Deconstructing Weak Crossover

1999 ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Heles Contreras
Keyword(s):  
Weak Crossover

Weak Crossover and Obviation

1986 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Dahlstrom
Keyword(s):  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Weak Crossover

Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1986), pp. 51-60

PAIRING CORRELATIONS IN THE STRONG FLUCTUATIONS REGIME

2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. 235-238
Author(s):  
M. A. FERNÁNDEZ ◽  
J. L. EGIDO
Keyword(s):  
Exact Solution ◽  
Weak Crossover ◽  
Generator Coordinate Method ◽  
Coordinate Method ◽  
Generator Coordinate ◽  
Pairing Correlations

A general BCS Ansatz based on the Generator Coordinate Method is proposed to study pairing properties in superconducting grains. The formalism is applied to the pairing Hamiltonian where we reproduce the exact solution in the weak, crossover and strong pairing regimes.

Weak Crossover as a Scope Phenomenon

2000 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 513-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. G. Ruys
Keyword(s):  
Weak Crossover ◽  
Crossover Effects ◽  
Relevant Condition ◽  
Intended Interpretation ◽  
Syntactic Restrictions ◽  
Scope Assignment ◽  
The Way

This article investigates the proper characterization of the condition that is responsible for weak crossover effects. It argues that the relevant condition belongs to scope theory and that weak crossover arises from the way in which scope is determined in syntax. This implies that weak crossover can occur whenever an operator must take scope over a pronoun, even when the pronoun and the operator are not coindexed and the intended interpretation of the pronoun is not as a variable bound by the operator. It also implies that, when an operator is for some reason assigned scope in an exceptional manner and escapes the usual syntactic restrictions on scope assignment, bound variable licensing will be exceptionally allowed as well.

Coincidence summing in γ-ray spectra and determination of the intensity of weak crossover γ transitions

2006 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. I. Vasil’ev ◽  
K. Ya. Gromov ◽  
A. A. Klimenko ◽  
Zh. K. Samatov ◽  
A. A. Smol’nikov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weak Crossover ◽  
Γ Ray ◽  
Coincidence Summing

Adjunct extraction

1995 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Hukari ◽  
Robert D. Levine
Keyword(s):  
Binding Domain ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
Unresolved Issue ◽  
Weak Crossover ◽  
Crossover Effects ◽  
Theoretical Status

In current linguistic theory, the theoretical status of adjunct extractions, as in for example How often do you think Robin sees Kim? is, somewhat surprisingly, an unresolved issue, with some investigators arguing that only arguments extract syntactically, entailing analyses of adverbial gaps via fundamentally different mechanisms from those posited for argument extraction. We adduce extensive evidence against such positions from a number of languages which exhibit morphological or syntactic phenomena which are sensitive to binding (extraction) domains and where this morphosyntactic flagging is present in instances of adjunct extraction as well as argument extraction. We also present language-internal arguments for the syntactic nature of adjunct extraction in English, including the coextensiveness of adjunct and argument extraction and their parallelism with respect to strong/weak crossover effects. Finally, we discuss the challenge which binding domain effects pose for accounts of adjunct extraction in various frameworks.

Team Weak Crossover

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calixto Agüero-Bautista
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Relation ◽  
Crossover Effect ◽  
Weak Crossover ◽  
Crossover Effects ◽  
The Given

It is generally assumed that the weak crossover (WCO) effect arises when an operator fails to bind a pronoun that stands in a particular syntactic configuration with the given operator. In this article, I introduce a new kind of crossover effect in which the binding dependencies of two different operators work in tandem to yield the given effect. The new effect is radically different from the traditional crossover cases, which involve the binding dependency of just one operator. I show that theories that define the WCO principle as a condition regulating the binding of pronouns cannot account for the new effect. I also show that to account for all the varieties of crossover effects, the WCO principle must be defined as a condition regulating the semantic relation of dependence and must make use of the notion of Spell-Out domain discussed by Chomsky ( 2001 , 2004 ).

The configurational structure of a nonconfigurational language

2001 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 61-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Anne Legate
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Left Periphery ◽  
Weak Crossover ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Verb Phrase ◽  
Crossover Effects

In this article, I present evidence for hierarchy and movement in Warlpiri, the proto-typical nonconfigurational language. Within the verb phrase, I identify both a symmetric and an asymmetric applicative construction, show that these are problematic for an LFG-style account that claims Warlpiri has a flat syntactic structure, and outline an account of the symmetric/asymmetric applicative distinction based on a hierarchical syntactic structure. Above the verb phrase, I establish syntactic hierarchy through ordering restrictions of adverbs, and ordering of topics, wh-phrases, and focused phrases in the left periphery. Finally, I present evidence that placement of phrases in the left periphery is accomplished through movement, with new data that show island and Weak Crossover effects.

Locative Inversion, PP Topicalization, and Weak Crossover in English

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
BENJAMIN BRUENING
Keyword(s):  
Judgment Task ◽  
Choice Task ◽  
Mechanical Turk ◽  
Amazon Mechanical Turk ◽  
Variable Binding ◽  
Weak Crossover ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Forced Choice Task ◽  
Locative Inversion ◽  
Acceptability Judgment

The literature on locative inversion in English currently disputes whether locative inversion differs from PP topicalization in permitting a quantifier in the fronted PP to bind a pronoun in the subject. In order to resolve this dispute, this paper runs two experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk, one an acceptability judgment task and the other a forced-choice task. Both find that PP topicalization does not differ from locative inversion: both permit variable binding. Locative inversion also does not differ from a minimally different sentence with the overt expletive there. These findings remove an argument against the null expletive analysis of English locative inversion, and they also show that weak crossover is not uniformly triggered by A-bar movement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document