Abstract
AbstractIn this article, I propose a unified explanation for the argument–adjunct asymmetries that have been observed regarding two seemingly unrelated anti‐c‐command requirements: (i) condition C and (ii) the anti‐c‐command requirement on argument ellipsis, observed in Abe for null arguments in Japanese. I argue that these asymmetries are best explained by the mechanism of late merge of adjuncts proposed by Lebeaux () with a derivational definition of c‐command à la Epstein (). Furthermore, I argue that the timing of late merge of adjuncts is regulated by phase theory in the way that adjuncts may be merged no later than completion of relevant operations at the phase domains they belong to.
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
