One More Time
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4238246 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Michael Brody (0000-0002-0917-4408, University College London, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2001 |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 126-138 |
| Publication date | 2001-08-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Syntax (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1368-0005 • E-ISSN: 1467-9612 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9612.00039 |
| OpenAlex | W2120102818 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 5 |
Hornstein (1998) argued, like Brody (1995), that a theory with both chain and move is redundant, that one of them should be eliminated. He presented two arguments that the concept of A-chains should not be part of the grammar. In my comments (Brody 1999), I showed that the arguments for this way of eliminating the redundancy are flawed and that their background is dubious. Hornstein in his reply (2000) disagrees but, as set out below, without valid argument. His reply further discredits in various ways the position I reacted to
Argument (complex analysis · Economics · Grammar · Linguistics · Mathematical economics · Position (finance · Programming language · Redundancy (engineering · Set (abstract data type · Computer Science · Linguistics and Discourse Analysis · Mathematics · Natural Language Processing Techniques · Philosophy · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,2 |
| Citation span | 2006 - 2013 (8) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |