Movement of degree/degree of movement (original) (raw)
Related papers
Rightward Movement: A Study in Locality
2015
The irregular behavior of rightward movement presents a challenge to theories that treat such configurations as the direct product of the mechanism responsible for leftward movement. For example, rightward movement appears not to be subject to certain island constraints and famously appears to be subject to stricter locality conditions than leftward movement. This dissertation presents investigations of two particular instances of rightward movement in English: Heavy-NP Shift (HNPS) and Extraposition from NP (EXNP). I argue that, by identifying the proper analyses for these phenomena, we can begin to attribute their apparent differences from leftward movement as the products of more general constraints on movement and properties of the particular mechanisms involved. Chapters 2 and 3 present a case study on HNPS. Chapter 2 argues, on the basis of parasitic gap licensing, that there are instances of right DP-movement that are best modeled as the product of rightward linearized syntactic movement. I also present the results of vi an acceptability judgment study to address the argument by Postal (1994) that it is in fact Right Node Raising that generates what are only apparent parasitic gap. Chapter 3 builds on research conducted by Nissenbaum (2000). I argue that the need to bind a parasitic gap licenses potentially unbounded and successive-cyclic rightward movement beyond what is possible for standard HNPS. This suggests that the locality conditions on rightward movement are not categorically different that the locality conditions on leftward movement. I attribute the otherwise exceptional locality of standard HNPS to a constraint on economy of derivation (Chomsky 1993). Chapters 4 and 5 present a case study on EXNP. Chapter 4 proposes a novel connectivity diagnostic that strongly suggests that an extraposed relative clause is generated inside its host DP (cf. Rochemont & Culicover 1990). The results of an acceptability judgment study suggest that an NPI that appears in a relative clause and is licensed by the universal quantifier every remains licensed in an EXNP configuration. I argue that the QR-based theory of EXNP from Fox & Nissenbaum (1999) best models the available data as well as some of the irregular properties of EXNP. Chapter 5 investigates the locality conditions on EXNP. I present evidence for a set of strong subclausal locality conditions on EXNP. However, we will see interpretive evidence that an extraposed relative clause can be interpreted outside of its containing clause. I suggest that these facts can be made to follow from a treatment of QR as an unbounded successive-cyclic instance of covert movement (e.g., Cecchetto 2004). The result is that both HNPS and the movement responsible for EXNP, are potentially unbounded and successive-cyclic movements, just like their leftward counterparts. vii
Looking beyond the broad subcategorization for √Verb, and peering into the more narrow feature selectivity of a specific verb's Probe-Goal relation (√drink vs √break), coupled with the defining status of DP as Phase, this brief note examines the behavior of complex DP-nominals and attempts to peg Merge-operations to X-bar theory in ways which show how, in reprojection, the lower more prosaic lexical merge-1 ('Comp of DP-as-Phase') contrasts with the upper functional merge-2. We suggest the former Merge-1 is a [-AGR] projection, (and not a full-fledge Phrase) while the latter Merge-2 is a full-expansive XP [+AGR] projection. Hence merge has Xbar theory implications. •We'll come to consider only the fullexpansive/Merge-2 XP [+Agr] as valued as the default Head-selection, i.e., that projection which allows for simultaneous projections of either verb type. (See verb in sentence (a') above as having this default Hselection status: √break selects for either Merge-2 or Merge-1), hence the H-selection of √break as default.
A NEW LOOK AT SUBJECT ISLANDS: THE PHASEHOOD OF DEFINITENESS
In this work I discuss the phasal status of Determiner Phrases (DPs) and propose that certain subject-island effects such as subextraction are best understood when interfacerelated features such as Definiteness/Specificity are taken into consideration. Utilizing Chomsky's (2008) notion of phases, I claim that subextraction out of subjects is licensed if the relevant DP is not a phase. A DP subject is not a phase if it is indefinite. Building on Jiménez-Fernández (2009), I maintain that subextraction is possible not only in interrogative clauses, but also in other types of A'-movement such as focus fronting. I show that independently of the (post-or pre-verbal) position that DP subjects occupy, subextraction in A'-movement contexts is permitted if the DP subject does not contain the interface-related grammatical feature [+ def]. The phasal characterisation of subject islands is held to be a consequence of an interface effect relating to the Definiteness feature. In other words, island circumvention is crucially connected to interface conditions, not only to syntactic constraints (contrary to . Subextraction out of a subject is illustrated with Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Polish, Greek and English data. A threefold typological division is proposed, in which languages are classified according to the subextraction possibilities and the influence of Definiteness on this type of movement. In addition, a parallelism is established between DP phases and NP phases, which accounts for the strong influence of the [+ def] feature on the phasal characterization of nominal constructions in languages with and without articles.
THE MORPHOLOGY OF SPATIAL P: A LOOK INSIDE ADPOSITIONS AND CASE
Proceedings of Les Decembrettes 8 (tentative).
The goal of this paper is to offer a unified analysis of the morphological structure of spatial adpositions and spatial case markers in three languages: English, Spanish, and Finnish. This analysis combines Distributed Morphology assumptions with a Type-Logical formal treatment. Two key results emerge from this unified morpho-syntactic analysis. First, spatial adpositions (behind, encima, laelta) can be accounted as the result of merging different “types” of spatial morphemes, including spatial case markers and particles. Second, cross-linguistic syntactic phenomena involving these categories (e.g. argument demotion) can also be accounted for straightforwardly, via our analysis. We suggest that these results also support a “morphology all the way up” view of Distributed Morphology.
2020
In many languages the same demonstrative forms can be used either deictically (to point to some entity present in the speech act situation) or anaphorically (to refer back to some entity already mentioned in the previous discourse). In other languages deictic and anaphoric demonstratives are expressed by different forms, and in a subset of the latter group of languages the deictic and anaphoric demonstratives can co-occur, in a certain order. The two thus appear to be merged in different positions of the nominal extended projection, with deictic demonstratives arguably merged higher than anaphoric demonstratives, as is more clearly evident in certain languages. I submit that this is true of all languages even if most do not provide any overt indication of a different Merge position. Some languages also appear to provide evidence that distal and proximal demonstratives are merged in distinct positions of the nominal extended projection.