earticle

영어

The right node raising (RNR) constructions have been accounted for under both movement and non-movement analyses in the literature. This paper argues that the movement analysis is not tenable by citing several strong empirical arguments: the possibility of the shared constituent’s burying within an island, immobile elements’ compatibility with RNR, the parallelism between RNR and VP ellipsis, and the fact that RNR cannot dislocate elements to the right of their base- generated position. On top of these, this paper adds a new piece of empirical evidence against the movement analysis. It is pertaining to the phenomenon that RNR improves locative inversion with pseudopassive. This phenomenon is hard to account for under the movement analysis because there exists a problematic precedence statements which cannot be resolved. This paper suggests that the RNR’s improvement of locative inversion with pseudopassives receives a natural account under the PF deletion analysis if we assume that the nominal phrase causing conflicting precedence statements is deleted at PF under identity. Then the phenomenon that RNR improves locative inversion with pseudopassives constitutes another strong argument against the movement analysis of RNR.