Right Node Raising: (Why) Have We Moved on From Movement
Joseph Sabbagh
June 2025 

This article scrutinizes the most commonly and repeatedly given arguments levied against a movement analysis of right node raising. I argue that these arguments do not hold up, by showing either that the empirical evidence has either been mis-analyzed, or carry little to no weight give empirical and theoretical advances that have developed since the arguments against a movement analysis were initially made. After diffusing the arguments against a movement analysis, I sketch out an analysis of right node raising involving multidomnant syntax. Analyses of right node raising that have adopted a representation involving multiple dominance structure have, erroneously in my view, equated such analysis with an in-situ (=no movement) analysis (McCawley 1982). This is no longer the case given the current landscape of theorizing about the representation of movement, in which multidominance and movement are more or less coterminous (the former is a means for representing the later) rather than conceptually distinct.

Format:	[ pdf ]
Reference:	lingbuzz/009019 (please use that when you cite this article)
Published in:	Draft, submitted
keywords:	right node raising, across the board movement, ellipsis, multidoinmant syntax, syntax
previous versions:	v2 [May 2025] v1 [May 2025]
Downloaded:	293 times

 

[ edit this article | back to article list ]