These are a couple of handouts representative of talks given in the past few years starting in 94?95

ÆThese is quick summary of the basic ideas found in the handouts representative of talks given in 1the past few years starting in 94-95 in UCLA seminars. Needless to say the ideas have evolved over the years and are still evolving (One basic change is reliance of Locality of Selection instead of Strong UTAH). The basic ideas: Observation: There is reconstruction under A-movement but not always. Proposal: Why? Because we are attempted to reconstruct elements that never moved from where we are trying to reconstruct them. ( possible reconstruction is a necessary and sufficient property of movement dependencies). Primary Fundamental Consequences: i. VP-split: Larsonian VPs contain the accusative position lower than the VP internal subject position: Split VPs (as argued in Koopman and Sportiche 91 and Sportiche, 1990..). Conceptually Why? because syntax is essentially decompositional ii. D-split: D’s Number and NP s are not generated as constituents. They are put together by movement rules. Conceptually why? because syntactic organization is essentially layered and partitioned. Theory If (i) and (ii) are true empirically, why are they true theoretically? Because selection is always expressed strictly locally in syntax ( e.g. V’s selects Ns not Number or Ds V take NPs as arguments…). [Movement is defined as non local selection] Some Consequential Leading Ideas ( mostly for D-splitting, Split VPs have to a certain extent been explored ...