Previous versions of the analysis proposed here have been presented at various workshops and conferences, including Grammatik i Fokus, Lund University, Sweden, February 6, 2003, ZAS-Potsdam Workshop on OT-SYNTAX+, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin, Germany, May 16–17, 2003, Seminar on Language Typology, Center for Linguistics, University of Aalborg, Denmark, October 25, 2003, 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, University of Helsinki, January 7–9, 2004. The present paper is a revised and updated version of chapter 2.4 of my dissertation (‡).
1467-9582/asset/olbannercenter.gif?v=1&s=cb8512590c9f5b528ac537fd99d0b4a3daa866ce)
Neg-shift, licensing, and repair strategies†
Article first published online: 10 JUL 2008
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.00146.x
© The author 2008. Journal compilation © The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2008
Additional Information
How to Cite
Christensen, K. R. (2008), Neg-shift, licensing, and repair strategies. Studia Linguistica, 62: 182–223. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.00146.x
- †
Publication History
- Issue published online: 10 JUL 2008
- Article first published online: 10 JUL 2008
- Received May 22, 2006 Accepted November 19, 2007
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Abstract. I entertain the idea that the cross-linguistic variation in the licensing of Neg-shift, the movement of negative objects to spec-NegP, can be accounted for by a few representational constraints that are not directly related to case licensing or feature checking, and which potentially conflict with Structure Preservation and Economy. The languages fall into three overall groups: Group 1 has Neg-shift across the main verb; in group 2 optionality between versions with no and not any is neutralised (removed); group 3 has object in situ. When the selecting head is a preposition rather than a verb, group 1 is divided into group 1a (stranding), 1b (pied-piping), and 1c (neutralization).