The Left Periphery and Agrammatism
The Left Periphery and Agrammatism
Wh-extractions in Danish
Data from a study on the comprehension of short and long extractions by four Danish agrammatic patients reveal an interesting asymmetry between subject and object extraction that cannot be explained with canonicity or with trace deletion. It is argued that three crucial linguistic distinctions are required: namely, A-movement (impaired) vs. A-bar-movement (not impaired); main clause CP vs. embedded clause CP (impaired); and subject vs. object. In simple clauses, object extraction is most impaired, whereas in embedded clauses the pattern is reversed. Together these distinctions provide an account of the inverse asymmetries resembling the *that-trace pattern.
Keywords: subject/object asymmetry, trace-deletion hypothesis, wh-in-situ, tree pruning hypothesis, active/passive contrast, D-linking, cleft, wh-movement, A-movement, A’-movement
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
