Editor for this issue: <>
The fallacy is that the use of a uniform mechanism (e.g. global derivational constraints) for a wide range of purposes does not necessarily embody any useful claim about language. It *might*, but this depends on the particular properties of the mechanism. What I think that unification has going for is (a) it has reasonable mathematical properties (those of `and' in logics where consistency is decideable, I'd suggest). (b) it corresponds to the idea that language makes extensive use of `long components' (a Harrisian term, I think I recollect) that get manifested at multiple points in the grammatical structure, with the manifestations having to give consistent information about the long component. But this could all be just wrong. Maybe movement, co-superscripting , etc., really are so different in their empirical properties that it's pointless to try to reduce them to a common formal basis. Avery.AndrewsMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueanu.edu.au