Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Emeritus Professor Anders Holmberg
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
In the paper 'Constraining copy deletion' Tue Trinh proposes a principle which says that a copy can be deleted only if it ends a phonological phrase. Given the theory assumed, this makes the prediction that when X° is topicalized (A’-moved) from a head-initial phrase, the copy cannot be deleted, resulting in doubling of the X°, but when X° is topicalized from a head-final phrase, the copy can be deleted. This prediction is shown by Tue Trinh to be right for the VO languages Hebrew (V-topicalization) and Thai (V and N-topicalization), and the OV languages German and Dutch. The VO languages Norwegian and Swedish appear at first blush to be counterexamples, exhibiting V-topicalization without doubling, but are shown not have V-topicalization but remnant VP-topicalization. I will first comment, very briefly, on the case of Swedish, supporting Trinh’s contention that it is not a counterexample. Then I will discuss an X°-fronting construction which potentially provides an interesting testing ground for Tue Trinh's hypothesis, namely predicate fronting in affirmative replies to yes/no-questions. I will discuss a possible problem from that construction based on a comparison of Finnish and Cantonese Chinese. In Finnish the copy of the fronted V° is deleted, but in Cantonese Chinese it is not, even though in both cases the copy is in a structurally equivalent position.
Author(s): Holmberg A
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Theoretical Linguistics
Year: 2009
Volume: 35
Issue: 2-3
Pages: 269-276
ISSN (print): 0301-4428
ISSN (electronic): 1613-4060
Publisher: Walter de Gruyter
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2009.016
DOI: 10.1515/THLI.2009.016
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
