Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:43:28.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Freezing in it-clefts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Jutta M. Hartmann
Jutta M. Hartmann*
Affiliation:
Universität Tübingen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Freezing is the cover term for the restriction on extraction from constituents in a derived position. The traditional Freezing cases are illustrated here with topicalization in (1a), heavy-NP shift in (1b), and extraposition in (1c).

Type
Squibs/Notules
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , November 2013 , pp. 487 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo-cleft sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 1:149–168.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon and Horn, George M.. 1976. Remarks on ‘Conditions on Transformations’. Linguistic Inquiry 7:265–299.Google Scholar
Bard, Ellen Gurman, Robertson, Dan, and Sorace, Antonella. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72:32–68.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1988. Extended X-bar Theory, the ECP and the Left Branch Condition. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 7, ed. Borer, Hagit, 46–62. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Brame, Michael. 1977. Alternatives to the Tensed S and Specified Subject Conditions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:381–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans. 2006. Extraction from subjects: Some remarks on Chomsky’s ‘On phases’. In Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, ed. Broekhuis, Hans, Corver, Norbert, Huijbregts, Riny, Kleinhenz, Ursula and Koster, Jan, 59–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A-bar dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 2006. Freezing effects. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 2, ed. Everaert, Martin and Riemsdijk, Henk van, 383–406. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. and Winkler, Susanne. 2013. Freezing: A conspiracy. Ms., Ohio State University and Universitat Tubingen.Google Scholar
Davies, William D. and Dubinsky, Stanley. 2003. On extraction from NPs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21:1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald P. 1982. Topics on the syntax and semantics of English cleft sentences. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2013. Predication and specification in the syntax of cleft sentences. In Cleft structures, ed. Hartmann, Katharina and Veenstra, Tonjes, 35–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74:245–273.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1981. On extraction from noun phrases (picture noun phrases). In Theory of markedness in generative grammar, ed. Belletti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana, and Rizzi, Luigi, 147–169. Pisa: Scuola Normale Di Pisa.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2008. Thermometer judgements as linguistic evidence. In Was ist linguistische Evidenz?, ed. Riehl, Claudia Maria and Rothe, Astrid, 69–90. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert and Higginbotham, James. 1981. Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis 7:395–421.Google Scholar
Gallego, Angel and Uriagereka, Juan. 2007. Conditions on subextraction. In Coreference, modality and focus: Studies on the syntax-semantics interface, ed. Eguren, Luis and Fernández-Soriano, Olga, 45–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette. 1977. Where do cleft sentences come from? Language 53:543–559.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 1990. Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation, Universitiy of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 2000. The referential status of clefts. Language 76:891–920.Google Scholar
Heggie, Lorie. 1988. The syntax of copular constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. R. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Phillip, Culicover, Peter W., and Winkler, Susanne. To appear. Effects of processing on the acceptability of ‘frozen’ extraposed constituents. Syntax.Google Scholar
Huber, Stefan. 2002. Es-Clefts und det-Clefts: Zur Syntax, Semantik und Informationsstruktur von Spaltsätzen im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Huck, Geoffrey J. and Na, Younghee. 1990. Extraposition and focus. Language 66:51–77.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1994. A minimalist analysis of cross-linguistically variant CED phenomena. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS), vol. 24, ed. Gonzalez, Mercè, 241–253. Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA), University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1987. Domains and dynasties. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. Constraints on internal clauses and sentential subjects. Linguistic In-quiry 4:363–385.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 1998. A monoclausal structure for (pseudo-)cleft sentences. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS), vol. 28, ed. Tamanji, Pius and Kusumoto, Kiyomi, 283–298. Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA), University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1995. A-bar syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41:35–82.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2011. Constraints on displacement: A phase-based approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Percus, Oren. 1997. Prying open the cleft. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS), vol. 28, ed. Kusumoto, Kiyomi, 337–351. Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA), University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Pinkham, Jesse and Hankamer, Jorge. 1975. Deep and shallow clefts. In Papers from the eleventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Grossman, Robin E., San, L. James, and Vance, Timothy J., 429–450. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Reeve, Matthew. 2011. The syntactic structure of English clefts. Lingua 121:142–171.Google Scholar
Reeve, Matthew. 2012. Clefts and their relatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, ed. Cheng, Lisa L.-S. and Corver, Norbert, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1989. Topic islands and the subjacency parameter. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 34:145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10:80–126.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1991. Syntaktische Grenzen: Chomskys Barrierentheorie und ihre Weiterentwicklung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Minimality of movement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth and Culicover, Peter W. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11:203–238.Google Scholar