Editing Movement paradox (section)

== Three types of movement paradoxes ==  
Movement paradoxes challenge the movement account of discontinuities. They occur when the "moved" constituent is acceptable in its derived position but not in its base position, e.g.<ref>The three examples given here are taken from Bresnan (2001:16ff.).</ref>

::a. *We talked about <u>that he was sick</u> for days. <small>- Underlined clause is unacceptable before movement.</small>
::b. <u>That he was sick</u>, we talked about ___ for days. <small>- Example of topicalization</small>

::a. *...but she did not <u>met me</u>. <small>- Underlined verb phrase is unacceptable before movement</small>
::b. ?...but <u>met me</u> she did not ___. <small>- Example of topicalization</small> 

::a. *I <u>aren't</u> your friend. <small>- Underlined copular verb is unacceptable before movement.</small>
::b. <u>Aren't</u> I ___ your friend? <small>- Example of inversion</small> 

These data are difficult to explain in an analysis based on movement, since it is not evident how the b-sentence can be grammatical each time if it is derived by a movement operation applied to the corresponding a-example. The first example illustrates a movement paradox involving a clausal complement of the preposition ''about'', the second a movement paradox involving competing forms of a [[non-finite verb]] (''meet'' vs ''met''), and the third a movement paradox involving a contracted form of the [[Copula (linguistics)|copula]] (''aren't''). To state the problem in other words, the movement analysis of the b-sentences has to explain the unexpected fact that the a-sentences are bad.