1887
image of Revisiting extraction and subextraction patterns from arguments
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Extraction and subextraction tend to receive separate attention in syntax, which leads to the assumption that they should be analyzed independently, even though they both illustrate an asymmetry between subjects and objects. By looking at various phenomena in English, German, Spanish and Norwegian I propose that this parallel behavior is not accidental, but that there is a previously unnoticed generalization: subextraction is allowed iff extraction is possible and the target of subextraction is not an indirect object. I propose that a revised version of Spec-to-Spec antilocality ( ) is necessary: movement of and out of an XP must cross a () ( ), i.e. the set of all projections of a head. This version of antilocality can derive effects, , and their exceptions; and effects and their neutralization, extending them to subextraction. However, antilocality on its own cannot derive the extraction-subextraction asymmetry in indirect objects. I propose that the Principle of Minimal Compliance (PMC) ( ) can suspend antilocality if agree between a probe and a goal has happened. The version adopted here will allow extraction of the whole XP, but disallow extraction of its specifier due to the lack of an agree relation. Antilocality and the PMC combined also make the right predictions in other domains such as the lack of -support in matrix subject questions and A-movement of the subject in declarative clauses, providing evidence that antilocality is a constraint that should apply to (at least) both A and A′-movement.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.20002.toq
2021-04-19
2021-05-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abels, Klaus
    2003 “Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2007 “Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement!” InLinguistic Variation Yearbook, edited byJeroen van Craenenbroeck and Johan Rooryck, 7:53–120. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/livy.7.04abe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.7.04abe [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou
    1998 “Parametrizing Agr: word order, V-movement and EPP-checking.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory16 (3): 491–539. 10.1023/A:1006090432389
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baltin, Mark
    2001 “A-movement.” InThe handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, edited byMark Baltin and Chris Collins, 226–254. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756416.ch8
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756416.ch8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barbosa, Pilar
    2001 “On Inversion in Wh-questions in Romance.” InSubject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, edited byAafke C. Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock, 20–59. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bayer, Josef
    2012 “From modal particle to interrogative marker: a study of German denn.” InFunctional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, edited byLaura Brugé, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, and Cecilia Poletto, 13–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bayer, Josef, and Martin Salzmann
    2013 “That-trace effects and resumption: How improper movement can be repaired.” InRepairs: The Added Value of Being Wrong, edited byPatrick Brandt and Eric Fuß, 275–334. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614510796.275
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510796.275 [Google Scholar]
  8. Beck, Sigrid
    1996 “Wh-Constructions and Transparent Logical Form.” PhD diss., Universität Tübingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bentzen, Kristine
    2009 “Subject positions and their interactions with verb movement.” Studia Linguistica63 (3): 261–291. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2009.01162.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2009.01162.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Boeckx, Cedric
    2008Bare syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein
    2005 “A Gap in the ECM Paradigm.” Linguistic Inquiry36 (3): 437–441. 10.1162/0024389054396926
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396926 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bonet, Eulália
    1990 “Subjects in Catalan.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics13:1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bošković, Željko
    1997a “Coordination, Object Shift, and V-Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry28 (2): 357–365.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1997bThe Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. 247. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2005 “On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP.” Studia Linguistica59 (1): 1–45. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2005.00118.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00118.x [Google Scholar]
  16. 2007 “On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More Minimal Theory.” Linguistic Inquiry38 (4): 589–644. 10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2014 “Now I’m a Phase, Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis.” Linguistic Inquiry45 (1): 27–89. 10.1162/LING_a_00148
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00148 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2016 “On the timing of labeling: Deducing Comp-trace effects, the Subject Condition, the Adjunct Condition, and tucking in from labeling.” The Linguistic Review33 (1): 17–66. 10.1515/tlr‑2015‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0013 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2018 “On Movement out of Moved Elements, Labels, and Phases.” Linguistic Inquiry49 (2): 247–282. doi: 10.1162/ling
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling [Google Scholar]
  20. Branan, Kenyon
    2019 “Locality and anti-locality: the logic of conflicting requirements.” Ms., National University of Singapore.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bresnan, Joan
    1977 “Variables in the theory of transformations.” InFormal Syntax, edited byPeter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 157–196. Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Brillman, Ruth, and Aron Hirsch
    2016 “An anti-locality account of English subject/non-subject asymmetries.” InProceedings of CLS50.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Brody, Michael
    1998 “Projection and Phrase Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry29 (3): 367–398. 10.1162/002438998553798
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553798 [Google Scholar]
  24. Browning, Marguerite
    1996 “CP Recursion and that-t Effects.” Linguistic Inquiry27 (2): 237–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bruening, Benjamin
    2010a “Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation.” Linguistic Inquiry41 (3): 519–562. 10.1162/LING_a_00012
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00012 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2010b “Double Object Constructions Disguised as Prepositional Datives.” Linguistic Inquiry41 (1): 281–305.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2018a “Depictive Secondary Predicates and Small Clause Approaches to Argument Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry49 (3): 537–559. 10.1162/ling_a_00281
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00281 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2018b “Double Object Constructions and Prepositional Dative Constructions are Distinct: A Reply to Ormazabal and Romero 2012.” Linguistic Inquiry49:123–150. 10.1162/LING_a_00268
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00268 [Google Scholar]
  29. Burzio, Luigi
    1986Italian Syntax. Reidel Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑4522‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7 [Google Scholar]
  30. Chacón, Dustin Alfonso, Michael Fetters, Margaret Kandel, Eric Pelzl, and Colin Phillips
    2015 “Indirect learning and language variation: Reassessing the that-trace effect.” Ms., University of Maryland & Yale University.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Chomsky, Noam
    1973 “Conditions on Transformations.” InA Festschrift for Morris Halle, edited byStephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286. New York: Holt Rinehart / Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1981Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1986Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1995The minimalist program. 420. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2000 “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” InStep by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, edited byRoger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2001a “Derivation by Phase.” InKen Hale: A Life in Linguistics, edited byMichael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2001b “Derivation by phase.” InKen Hale: a life in language, edited byMichael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2008 “On Phases.” InFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, edited byRobert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2013 “Problems on Projection.” Lingua130:33–49. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik
    1977 “Filters and control.” Linguistic Inquiry8 (3): 425–504.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Chung, Sandra, and James McCloskey
    1983 “On the interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG.” Linguistic Inquiry14 (4): 704–713.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1999Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Citko, Barbara
    2014Phase Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139644037
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139644037 [Google Scholar]
  44. Collins, Chris
    2002 “Multiple verb movement in Hoan.” Linguistic Inquiry33 (1): 1–29. 10.1162/002438902317382161
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902317382161 [Google Scholar]
  45. Cowart, Wayne
    1997Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Cuervo, Cristina
    2003 “Datives at Large.” PhD diss., Massachusets Institue of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Culicover, Peter
    1993 “Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect.” Linguistic Inquiry24 (3): 557–561.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Davis, Colin
    2020a “Crossing and stranding at edges: On intermediate stranding and phase theory.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics5 (1): 1–32. ISSN: 2397-1835. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.854
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.854 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2020b “Further insights and inquiries into possessor extraction in English.” Colloquim Handout presented at theUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles. 10-12-20.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Deal, Amy Rose
    2009 “The Origin and Content of Expletives: Evidence from “Selection”.” Syntax12 (4): 285–323. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2009.00127.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00127.x [Google Scholar]
  51. 2017 “Syntactic ergativity as case discrimination.” InWCCFL 34, edited byAaron Kaplan, Abby Kaplan, Miranda McCarvel, and Edward Rubin, 141–150. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Diesing, Molly
    1990 “The Syntactic Roots of Semantic Partition.” PhD diss., UMASS-Amherst.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Doherty, Cathal
    1993 “Clauses without that: The case for bare sentential complementation in English.” PhD diss., University of California Santa Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Douglas, Jamie
    2017 “Unifying the that-trace and anti-that-trace effects.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics2:1–28. 10.5334/gjgl.312
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.312 [Google Scholar]
  55. Emonds, Joseph E.
    1976A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York, New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Engdahl, Elisabet
    1983 “Parasitic Gaps.” Linguistics and Philosophy6 (1): 5–34. 10.1007/BF00868088
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00868088 [Google Scholar]
  57. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka
    2014 “Anti-locality and Kaqchikel Agent Focus.” In31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited byRobert Santana-LaBarge, 150–159. Arizona State University, Phoenix: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2016 “Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory34 (2): 429–479. 10.1007/s11049‑015‑9310‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9310-z [Google Scholar]
  59. 2017 “Why the null complementizer is special in complementizertrace effects.” InA pesky set: Papers for David Pesetsky, edited byClaire Halpert, Hadas Kotek, and Coppe van Urk, 371–380. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2020 “Anti-locality and subject extraction.” Glossa5 (1): 1–38. 10.5334/gjgl.1079
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1079 [Google Scholar]
  61. Etxepare, Ricardo, and Ángel Gallego
    2020 “No nominative case in Spanish.” Ms., IKER-CNRS & Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Fanselow, Gisbert
    2001 “Features, theta-roles, and free constituent order.” Linguistic Inquiry32 (3): 405–437. 10.1162/002438901750372513
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901750372513 [Google Scholar]
  63. Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky
    2005 “Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure.” Theoretical Linguistics31 (1–2): 1–46. 10.1515/thli.2005.31.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  64. Franco, Irene
    2012 “Subject requirement, complementizers and optionality.” Ms., University of Leiden.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Gallego, Ángel
    2007 “Phase Theory and Parametric Variation.” PhD diss., Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 2010Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.152
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.152 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2013 “Object shift in Romance.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory2 (2): 409–451. 10.1007/s11049‑013‑9188‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9188-6 [Google Scholar]
  68. Georgala, Effi
    2010 “Why German is not an exception to the universal <IO, DO> base order of double object constructions.” InWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics28. University of Southern California.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Georgala, Effi, Waltraud Paul, and John Whitman
    2008 “Expletive and Thematic Applicatives.” InWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics26, 181–189. University of California, Berkley.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Grohmann, Kleanthes K.
    2003 “Successive Cyclicity Under (Anti-)Local Considerations.” Syntax6 (3): 260–312. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2003.00063.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2003.00063.x [Google Scholar]
  71. Haddican, William
    2010 “Theme-goal ditransitives and Theme passives in British English dialects.” Lingua120:2424–2443. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2012 “Object movement symmetries in British English dialects: Experimental evidence for a mixed case/locality approach.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics115:189–212. 10.1007/s10828‑012‑9051‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-012-9051-x [Google Scholar]
  73. Haddican, William, and Anders Holmberg
    2018 “Object symmetry effects in Germanic: Evidence for the role of case.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory37 (1): 91–122. 10.1007/s11049‑018‑9404‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9404-5 [Google Scholar]
  74. Haider, Hubert
    1990 “Topicalization and Other Puzzles of German Syntax.” InScrambling and Barriers, edited byGünther Grewendorf and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 93–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/la.5.06hai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.5.06hai [Google Scholar]
  75. 2017 “Mittelfeld Phenomena. Scrambling in Germanic.” InThe Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edi, edited byMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. John Wiley Sons. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom048
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom048 [Google Scholar]
  76. Heck, Fabian, and Malte Zimmermann
    2004 “DPs and Phases.” Ms., University of Leipzig and HU Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Hegarty, Michael
    1991 “Adjunct extraction and chain configuration.” PhD diss., MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Hein, Johannes
    2019 “Verb movement and the lack of verb-doubling VPtopicalization in Germanic.” Ms. University of Postdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Holmberg, Anders
    1986 “Word Order and Syntactic Features.” PhD diss., Stockholm.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 2000 “Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: how any category can become an expletive.” Linguistic Inquiry31 (3): 445–483. 10.1162/002438900554406
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554406 [Google Scholar]
  81. Holmberg, Anders, Michelle Sheehan, and Jenneke Van der Wal
    2019 “Movement from the double object construction is not fully symmetrical.” Linguistic Inquiry50 (4): 677–722. 10.1162/ling_a_00322
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00322 [Google Scholar]
  82. Huang, C.-T. James
    1982 “Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Johnson, Kyle
    1991 “Object positions.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory9 (4): 577–636. 10.1007/BF00134751
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134751 [Google Scholar]
  84. 2004 “How to be Quiet.” InProceedings from the 40th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, edited byNikki Adams, Adam Cooper, Fey Parrill, and Thomas Wier, 1–20. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Kayne, Richard
    1994The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Keine, Stefan
    2016 “Probes and their horizons.” PhD diss., Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 2019 “Selective opacity.” Linguistic Inquiry50 (1): 13–62. 10.1162/ling_a_00299
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00299 [Google Scholar]
  88. Kiziak, Tanja
    2007 “Long extraction or parenthetical insertion? Evidence from judgement studies.” InParentheticals, edited byNicole Dehé and Yordanka Kavalova, 121–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.106.08kiz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.106.08kiz [Google Scholar]
  89. 2010Extraction Asymmetries: Experimental Evidence from German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.163
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.163 [Google Scholar]
  90. Koizumi, Masatoshi
    1994 “Secondary Predicates.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics3 (1): 25–79. 10.1007/BF01733149
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01733149 [Google Scholar]
  91. Larson, Richard
    1988 “On the double object construction.” Linguistic Inquiry19 (3): 335–392.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 2010 “On Pykkänen’s Semantics for Low Applicatives.” Linguistic Inquiry41 (4): 701–704. 10.1162/LING_a_00020
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00020 [Google Scholar]
  93. Lasnik, Howard
    1995 “Case and Expletives Revisited: On Greed and Other Human Failings.” Linguistic Inquiry26 (4): 615–634.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 2001 “Subjects, Objects and the EPP.” InObjects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality, edited byWilliam D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky, 103–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0991‑1_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0991-1_5 [Google Scholar]
  95. Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito
    1991 “On the Subject of Infinitives.” InChicago Linguistics Society27, edited byLise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodriguez, 27:324–343. Chicago University.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Legate, Julie Anne
    2003 “Some Interface Properties of the Phase.” Linguistic Inquiry34 (3): 506–516. 10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506 [Google Scholar]
  97. Little, Carol-Rose
    2020a “Left branch extraction, object shift, and freezing effects in Tumbalá Ch’ol.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics5:1–29. 10.5334/gjgl.988
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.988 [Google Scholar]
  98. 2020b “Mutual dependencies of nominal and clausal syntax in Ch’ol.” PhD diss., Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Lohndal, Terje
    2007 “That-t in Scandinavian and Elsewhere: Variation in the Position of C.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax79:47–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 2009 “Comp-t effects: Variation in the position and features of C.” Studia Linguistica63:204–232. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2009.01159.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2009.01159.x [Google Scholar]
  101. 2011 “Freezing effects and objects.” Journal of Linguistics47:163–199. 10.1017/S0022226710000010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226710000010 [Google Scholar]
  102. Maling, Joan
    2001 “Dative: The Heterogeneity of the Mapping among Morphological Case, Grammatical Functions, and Thematic Roles.” Lingua111:419–464. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(00)00039‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00039-5 [Google Scholar]
  103. Marantz, Alec
    1993 “Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions.” InTheoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1, edited bySam A. Mchombo, 113–151. Stanford University: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Matushansky, Ora
    2005 “Going through a phase.” InPerspectives on phases, edited byMartha McGinnis and Norvin Richards, 151–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguisitcs.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. McFadden, Thomas
    2006 “German inherent datives and argument structure.” InDatives and Other Cases: Between argument structure and event structure, edited byDaniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham, 49–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.75.05mcf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.75.05mcf [Google Scholar]
  106. McGinnis, Martha
    2017 “Applicatives.” InThe Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd, edited byMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 1–32. Amsterdam: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom124
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom124 [Google Scholar]
  107. McIntyre, Andrew
    2006 “The interpretation of German datives and English “have”.” InDatives and Other Cases, edited byDaniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham, 185–211. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.75.09mci
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.75.09mci [Google Scholar]
  108. Merchant, Jason
    2001The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 2013 “Voice and Ellipsis.” Linguistic Inquiry44 (1): 77–108. 10.1162/LING_a_00120
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00120 [Google Scholar]
  110. Messick, Troy
    2020 “The derivation of highest subject questions and the nature of the EPP.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics5:1–12. 10.5334/gjgl.1029
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1029 [Google Scholar]
  111. Müller, Gereon
    1998Incomplete Category Fronting: A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German. Dordrecht ; Boston ; London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑1864‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1864-6 [Google Scholar]
  112. 2010 “On Deriving CED Effects from the PIC.” Linguistic Inquiry41 (1): 35–82. 10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  113. Nissenbaum, Jon
    2000 “Covert movement and parasitic gaps.” InProceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, edited byMasako Hirotani, Andries Coetzee, Nancy Hall, and Ji-yung Kim, 541–556. Rutgers University: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Nylsen, Øystein
    1997 “Adverbs and A-shift.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax59:1–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Perlmutter, David
    1968 “Deep and surface constraints in syntax.” PhD diss., Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Pesetsky, David
    1995Zero syntax. 351. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 2017 “Complementizer-Trace effects.” InThe Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edi, edited byMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom108
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom108 [Google Scholar]
  118. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego
    2001 “T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences.” InKen Hale: A life in language, edited byMichael Kenstowicz, 355–426. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Platzack, Christer
    2012 “Cross Germanic variation in the realm of support verbs.” InComparative Germanic Syntax: The state of the art, edited byPeter Ackema, Rhona Alcorn, Caroline Heycock, Dany Jaspers, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, and Guido Vanden Wyngærd, 279–310. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.191.10pla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.191.10pla [Google Scholar]
  120. Polinsky, Maria, Carlos Gómez Gallo, Peter Graff, Ekaterina Kravtchenko, Adam Milton Morgan, and Sturgeon Anne
    2015 “Subject islands are different.” InExperimental syntax and island effects, edited byJon Sprouse, 286–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Pollock, Jean-Yves
    1989 “Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP.” Linguistic Inquiry20 (3): 365–424.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Preminger, Omer
    2019 “What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics4 (1): 1–42. ISSN: 2397-1835. 10.5334/gjgl.315
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.315 [Google Scholar]
  123. Pylkkänen, Liina
    2002 “Introducing Arguments.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards
    2005 “Phase Edge and Extraction: A Tagalog Case Study.” Linguistic Inquiry36 (4): 565–599. 10.1162/002438905774464368
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464368 [Google Scholar]
  125. Reis, Marga
    1995 “Extractions from Verb-Second Clauses in German?” InOn Extraction and Extraposition in German, edited byUli Lutz and Jürgen Pafel, 45–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.11.03rei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.11.03rei [Google Scholar]
  126. Richards, Marc
    2007 “On feature inheritance.” Linguistic Inquiry38:563–572. 10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563 [Google Scholar]
  127. Richards, Marc, and Theresa Biberauer
    2006 “True Optionality: When the grammar doesn’t mind.” InMinimalist Essays, edited byCedric Boeckx, 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.91.08bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.91.08bib [Google Scholar]
  128. Richards, Norvin
    1997 “Competition and disjoint reference.” Linguistic Inquiry28 (1): 178–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 1998 “The principle of minimal compliance.” Linguistic Inquiry29 (4): 599–629. 10.1162/002438998553897
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553897 [Google Scholar]
  130. Ritchart, Amanda, Grant Goodall, and Mark Garellek
    2016 “Prosody and the That-Trace Effect: An Experimental Study.” In33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited byKim Kyeong-min, Pocholo Umbal, Trevor Block, Queenie Chan, Tanie Cheng, Kelli Finney, Mara Katz, Shopie Nickel-Thompson, and Lisa Shorten, 320–328. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Rizzi, Luigi
    1982Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110883718
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883718 [Google Scholar]
  132. 1990Relativized minimality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 1997 “The fine structure of the left periphery.” InElements of grammar, edited byLiliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  134. 2006 “On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects.” InOn Wh movement, edited byNorbert Corver and Lisa Cheng, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Roberts, Ian
    2010Agreement and head movement: clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  136. Ross, John
    1967 “Constraints on variables in syntax.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Sauerland, Uli
    1996 “Guess how?” InProceedings of ConSoLE, 297–311.
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Siewierska, Anna, and Willem Hollman
    2007 “Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect.” InStructural-functional studies in English grammar, edited byMike Hannay and Gerard Steen, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.83.06sie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.83.06sie [Google Scholar]
  139. Sobin, Nicholas
    1987 “The variable status of Comp-trace phenomena.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory5 (1): 33–60. 10.1007/BF00161867
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161867 [Google Scholar]
  140. 2002 “The Comp-trace effect, the adverb effect, and minimal CP.” Journal of Linguistics38:527–560. 10.1017/S0022226702001652
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226702001652 [Google Scholar]
  141. Suñer, Margarita
    1994 “V-Movement and the licensing of argumental whphrases in Spanish.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory12:335–372. 10.1007/BF00993148
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993148 [Google Scholar]
  142. Svenonius, Peter
    1994 “Dependent Nexus: Subordinate Predication Structures in English and the Scandinavian Languages.” PhD diss., University of CaliforniaatSanta Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
  143. 2001 “On Object Shift, Scrambling, and the PIC.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics39:267–289.
    [Google Scholar]
  144. 2002 “Subject Positions and the Placement of Adverbials.” InSubjects, Expletives, and the EPP, edited byPeter Svenonius, 199–240. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Takahashi, Daiko
    1994 “Minimality in movement.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut.
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Torrego, Esther
    1984 “On Inversion in Spanish and some of its effects.” Linguistic Inquiry15 (1): 103–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Truswell, Robert
    2007 “Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events.” Lingua117:1355–1377. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  148. Uriagereka, Juan
    1999 “Multiple spell-out.” InWorking minimalism, edited bySamuel Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 251–282. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Van Urk, Coppe
    2015 “A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor.” PhD diss., MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Van Urk, Coppe, and Norvin Richards
    2015 “Two Components of Long-Distance Extraction: Successive Cyclicity in Dinka.” Linguistic Inquiry46:113–155. 10.1162/LING_a_00177
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00177 [Google Scholar]
  151. Vázquez Álvarez, Juan Jesús
    2011 “A grammar of Chol, a Mayan language.” PhD diss., Austin, TX: University of Texas Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Vikner, Sten
    1995Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. 294. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  153. 2005 “Object Shift.” InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax, edited byMartin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 392–436. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Watanabe, Akira
    1993 “Larsonian CP Recursion, Factive Complements, and Selection.” InProceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23, edited byAmy J. Schafer, 523–537. University of Ottawa: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Webelhuth, Gert
    1992Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Westergaard, Marit
    2009 “Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics12 (1): 49–79. 10.1007/s10828‑009‑9025‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-009-9025-9 [Google Scholar]
  157. Westergaard, Marit, Terje Lohndal, and Artemis Alexiadou
    2019 “The asymmetric nature of V2: Evidence from learner languages.” InThe Sign of the V – Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner, edited byKen Ramshøj Christensen, Henrik Jørensen, and Johanna Wood, 709–733. Aarhus: AU-TRYK: Aarhus University. 10.7146/aul.348.121
    https://doi.org/10.7146/aul.348.121 [Google Scholar]
  158. Wexler, Ken, and Peter Culicover
    1980Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Kristine Bentzen, and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir
    2007 “Rethinking Scandinavian verb movement.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics10 (3): 203–233. 10.1007/s10828‑007‑9014‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-007-9014-9 [Google Scholar]
  160. Wiltschko, Martina
    1997 “Superiority in German.” InWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited byEmily Curtis, James Lyle, and Gabriel Webster, 431–445. University of Washington: Stanford Linguistics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Wurmbrand, Susi
    2014 “The Merge Condition: A syntactic approach to selection.” InMinimalism and Beyond. Radicalizing the interfaces, edited byPeter Kosta, Steven Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork, and Lilia Schürcks, 130–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lfab.11.06wur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.06wur [Google Scholar]
  162. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa
    1997Word order, Prosody and Focus. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.20002.toq
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.20002.toq
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Principle of Minimal Compliance; extraction; CED; subextraction; antilocality; freezing
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error