Copyright notice: Some of these documents have been published in books and journals. The preprints you find here can be downloaded and printed for fair personal and pedagogical use, but reposting and redistribution require the explicit permission of the corresponding publisher.

Bibliometry fans can check my citation statistics, as computed by Google Scholar.

In varying degrees of progress

I examine how the inquisitive semantics treatment of and and or interacts with discourse, including combinations of assertion acceptance and assertion rejection.

@unpublished{Vicente2016-TIN16
Author = {Vicente, Luis},
Title = {{Raising issues in discourse}},
Note = {Slides, TINdag 2016, Utrecht University, Netherlands},
Year = {2016}}

Saab, Andrés, and Luis Vicente. in progress. The distribution of (un)grammatical tense mismatches under TP ellipsis.
[ handout | slides | abstract | bibtex ]


Contrary to prior claims (e.g., Brucart 1987), Spanish does allow tense morphology mismatches under TP ellipsis. The distribution of acceptable mismatches, however, is subject to a complex interaction of factors. Here we start exploring these factors by focusing on three novel generalizations: first, mismatches involving a future are invariably unacceptable (modulo generalization 3 below); second, a past can antecede a present but not vice versa (modulo generalization 3 below); and third, if the tense of the ellipsis is determined via sequence of tense, all types of mismatches become acceptable. We argue that much of this pattern can be accommodated by a theory along the lines of Thoms 2014, which allows us to define the parallelism condition relative to an accommodated antecedent.

@unpublished{SaabVicente2015-GR29
Author = {Saab, Andr\'es and Vicente, Luis},
Title = {{The distribution of (un)acceptable tense mismatches under TP ellipsis}},
Note = {Handout, Going Romance 29, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Netherlands},
Year = {2015}}

Vicente, Luis. in hiatus. In search of a missing clause.
[ handout | abstract | bibtex ]


A Collins Conjunction (CC, Collins 1988) is a conjunction internal parenthetical that follows the pattern [DP and IC DP], where IC, the Interrupting Category, is an evidential/evaluative expression —e.g., "Alice and {possibly/I believe} Bob". I propose that CCs have a syntax and semantics largely equivalent to those of as parentheticals in Potts (2002): movement of a null operator creates a variable over propositions inside the IC, and a null functional head enables semantic composition of the IC with the main clause.

@unpublished{Vicente2013-DGfS13,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {In search of a missing clause},
Note = {Handout, {DG}f{S} 2013, {P}otsdam},
Year = {2013}}

to appear

Vicente, Luis. to appear. Free vs. bound variables and the taxonomy of gaps. Natural Language Semantics.
[ preprint | abstract | bibtex ]


Potts (2002a,b,2003,2005) presents an analysis of gap-containing supplements (primarily, as-parentheticals), where the gap is modelled as a variable over the semantic type of the constituent that the as-clause adjoins to (the anchor). This much allows the meaning of the gap to be resolved purel compositionally, by defining as as a function that allows the anchor to bind the gap variable. This article presents a class of as-clauses where Potts's analysis seems to break down, in the sense that the gap cannot be modelled as a variable over the semantic type of the anchor. I propose that these cases can be unified with those in Potts's work, as well as a larger class of ellipsis phenomena, by assuming that, under certain conditions, surface gaps are composite entities, containing a bound variable and a free variable that are resolved independently of each other. The bound variable is bound by the anchor (just as in Potts's account), and the free variable is resolved by anaphora to a salient discourse object.

@article{Vicente2016-FBVTG,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {{Free vs.\ bound variables and the taxonomy of gaps}},
Journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
Year = {to appear}}

Vicente, Luis. to appear. Sluicing and its subtypes. In The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis Temmerman and van Craenenbroeck (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[ paper | abstract | bibtex | note ]


This paper summarizes the accumulated evidence in favor of a regular syntax inside sluicing sites and surveys the different clause types that have been proposed to underlie them (i.e., regular interrogatives, focus fronting constructions, various types of clefts, various types of copular clauses).

@incollection{Vicente2016-SAS,
Author = {Vicente, Luis},
Title = {{Sluicing and its subtypes}},
Booktitle = {{The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis}},
Editor = {Temmerman, Tanja and van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
Address = {Oxford},
Year = {to appear}}

This is a very long version. The chapter in the handbook will be substantially abridged.

2016

Barros, Matthew, and Luis Vicente. 2016. A remnant condition for ellipsis. In Proceedings of WCCFL 33, Kim, Umbal, Block, Chan, Cheng, Finney, Katz, Nickel-Thompson, and Shorten (ed.), 57-66. Somerset: Cascadilla Press
[ paper | poster | handout | abstract | bibtex | note ]


Chung (2006, 2013) and Merchant (2013) argue that the standard semantic identity conditions on ellipsis need to be supplemented with a morphosyntactic identity condition on argument-introducing functional heads. We propose that this condition should be abandoned, as it makes a number of incorrect predictions. Instead, we propose that the standard identity condition, which regulates the relation between the ellipsis site and the antecedent, needs to be supplemented with a Remnant Condition that regulates the relation between the remnant of ellipsis and its correlate in the antecedent

@inproceedings{Barros-Vicente2015-RC,
Author = {Barros, Matthew and Vicente, Luis},
Title = {{A remnant-correlate identity condition on ellipsis}},
Booktitle = {{Proceedings of WCCFL 33}},
Publisher = {Cascadilla Press},
Address = {Somerville, MA},
Year = {2015}}

Supersedes the previous project Conditions on ellipsis beyond parallelism. Some of the ideas here stem from Matt's dissertion Sluicing and identity in ellipsis

Messick, Troy, Andrés Saab, and Luis Vicente. 2016. Deep properties of a surface anaphor: on the contextual restriction of sluicing sites (with Andrés Saab and Troy Messick). Under review for Linguistic Inquiry.
[ paper | abstract | bibtex | note ]


Three apparently disparate aspects of sluicing (i.e., Barros effects, inheritance-of-content effects, and the ability to take split antecedents) could be unified if the relevant sluices were derived from deletion of an underlying cleft or copular clause. However, such cleft/copular sources are demonstrably unavailable in many of the relevant cases. We resolve this paradox by extending and modifying Elbourne's (2008) implementation of the hypothesis that ellipsis sites are necessarily associated to a free contextual variable. This approach allows usto recreate the relevant parts of the semantics of clefts and copular clauses without invoking their syntax. Given that contextual variables are deep anaphors, our proposal supports Elbourne's conjecture that surface anaphors invariably contain a deep-anaphoric component.

@unpublished{Messick-Saab-Vicente2015-DPSA,
Author = {Messick, Troy and Saab, Andr\'es and Vicente, Luis},
Title = {{Deep properties of a surface anaphor: contextual restriction of sluicing sites}},
Note = {Ms., University of Connecticut, Universidad de Buenos Aires, and Universit\"at Potsdam},
Year = {2016}}

Andrés and me started working on this project in order to improve the analysis in his LI squib on else-modified sluices. After being accepted to present at the Grasping Ellipsis workshop, we found out that Troy had been independently developing an identical analysis. Probably for the better, this has resulted in a collaboration between the three of us.

Luis Vicente. 2016. Raising (and addressing) issues in discourse. Submitted Linguistics in the Netherlands 2016.
[ paper | slides | abstract | bibtex ]


The (in)felicity of issue-addressing questions immediately following disjunctions and conjunctions can be accurately predicted from the semantics of or and and. However, semantics alone turns out to be insufficient in cases where the disjunction/conjunction and the corresponding issue-addressing question are separated by additional conversational moves of acceptance, objection, or retraction of an existing assertion. This article shows that these cases can be handled by integrating the standard semantics for or and and within a formal theory of discourse dynamics. Properly, a conversation participant A can utter an issue-addressing question at a certain conversational stage if A's list of publicized discourse comitments contains the relevant issue at that stage.

@unpublished{Vicente2016-RAID,
Author = {Vicente, Luis},
Title = {{Raising (and addressing) issues in discourse}},
Note = {Ms., Universit\"at Potsdam (submitted to Linguistics in the Netherlands 2016},
Year = {2016}}

Vicente, Luis. 2016. ATB extraction without coordination. Submitted to Proceedings of NELS 46, Hammerly and Prickett (ed.). Amherst: GSLA.
[ paper | handout | slides | abstract | bibtex ]


There is a pervasive assumption in the literature to the effect that ATB extraction is limited to coordinate structures. This is unexpected in the light of Citko's (2003, 2005) analysis of ATB extraction in terms of linearization-enabling movement, which predicts the existence of non-coordinate ATB extraction. I discuss a variety of cases that have traditionally been analyzed as parasitic gaps, but which actually pattern together with ATB extractions in a number of properties. The overall result, then, is that the only necessary condition for ATB extraction is that the extractee be multidominated, whether within a coordinate structure or not.

@unpublished{Vicente2016-NELS46
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {{ATB extraction without coordination}},
Note = {Handout, NELS 46, Concordia University, Montr\'eal, Canada},
Year = {2015}}

2015

Vicente, Luis. 2015. Morphological case mismatches under sluicing. Snippets 29:16-17.
[ paper | abstract | bibtex ]


A two-page snippet about the observed patterns of case mismatches between the remnants of sluicing and their correlates.

@unpublished{Vicente2014-MCMS,
Author = {Vicente, Luis},
Title = {{Morphological case mismatches under sluicing}},
Note = {Ms., Universit\"at Potsdam},
Year = {2014}}

Vicente, Luis. 2015. On the distribution of headless XP movement and ellipsis: a reply to Funakoshi. Ms., Universität Potsdam.
[ paper | abstract | bibtex | note ]


Funakoshi (2012, 2014) proposes incorporating an adjunction vs. substitution distinction into the theory of head movement as a means to derive the distribution of headless XP movement and headless XP ellipsis (i.e., headless XP movement/ellipsis is licit only if head movement of X out of XP happens by substitution). In turn, the possibility of head movement by substitution is argued to be contingent on the availability of an unoccupied specifier position in the immediately higher projection. On the basis of data from Irish, Tongan, English, and German, I argue that this correlation is incorrect: the availability of unoccupied specifier positions is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for either headless XP movement or headless XP ellipsis. As a consequence, the adjunction vs. substitution distinction in head movement is left without empirical support.

@unpublished{Vicente2015-DHME,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {On the distribution of headless XP movement and ellipsis: a reply to Funakoshi},
Note = {Ms., Universit\"at Potsdam},
Year = {2015}}

The article that this article replies to is accessible here

2014

Vicente, Luis. 2014. Review of Culicover's Grammar and Complexity. LinguistList 25-5038.
[ review | bibtex ]


@unpublished{Vicente2014-LL,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {{Review of Culicover: \emph{Grammar and Complexity}}},
Note = {LinguistList 25-5038},
Year = {2014}}

Vicente, Luis. 2014. Review of Merchant & Simpson Sluicing: crosslinguistic perspectives. Language 89(3):653-655.
[ review | preprint | bibtex ]


@article{Vicente2013-Lang,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Review of {M}erchant and {S}impson \emph{{S}luicing: crosslinguistic perspectives},
Journal = {Language},
Year = {to app}}

2013

Vicente, Luis. 2013. On the causes of Superiority effects in Spanish: preliminary results and prospects. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 12:283-300.
[ paper | preprint | abstract | bibtex | supplemental materials ]


A controlled acceptability-rating task shows that Peninsular Spanish exhibits Superiority effects in multiple wh- questions, contrary to earlier claims in the literature. Importantly, a subject/object asymmetry also shows up in single wh- question, with object wh- fronting being more degraded than subject wh- fronting. This suggests (pace similar claims by Fanselow 2004 et seq for German) that Superiority effects are not, as traditionally argued, a reflection of Relativized Minimality or some equivalent locality restriction, but rather stem from an independent, more general set of restrictions.

@article{Vicente2013-CatJL,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {On the causes of {S}uperiority effects in {S}panish: preliminary results and prospects},
Journal = {Catalan {J}ournal of {L}inguistics},
Number = {12},
Pages = {283--300},
Year = {to appear}}

Vicente, Luis. 2013. Past counterfactuality in Spanish imperatives and its implications for the analysis of imperatives. Ms., Universität Potsdam.
[ preprint | abstract | bibtex ]


This article examines a class of Spanish root perfective infinitives (retrospective imperatives, RIs) that express past counterfactual modality. The narrow goal of the article is to explain why RIs have a modal semantics despite lacking an overt modal. The solution is based on Bosque's (1980) that these sentences are a subtype of imperatives. The broader goal is to use RIs as a probe into the proper semantic and pragmatic analysis of imperatives. The difficulty lies on the fact that RIs exhibit a set of properties that can't be completely covered by any of the existing analyses of imperatives. To solve this quandary, I propose a combination of the modal operator analysis (Grosz 2011, Kaufmann 2012) and the discourse analysis (Portner 2005, 2007), each one accounting for a different subset of properties. The overarching theoretical result is that imperatives have a covert modal operator in their syntactic structure, contrary to Portner's claims.

@unpublished{Vicente2013:RI,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Past counterfactuality in Spanish imperatives and its implications for the analysis of imperatives},
Note = {Ms., Universit\"at Potsdam},
Year = {2013}}

Cheng, Lisa, and Luis Vicente. 2013. Verb doubling in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 22(1):1–37.
[ paper | preprint | abstract | bibtex ]


This article examines two so-far-understudied verb doubling constructions in Mandarin Chinese, viz., verb doubling clefts and verb doubling lian...dou. We show that these constructions have the same internal syntax as regular clefts and lian...dou sentences, the doubling effect being epiphenomenal; therefore, we classify them as subtypes of the general cleft and lian...dou constructions, respectively, rather than as independent constructions. Additionally, we also show that, as in many other languages with comparable constructions, the two instances of the verb are part of a single movement chain, which has the peculiarity of allowing Spell-Out of more than one link.

@article{ChengVicente2013,
Author = {Lisa Cheng and Luis Vicente},
Title = {Verb doubling in {M}andarin {C}hinese},
Journal = {Journal of East Asian Linguistics},
Volume = {22},
Issue = {1},
Pages = {1--37},
doi = {10.1007/s10831-012-9095-6},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10831-012-9095-6},
Year = {2013}}

2012

Depiante, Marcela, and Luis Vicente. 2012. El movimiento y la morfología del verbo. In Brucart & Gallego (eds.) El movimiento de constituyentes, 95–106. Madrid: Visor Libros.
[ book | preprint | abstract | bibtex ]


En este capítulo nos ocupamos de la posición del verbo finito (o flexionado) en la estructura funcional de la oración y de la relación entre dicha posición y la morfología flexiva. Comenzaremos en la sección 2 con las cuestiones de movimiento. Ahí veremos que una serie de pruebas sugieren que todos los verbos finitos del español (y muy posiblemente también los infinitivos) se mueven hasta T en todos los casos, y hasta C en ciertas ocasiones (a saber, las oraciones imperativas). En la sección 3 pasaremos al análisis morfológico de la flexión, y en particular nos centraremos en dos teorías distintas que intenta explicar el proceso mediante el cual la raíz verbal se une a los morfemas flexivos.

@incollection{DepianteVicente2012,
Author = {Marcela Depiante and Luis Vicente},
Title = {El movimiento y la morfolog{\'i}a del verbo},
Booktitle = {El movimiento de constituyentes},
Editor = {Brucart and Gallego},
Publisher = {Visor Libros},
Address = {Madrid},
Pages = {95--106},
Year = {2012}}

2011

Barros, Matthew, and Luis Vicente. 2011. The eclectic nature of Right Node Raising. Ms., Rutgers University and Universität Potsdam.
[ preprint | abstract | bibtex | note ]


Existing theories of Right Node Raising make the hidden assumption that all subcases thereof can be covered by a single analysis, whether it be backward ellipsis (e.g., Hartmann 2000) or multidomination (e.g., Wilder 1999). We argue that this assumption is incorrect and that both ellipsis and multidomination are necessary to account for the whole range of cases. Our strategy consists on identifying two disjoint subclasses of RNR examples: one that can only be plausibly analyzed via ellipsis, and one that can only be plausibly identified via multidomination. Furthermore, we also show that neither analysis is reducible to the other. This result entails that "RNR" is not the name of a single process, but rather a cover term for a family of processes with superficially identical outputs.

@unpublished{BarrosVicente2011,
Author = {Matthew Barros and Luis Vicente},
Title = {The eclectic nature of {R}ight {N}ode {R}aising},
Note = {Ms., Rutgers University and University of Potsdam},
Year = {2011}}
Long version of the proceedings paper immediately below. It will remain a manuscript until we manage to run a formal acceptability task and submit it to a journal.

Barros, Matthew, and Luis Vicente. 2011. Right Node Raising requires both ellipsis and multidominance. In Friedman (ed.) UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 17(1):1–19.
[ paper | abstract | bibtex ]


Existing theories of Right Node Raising make the hidden assumption that all subcases thereof can be covered by a single analysis, whether it be backward ellipsis (e.g., Hartmann 2000) or multidomination (e.g., Wilder 1999). We argue that this assumption is incorrect and that both ellipsis and multidomination are necessary to account for the whole range of cases. Our strategy consists on identifying two disjoint subclasses of RNR examples: one that can only be plausibly analyzed via ellipsis, and one that can only be plausibly identified via multidomination. Furthermore, we also show that neither analysis is reducible to the other. This result entails that "RNR" is not the name of a single process, but rather a cover term for a family of processes with superficially identical outputs.

@inproceedings{BarrosVicente2011:PLC,
Author = {Matthew Barros and Luis Vicente},
Title = {{R}ight {N}ode {R}aising requires both ellipsis and multidominance},
Booktitle = {{UP}enn {W}orking {P}apers in {L}inguistics 17(1)},
Editor = {Friedman},
Pages = {1--19},
Year = {2011}}

Vicente, Luis. 2011. Review of Gallego: Phase Theory. Journal of Linguistics 47(3):719–724.
[ paper | preprint | bibtex ]


@article{Vicente2011:JoL,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Review of {G}allego: \emph{{P}hase {T}heory},
Journal = {Journal of Linguistics},
Volume = {47},
Number = {3},
Pages = {719--724},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226711000193},
Year = {2011}}

2010

Vicente, Luis. 2010. On the syntax of adversative coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28:381–415.
[ paper | preprint | abstract | bibtex ]


A series of studies have distinguished two types of but, namely, corrective and counterexpectational. The difference between these two types has been considered largely semantic/pragmatic. This article shows that the semantic difference also translates into a different syntax for each type of but. More precisely, corrective but always requires clause-level coordination, with apparent counterexamples being derived through ellipsis within the second conjunct. On the other hand, counterexpectational but is not restricted in this way, and offers the possibility of coordination of both clausal and subclausal constituents. From this difference, it is possible to derive a number of syntactic asymmetries between corrective and counterexpectational but.

@article{Vicente2010:NLLT,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {On the syntax of adversative coordination},
Journal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},
Volume = {28},
Number = {2},
Pages = {381--415},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9094-0},
Year = {2010}}

Vicente, Luis. 2010. A note on the movement analysis of gapping. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3):509–517.
[ paper | preprint | abstract | bibtex ]


Johnson (1996/2006) argues that English gapping is derived by ATB extraction of a verbal complex out of a vP-level coordination. This squib argues that, in order for this to be possible, one must also define a class of evacuating movements that cannot be caused by any currently accepted trigger.

@article{Vicente2010:LI,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {A note on the movement analysis of gapping},
Journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
Volume = {41},
Number = {3},
Pages = {509--517},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00008},
Year = {2010}}

Vicente, Luis. 2010. A note on the copy vs. multidominance theories of movement. In Gallego & Fortuny (eds.) Spelling Out Universal Grammar, 75–98. Barcelona: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.
[ paper | abstract | bibtex ]


This article considers two different aspects of A-bar movement, namely (a) an analysis of reconstruction effects in terms of deletion at LF, and (b) Johnson's (2007) decompositional analysis of quantifiers as a means to derive the correct interpretation of A-bar chains. By examining how these two proposals mesh with each other, it is possible to compare the copy theory of movement to a multidominance alternative. We will see that each approach to movement must make use of slightly different assumptions in order to derive the correct results, thus establishing a basis for a potential comparison between the two of them.

@incollection{Vicente2010:SOUG,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {A note on the movement vs.\ multidominance theories of movement},
Booktitle = {Spelling out {U}niversal {G}rammar},
Editor = {Gallego and Fortuny},
Publisher = {Universitat Aut{\`o}noma de Barcelona},
Address = {Barcelona},
Pages = {75--98},
url = {http://ddd.uab.es/record/53261?ln=en},
Year = {2010}}

2009

Vicente, Luis. 2009. An alternative to remnant movement for partial predicate fronting. Syntax 12(2):180–213.
[ paper | preprint | abstract | bibtex ]


One of the main tenets of transformational grammar is that movement processes affect heads and phrases in different ways. In this article, I argue against this claim and propose that heads should be allowed to move in the same way as phrases. Conceptually, this proposal is the logical consequence of a common set of assumptions about syntax in general and movement in particular. Empirically, it finds support in the Spanish predicate cleft construction.

@article{Vicente2009:Syntax,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {An alternative to remnant movement for partial predicate fronting},
Journal = {Syntax},
Volume = {12},
Number = {2},
Pages = {180--213},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00125.x},
Year = {2009}}

Lipták, Anikó, and Luis Vicente. 2009. Pronominal doubling under predicate topicalization. Lingua 119(5):650–686.
[ paper | preprint | abstract | bibtex ]


This paper examines the behaviour of VP topicalization in two unrelated languages, Hungarian and Spanish. It will show that in spite of the superficial similarity between the elements involved in such topicalization, the two languages employ a fundamentally different strategy in the derivation of these sentences. Hungarian fronts the VP material and spells it out in the form of a resumptive pronoun in the left periphery, in a mechanism similar to that described in Grohmann (2003). Spanish on the other hand generates the resumptive pronominal as an argument internal to the clause. This difference in the two derivations correlates with other differences in VP topicalization in the two languages.

@article{LiptakVicente2009:Lingua,
Author = {Anik{\'o} Lipt{\'a}k and Luis Vicente},
Title = {Pronominal doubling under predicate topicalization},
Journal = {Lingua},
Volume = {119},
Number = {5},
Pages = {650--686},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.11.007},
Year = {2009}}

Rodrigues, Cilene, Andrew Nevins, and Luis Vicente. 2009. Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and P-stranding. In Torck & Wetzels (eds.) Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2006, 245–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[ paper | preprint | abstract | bibtex ]


Merchant (2001) proposes that preposition stranding under sluicing is allowed only in those languages that also allow P-stranding in regular wh- questions. Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese (BP) seem to falsify this generalization, as both are non-Pstranding languages that allow P-stranding under sluicing. Our claim is that, despite initial appearances, Spanish and BP do not constitute counterexamples to Merchant s generalization. We propose that there are two sources of sluicing in Romance: wh-movement plus IP-deletion (Merchant 2001), and clefting plus IP deletion (Merchant 1998), the latter being the underlying source for P-stranding sluicing. The apparent P-stranding effect follows from the fact that, as opposed to regular interrogatives, clefts in BP and Spanish do not involve P-stranding at all. We reinforce this conclusion by showing that, in those cases where a cleft base is independently banned, P-stranding under sluicing becomes impossible too.

@inproceedings{RodriguesNevinsVicente2009:RLLT,
Author = {Cilene Rodrigues and Andrew Nevins and Luis Vicente},
Title = {Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and {P}-stranding},
Booktitle = {Romance languages and linguistic theory 2006},
Editor = {Torck and Wetzels},
Publisher = {John Benjamins},
Address = {Amsterdam},
Pages = {245--270},
Year = {2009}}

2008

Vicente. Luis. 2008. Syntactic isomorphism and non-isomorphism under ellipsis. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.
[ paper | abstract | bibtex | note ]


Rooth (1992) and Fiengo and May (1994) argued that, on top of a semantic parallelism requirement, elliptical structures are also subject to a syntactic isomorphism requirement between the elided constituent and its antecedent. This conclusion cannot be maintained in the face of the phenomenon of pseudo-sluicing (Merchant 1998 et seq.), where an elliptical copular clause is not isomorphic to its non-copular antecedent. This article shows that, in Spanish, non-isomorphism is a marked case, whereas isomorphism is the default (elsewhere) case --specifically, a non-isomorphic elliptical clause is licensed only if it leads to a stronger (more informative) statement vis-à-vis the antecedent clause. It is also argued that this generalization cannot be derived from independently needed restrictions on either ellipsis or copular clauses, and must therefore be encoded as an independent constraint. Finally, it is shown that while some languages behave in the same way as Spanish (French, Italian, Bulgarian), others don't (Brazilian Portuguese), revealing the need for further research in this domain.

@unpublished{Vicente2008:SINE,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Syntactic isomorphism and non-isomorphism under ellipsis},
Note = {Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz},
Year = {2008}}
Although this paper hasn't been published, I provide it here because it is frequently cited. If you read it, you should also read Barros and Vicente 2016.

Centeno, Naiara, and Luis Vicente. 2008. An argument in favor of a vP phase boundary in raising, passive, and unaccusative verbs. Ms., UI Urbana-Champaign and UC Santa Cruz.
[ paper | abstract | bibtex ]


Arregi & Centeno (2005) and Centeno (2011) show that the Spanish determiner sharing construction is sensitive to phase boundaries. We make use of this property to show that raising, passive, and unaccusative verbs project a phase boundary at the vP level, as proposed by Sauerland (2003) and Legate (2003), and contrary to Chomsky (2000, 2001).

@unpublished{Centeno-Vicente2008:LSA,
Author = {Centeno, Naiara and Vicente, Luis},
Title = {An argument in favor of a v{P} phase boundary in raising, passive, and unaccusative verbs},
Note = {Ms., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and University of California, Santa Cruz>,
url = {http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000724},
Year = {2008}}

Vicente, Luis. 2008. El movimiento del verbo y el análisis antisimétrico del euskera. In Arteatx, Artiagoitia & Elordieta (eds.) Antisimetria hipotesia vs. buru parametroa: euskararen oinarrizko hurrenkera ezbaian. Leioa: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
[ paper | preprint | abstract | bibtex ]


En este artículo se propone que un análisis antisimétrico del euskera requiere un tipo de movimiento distinto a los dos tipos reconocidos normalmente (movimiento de núcleos y movimiento de sintagmas). El argumento se basa en las diferentes maneras en que se pueden derivar los órdenes [verbo-auxiliar]. La distribución de ciertas partículas evidenciales sugiere un análisis de movimiento remanente del sintagma verbal. Sin embargo, un estudio de la sintaxis de los objetos demuestra que no es posible crear un sintagma remanente en todos los casos en que sería necesario. La paradoja se resuelve asumiendo que los núcleos pueden moverse sin incorporarse en un núcleo superior.

@incollection{Vicente2008:AHBP,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {El movimiento del verbo y el an{\'a}lisis antisim{\'e}trico del euskera},
Booktitle = {Antisimetria hipotesia vs.\ buru parametroa: euskararen oinarrizko hurrenkera ezbaian},
Editor = {Arteatx and Artiagoitia and Elordieta},
Publisher = {Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea},
Address = {Leioa},
Year = {2008}}

2007

Vicente, Luis. 2007. The syntax of heads and phrases: a study of verb (phrase) fronting. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.
[ dissertation | abstract | bibtex ]


This dissertation defends the existence of a type of movement that has so far been considered not to be possible, namely, movement of a bare head to a specifier position, over arbitrarily long distances. Head-to-spec movement was indeed explicitly banned in previous models of syntactic theory. However, its existence is unavoidable under Chomsky's Bare Phrase Structure hypothesis. This idea is explored in detail in the first chapter, where it is proposed that all moved constituents land on a specifier position, irrespective of their phrase structural status. The result is a unified theory of movement that dispenses with the head vs. phrase dichotomy.This hypothesis is supported through case studies of three constructions that have received very little attention in the literature. Chapter 2 discusses predicate clefting in Spanish; chapter 3, infinitive topicalization in Hungarian; and chapter 4, predicate clefting in Hungarian. The common feature of these constructions is that a abare infinitive is moved to the left periphery of the clause, in what appears to be a case of remnant predicate movement. It is shown, nonetheless, that a remnant movement analysis cannot be correct, given that both Spanish and Hungarian lack the means to create a remnant constituent in all the cases where it would be required. Consequently, it is necessary to allow bare heads to undergo run-of-the-mill A-bar movement, as predicted by the theory developed in chapter 1.

@phdthesis{Vicente2007:Diss,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {The syntax of heads and phrases: a study of verb (phrase) fronting},
School = {Leiden University},
Year = {2007}}

Blaho, Sylvia, Erik Schoorlemmer, and Luis Vicente. 2007. Proceedings of ConSOLE XIV. Leiden: Leiden University.
[ chapters | bibtex ]


@book{SOLE14,
Author = {Sylvia Blaho and Erik Schoorlemmer and Luis Vicente},
Title = {Proceedings of {C}on{SOLE} {XIV}},
Publisher = {Leiden University},
Address = {Leiden},
Year = {2007}}

2006

Vicente, Luis. 2006. Short negative replies in Spanish. In Los & van de Weijer (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 23, 199–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[ paper | preprint | abstract | bibtex | addendum ]


In Spanish short negative replies, both orders [XP no] and [no XP] are licit. On the basis of a series of syntactic and semantic asymmetries, I propose that pre-negation XPs are topics whereas post-negation XPs are foci.

@inproceedings{Vicente2006:LIN23,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Short negative replies in {S}panish},
Booktitle = {Linguistics in the {N}etherlands 23},
Editor = {Los and van de Weijer},
Publisher = {John Benjamins},
Address = {Amsterdam},
Pages = {199--210},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/avt.23.20vic},
Year = {2010}}

After publishing this paper, I discovered that Lasnik proposes a comparable analysis in his 1972 dissertation Analyses of negation in English. If you want to cite my paper, I recommend you also refer to the relevant sections of Lasnik's dissertation.

2005

Vicente, Luis. 2005. Towards a unified theory of movement. An argument from Spanish predicate clefts. In Salzmann & Vicente (eds.) Leiden Working Papers in Linguistics 2(3):43–67.
[ paper | abstract | bibtex ]


One of the core tenets of mainstream minimalism is that movement processes affect heads and phrases in different ways. In this contribution, I argue against this claim, and I propose a theory of movement that does not make such a distinction. Conceptually, my proposal is the logical consequence of a set of common assumptions about syntax in general and movement in particular. Empirically, it offers a sound analysis for the predicate cleft construction, illustrated here with data from Spanish.

@incollection{Vicente2005:LWPL2,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Towards a unified theory of movement: an argument from {S}panish predicate clefts},
Booktitle = {Leiden {W}orking {P}apers in {L}inguistics 2(3)},
Editor = {Salzmann and Vicente},
Pages = {43--67},
Year = {2005}}

Vicente, Luis. 2005. Licensing objects with and without movement. In Alderete et al (eds.) Proceedings of WCCFL 24 362–369. Somerset: Cascadilla Press
[ paper | abstract | bibtex ]


This paper examines the mechanisms of argument licensing by focusing on the syntax of direct objects. The main claim is that both Agree and Spec-Head agreement are necessary to account for the licensing of internal arguments, contrary to recent universalist proposals that try to eliminate either one or the other. The choice between them is taken to be a point of parametric variation between languages. Empirical support comes from three asymmetries between Dutch and Basque in the distribution and properties of direct objects. These asymmetries can be explained in a unified way under the assumption that Dutch objects are licensed VP-internally via Agree, whereas Basque objects require overt movement to SpecAgrOP.

@inproceedings{Vicente2005:WCCFL,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Licensing objects with and without movement},
Booktitle = {Proceedings of {WCCFL} 24},
Editor = {Alderete et al},
Publisher = {Cascadilla Press},
Address = {Somerset, MA},
Pages = {362--369},
Year = {2005}}

Vicente, Luis, and Mark de Vos). 2005. Coordination under Right Node Raising. In Alderete et al (eds.) Proceedings of WCCFL 24 97–104. Somerset: Cascadilla Press.
[ paper | abstract | bibtex ]


This paper provides a novel analysis for the distributive reading of coordinate structures under Right Node Raising (CoRNR). The authors show that the properties of this construction exclude a number of previous analyses based on movement, binding, or ellipsis. They propose to extend Citko's 2003 constituent sharing analysis of ATB questions, by claiming that CoRNR constructions feature a coordinate structure embedded inside a larger one. Such structures create a linearization problem that is resolved at PF by extraposing the lower coordinate structure. On top of accounting for the seemingly paradoxical properties of CoRNR sentences, this analysis can also be extended to regular RNR sentences and to coordinated wh-questions.

@inproceedings{DeVosVicente2005:WCCFL,
Author = {Mark de Vos and Luis Vicente},
Title = {Coordination under {R}ight {N}ode {R}aising},
Booktitle = {Proceedings of {WCCFL} 24},
Editor = {Alderete et al},
Publisher = {Cascadilla Press},
Address = {Somerset, MA},
Pages = {97--104},
Year = {2005}}

Vicente, Luis. 2005. Review of Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina: A grammar of Basque. Lingua 116(8):1138–1141.
[ review | preprint | bibtex ]


@article{Vicente2005:GOB,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Review of {H}ualde {\&} {O}rtiz de {U}rbina \emph{A grammar of {B}asque}},
Journal = {Lingua},
Volume = {116},
Number = {8},
Pages = {1138--1141},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.03.009},
Year = {2005}}

Vicente, Luis. 2005. Review of Di Sciullo: UG and external systems. LinguistList 16.3500.
[ review | bibtex ]


@unpublished{Vicente2005:UGES,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Review of di {S}ciullo \emph{{UG} and external systems}},
Note = {LinguistList 16.3500},
url = {http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-3500.html},
Year = {2005}}

Vicente, Luis. 2005. Review of Hawkins: Efficiency and complexity in grammars. LinguistList 16.1542.
[ review | bibtex ]


@unpublished{Vicente2005:ECG,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Review of {H}awkins \emph{{E}fficiency and complexity in grammars}},
Note = {LinguistList 16.1542},
url = {http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-1642.html},
Year = {2005}}

Blaho, Sylvia, Erik Schoorlemmer, and Luis Vicente. 2005. Proceedings of ConSOLE XIII. Leiden: Leiden University.
[ chapters | bibtex ]


@book{SOLE13,
Author = {Sylvia Blaho and Erik Schoorlemmer and Luis Vicente},
Title = {Proceedings of {C}on{SOLE} {XIII}},
Publisher = {Leiden University},
Address = {Leiden},
Year = {2005}}

Salzmann, Martin, and Luis Vicente. 2005 Leiden Working Papers in Linguistics 2(3). Leiden: Leiden University.
[ chapters | bibtex ]


@book{LWPL2-3,
Author = {Martin Salzmann and Luis Vicente},
Title = {Leiden {W}orking {P}apers in {L}inguistics 2(3)},
Publisher = {Leiden University},
Address = {Leiden},
Year = {2005}}

2004

Vicente, Luis. 2004. Inversion, reconstruction, and the structure of relative clauses. In Auger et al (eds.) Contemporary approaches to Romance linguistics, 316–335. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[ paper | preprint | abstract | bibtex ]


This chapter argues in favor of a double-headed analysis of restrictive relative clauses (Platero 1974, Sauerland 1998, 2000). One of the head positions is the SpecCP slot of the relative clause, while the other is the NP the relative clause is adjoined to. Contra Platero and Sauerland, I argue that there is only one head position, the other position being taken up by an empty, expletive-like element I dub eNP. I also argue for Sauerland's and Aoun and Li's (2003) hypothesis that both the matching and the raising analyses are made available by UG. However, whereas they assume that each analysis involves a different syntactic structure, I argue that there is only one structure, the differences between the raising and the matching analyses arising from an indeterminacy on the way in which the "real" relative head and eNP are merged. Moreover, this indeterminacy is also shown to be responsible for certain reconstruction asymmetries in Spanish that had not been noticed so far.

@inproceedings{Vicente2004:CARL,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Inversion, reconstruction, and the structure of relative clauses},
Booktitle = {Contemporary approaches to {R}omance linguistics},
Editor = {Auger et al},
Publisher = {John Benjamins},
Address = {Amsterdam},
Pages = {316--335},
Year = {2004}}

Vicente, Luis. 2004. Derived vs. base-generated OV. In Arsenijevic et al (eds.) Leiden Working Papers in Lingusitics 1(1):83–96. Leiden: Leiden University.
[ paper | abstract | bibtex ]


This paper provides an argument against a uniform characterization of OV languages. It is claimed that in some languages OV orders are base generated in a head final VP structure, whereas in others they are the result of object movement to the left of the verb. Empirical support comes from some asymmetries between Dutch and Basque that are accommodated without trouble if these languages construct their OV orders in different ways.

@incollection{Vicente2005:LWPL1-1,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Derived vs.\ base-generated {OV}},
Booktitle = {Leiden {W}orking {P}apers in {L}inguistics 1(1)},
Editor = {Arsenijevic et al},
Publisher = {Leiden University},
Address = {Leiden},
Pages = {83--96},
Year = {2004}}

Vicente, Luis. 2004. Review of Hornstein: Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Lingua 114(5):635–644.
[ review | preprint | bibtex ]


@article{Vicente2004:MMTC,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Review of {H}ornstein \emph{{M}ove! {A} minimalist theory of construal}},
Journal = {Lingua},
Volume = {114},
Number = {5},
Pages = {635--644},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00046-9},
Year = {2004}}

Vicente, Luis. 2004. Review of Aboh: The morphosyntax of complement-head sequences. LinguistList 15.2565.
[ review | bibtex ]


@unpublished{Vicente2004:MCHS,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Review of {A}boh \emph{{T}he morphosyntax of complement-head sequences}},
Note = {LinguistList 15.2565}
url = {http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-2565.html},
Year = {2004}}

Blaho, Sylvia, Luis Vicente, and Mark de Vos. 2004. Proceedings of ConSOLE XII. Leiden: Leiden University.
[ chapters | bibtex ]


@book{SOLE13,
Author = {Sylvia Blaho and Luis Vicente and Mark de Vos},
Title = {Proceedings of {C}on{SOLE} {XII}},
Publisher = {Leiden University},
Address = {Leiden},
Year = {2004}}

2002

Vicente, Luis. 2002. Prenominal relatives in Basque and Antisymmetry. BA thesis, University of Deusto.
[ thesis | abstract | bibtex ]


The antisymmetric framework in Kayne (1994) has been the source of new insights into a number of constructions, relative clauses being one of them. There are several analyses that deal with this topic (Bianchi 1999, 2000; Borsley 1997; Koster 2000; Platzack 2000; Zwart 2000) but all of the focus on postnominal relatives. Kayne himself proposed that prenominal relatives are derived in the same way as postnominal, with one further movement of the relative clause to the left of the the head noun. The aim of this thesis is to examine this hypothesis in detail, focusing on prenominal relative clauses in Basque.

@mastersthesis{Vicente2002,
Author = {Luis Vicente},
Title = {Prenominal relatives in {B}asque and {A}ntisymmetry},
Type = {BA thesis},
School = {University of Deusto},
Year = {2002}}