Abstract
This chapter argues in favour of a remnant VP-topicalisation approach, rejecting Holmberg’s (1997, 1999) V°-topicalisation approach on empirical grounds in section 7.1. Section 7.2 presents Fox and Pesetsky’s (2003, 2005a,b) cyclic linearisation approach to object shift, which radically differs from other types of (A- and A-bar-) movement, such as wh-movement or subject raising, in that object shift may not result in a reversal of the order of elements. This fact is captured by simply positing that most movements, but crucially not object shift, have to proceed successively cyclically via the left edge of VP in their analysis. Furthermore, section 7.2 also shows Fox and Pesetsky’s approach to make incorrect predictions as to remnant VP-topicalisation in constructions with an auxiliary verb in situ.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Eva Engels and Sten Vikner
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Engels, E., Vikner, S. (2014). V°-Topicalisation vs Remnant VP-Topicalisation. In: Scandinavian Object Shift and Optimality Theory. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137431646_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137431646_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-49231-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-43164-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)