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219.