Abstract
Successive-cyclic A'–Cmovement derivations exploiting SpecCP as an intermediate landing-site deserve careful scrutiny. As a companion to Den Dikken’s (2009a) case for a typology of A'–Cdependencies that includes successive-cyclic movement via vP–edges, resumptive prolepsis, and scope marking, but not successive-cyclic movement via SpecCP, this paper demonstrates that the arguments accumulated in the generative literature in favour of successive-cyclic movement via SpecCP are invalid. To the extent that any of these arguments implicate SpecCP at all, they never make reference to SpecCP as an intermediate stopover point: they are arguments either for terminal movement to a subordinate SpecCP or for successive-cyclic movement via intermediate stopovers in positions other than SpecCP.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
