di cult movementnslonge.scripts.mit.edu › site › wp-content › uploads › 2016 › 05 ›...

Difficult movement 4/7/16Nicholas Longenbaugh

[email protected]

0 Introduction

0.1 An aptly named construction: the puzzle of TM

• tough-movement (TM): the optional promotion of a non-subject DP from the non-finite clausal argumentof the relevant tough-movement predicate (TMP) to surface subject position

(1) a. It is tough to analyze TM.

b. TM1 is tough to analyze t1.

• Northern Germanic TM (English, Mainland Scandinavian) shows a confounding array of properties thatchallenge conventional views on the A/A′-distinction and on the properties of movement chains in general

1. TM shows properties characteristic of both A- and A′-movement

(2) A-like properties

a. Targets a Case position

b. Does not exhibit a weak-crossover effect

(Lasnik and Stowell, 1991)

c. No obligatory reconstruction for Principle C

(Mulder and den Dikken 1992; Takahashi

2011; Pesetsky 2012)

d. Creates new antecedents for binding

(Chomsky 1973; Pesetsky 1984)

(3) A′-like properties

a. Can be cross over DPs

(Chomsky, 1977)

b. Licenses parasitic gaps

(Chomsky, 1981)

c. Creates islands for further A′-movement

(Chomsky, 1977)

2. TM is significantly more constrained that other instances of long-distance movement

– Degraded for objects and impossible for subjects past for-to infinitives & embedded finite clauses

(Lasnik and Fiengo 1974; Stowell 1986; Browning 1989; Rezac 2006)

– Impossible out of finite clausal arguments to TMPs

(4) a. ??Mary is tough [Inf to believe [CP that Joan yelled at t]]

b. *John was difficult [Inf to believe [CP t read this book]]

c. ??Max is impossible [CP for there to be a book about t].

d. *My book is frustrating [CP that no-one likes t].

(5) a. Which girl is it tough [Inf to believe [CP that Joan yelled at t]]

b. Who was it difficult [Inf to believe [CP t read this book]]?

c. Who is it impossible [CP for there to be a book about t]?

d. Which book is it frustrating [CP that no-one likes t]?

3. TM shows paradoxical reconstruction behavior

– TM can reconstruct for variable binding (Sportiche 2002; Hicks 2009; Pesetsky 2012)

(6) a. It’s hard for every professor1 to reach at least two of his1 students.

b. At least two of his1 students are hard for every professor1 to reach t.

– Yet TM’d indefinites appear unable to take in situ scope (Postal 1974; Epstein 1989; Fleisher 2013)

(7) It’s easy to talk to two students.

a. = For two students x, it’s easy to talk to x

b. = Sets of two students are easy to talk to

(8) Two students are easy to talk to.

a. = For two students x, x is easy to talk to x

b. 6= Sets of two students are easy to talk to

Longenbaugh Difficult movement GLOW 39

• Assuming a strict A/A′-dichotomy, TM must involve a discrete A- and A′-component

– Improper-movement: an A′-chain terminating at the left edge of the infinitival feeds a step of A-

movement into matrix subject position (Brody 1993; Hicks 2009; Hartman 2011, a.o.)

(9) Vegetables are tough [t to grow t]

A′-mvmtA-mvmt

– Base-generation: the matrix subject is linked via a special mechanism to a null-operator at the head

of an A′-chain in the infinitive (Chomsky 1977, 1981; Rezac 2006; Keine and Poole 2016, a.o.)

(10) Vegetables are easy t [Inf OP to grow t′]

A′-mvmtA-mvmt predication

• These analyses don’t capture the full array of effects observed above

0.2 This talk: main proposal

• Basic idea: relax, in a principled way, the assumption that all movement is either A- or A′-movement

• Much recent work has explored the idea of composite-probing: a head that bears two or more sets of featuresmay search for them in unison

• Natural language furnishes composite ϕ/A′-probes in certain cases (van Urk 2015)

• Proposal: TM involves cyclic composite A/A′-probing by successive v heads, terminating in matrix Spec(vP);a step of pure A-movement displaces the moved DP from matrix Spec(vP) to Spec(TP)

(11) [TP DP [TP T [vP DP [vP v [AdjP tough . . . [vP DP [vP PRO [vP v [. . . DP. . . ]]]]]]]]]

ϕ/A′-Agreeϕ/A′-Agreeϕ-Agree

A/A′-movementA/A′-movementA-movement

• This analysis allows us to explain the full array of properties on display above

0.3 Outline

1. Composite A/A′-movement: evidence from Dinka

• V2-related movement to Spec(CP) in Dinka provides strong evidence in favor of composite A/A′-movement being available in the grammar

2. Analysis

• TM is exactly parallel to Dinka movement to Spec(CP); both involve the same derivational mechanism,composite A/A′-movement

3. Cross-clausal ϕ/A′-Agree and constraints on TM

• The feature structure of the English left-periphery imposes constraints on the availability of compositeA/A′-movement, deriving the constrained nature of TM relative to A′-movement

4. TM and information structure

• The A′-component of the TM operation is associated with the information-structural notion of topic;the apparent reconstruction paradox reflects an incompatibility between indefinites and topicality

5. Further Consequences

6. Conclusion

2


1 Composite Probes and mixed A/A′-movement

1.1 Mixed A/A′-movement in Dinka

• V2-related movement to Spec(CP) in Dinka (Western Nilotic) shows mixed A/A′-properties• A-like properties:

(12) Association with ϕ-Agreement and Case

a. Yı̂inyou.abs

∅-ćıi2-prf.ov

môcman.gen

t̂ıingsee.nf

“You, the man has seen.” (van Urk 2015: 102, ex 20)

(13) No WCO effects

a. Mòc ébÉn1man every

à-ýıi3s-hab.ov

tieeng-dè1woman-sg.3sg

luêeelsay.nf

[CP èct1 thÈ]

cook.sv“Every man1, his1 wife says is cooking.” (van Urk 2015: 110, ex 36)

(14) New antecedents for syntactic binding

a. Bòl1Bol

à-ćıi3s-prf.ov

[DP àkékôol-t́ıstory-that

èp

rÒt-dè1]self-sg.3sg

t piÔOl̀ıc.criticize.nf

“Bol, that story about himself has criticized.” (van Urk 2015: 111, ex 37)

(15) No obligatory reconstruction for Principle C

a. [DP Mánhbrothers.cs

èp

[MáyènMayen.gen

kùand

Àyén]1]Ayen

à-yùukù3s-hab.1pl

tàakthink.nf

[CP c̀ıikè1prf.3pl

t t̂ıing].see.nf

“The brother of [Mayen and Ayen]1, we think they1 have seen.” (van Urk 2015: 114, ex 43)

• A′-like properties

(16) Can cross-over DPs & finite CPs (overt ϕ-agreement on all C’s)

a. Yebe

kÔO c-kópeople.cs-which.pl

[CP Oppst-3p-hab.2sg

é-kè-yá3pl

kéthink.nf

tàak [CPpst-3p-prf.ov

é-lè-ćıiAyen.gen

Áyèn3pl

kégive.nf

gàampen

gàlàm]]?

“Which people did (s)he think that Ayen had given a pen to?” (van Urk 2015: 135 ex. 14a)

(17) Creates islands for extraction

a. *Yèbe

ngówhat

[CP Op1 ćıiprf.ov

ÁyènAyen.gen

[DP ràanperson.cs

[CP t2 mèrdecorate.sv

t1]] t̂ıing]?see.nf

“What has Ayen seen someone [who is decorating t]?” (van Urk 2015: 99 ex. 13)

⇒ Same properties as TM!

TM Dinka V2-Movement

A properties

Association with ϕ-Agree & Case X XNo WCO X XNew antecedents for binding X XNo obligatory recon. for Principle C X XA′-properties

Crosses over DPs X XCreates islands for mvmt X XLicenses parasitic gaps X NA

3


1.2 Analyzing Dinka: the first view of phrasal movement and composite A/A′-probes

1.2.1 Background assumptions

• The featural view of the A/A′-distinction: Differences between A- and A′-movement are derived fromproperties of the features involved in the associated Agree relations (van Urk 2015)

• Phase Theory: all movement must proceed through Spec(CP), Spec(vP), ceteris paribus

1.2.2 Composite A/A′-probes

• Consequence: movement triggered by ϕ-Agree and A′-Agree simultaneously might show mixed behavior

• composite-probing: multiple unvalued features localized to a single head can sometimes probe together inunison (see at least Chomsky 2001: 15-19; Bruening 2001: sec 5.7; Pesetsky and Torrego 2001; Starke 2001;

Haegeman 2012; Rezac 2013; Coon and Bale 2014; Kotek 2014; Deal 2014)

– Intervening XPs that bear only a subset of the features on a composite probe (here H) do not trigger

minimality effects (Rezac 2013; Richards 2015; van Urk 2015)

(18) H[α: ] [. . . XP[α:5] . . . [. . . YP[α:6]. . . ]]X

X

(19) H[α: ,β: ] [. . . XP[α:5] . . . [. . . YP[α:6,β:9]. . . ]]X

• Unlike most V2-languages, Dinka movement to Spec(CP) involves clear ϕ-Agreement

⇒ Dinka C bears ϕ-features, in addition to the information structural A′-features normally implicated inV2-related movement

(20) Dinka left-periphery:

CP

C

A′,ϕ

TP

T

(ϕ)

vP

. . .

(21) English left periphery:

CP

C

A′TP

T

ϕ

vP

. . .

• Dinka movement to Spec(CP) involves composite A/A′-Agree (van Urk 2015)1

(22) [CP DP[iϕ:5,uA′:9] [C[uϕ: ,iA′: ] [. . . [CP DP[iϕ:5,uA′:9] [C[uϕ: ,uA′: ] [. . . DP[iϕ:5,uA′:9] . . . ]]]]]]

ϕ/A′-Agree ϕ/A′-Agree

A/A′-movementA/A′-movement

1.3 Summary

• Dinka V2-related movement to Spec(CP) wears its composite A/A′-nature on its sleeve

• Natural language furnishes composite ϕ/A′-probes when both types of features are localizedto a single head

• Composite A/A′-movement in Dinka shows the same mixed A/A′-behavior as TM, suggesting they have thesame origin

1This depends on a means of deriving the differential behavior of A- and A′-movement from independent properties of

ϕ- and A′-features, and on the specific signature of composite ϕ/A′-Agree aligning with the empirical behavior of Dinka

V2-related movement. See Appendix A for an overview of van Urk’s (2015) theory, which meets these requirements

4


2 Analysis

2.1 Composite Probes in English

• English middle-field resembles Dinka left-periphery (see Fox 1999; Chomsky 2000, 2001; Sauerland 2003;Legate 2003; Rezac 2013)

⇒ Conditions obtain at English v for composite probes

(23) Dinka left-periphery:

CP

C

A′,ϕ

TP

T

(ϕ)

vP

. . .


CP

C

A′TP

T

ϕ

vP

. . .

(25) English middle-field:

vP

v

A′,ϕ

VP

V

(ϕ)

. . .

2.2 Analysis

• Proposal: TM involves cyclic composite A/A′-movement through the specifiers of successive v heads, ter-minating in matrix Spec(vP), followed by a step of ϕ-driven movement to Spec(TP)

– The A′-component is driven by topic feature on the moved DP (see Section 4 for extensive discussion;

Perlmutter and Soames 1979; Pulman 1993; ?, ?; Hicks 2009)

(26) Cucumbers are tough to grow t.

(i) Embedded v undergoes ϕ/A′-Agree with the target DP, which then shifts to embedded Spec(vP)

[vP DP[iϕ:6,iTop:9] [vP PRO [vP v[uϕ: ,uTop: ] [VP grow DP[iϕ:6,iTop:9]]]]]

ϕ/A′-Agree

(ii) Matrx v undergoes ϕ/A′-Agree with the target DP, which then shifts to matrix Spec(vP) (I set

aside momentarily the issue of how this agreement obtains cross-clausally)

[vP DP[iϕ:6,iTop:9] [vP v[uϕ:6,uTop:9] [AdjP tough [. . . [vP DP[iϕ:6,iTop:9] [vP PRO [vP v [. . . DP. . . ]]]]]]]

ϕ/A′-Agree

(iii) Matrix T and cucumbers undergo ϕ-Agree and cucumbers moves to Spec(TP) (I set aside the

issue of whether this movement is licit momentarily)

[TP DP[iϕ:6,iTop:9] [TP T[uϕ:6] [vP DP[iϕ:6,iTop:9] [vP v [AdjP tough [ . . . ]]]]]]]

ϕ-Agree




• The empirical parallels between Dinka V2-related movement and TM are enshrined in their derivationalequivalence: both involve A/A′-probes

⇒ TM should show the same mixed A/A′-properties observed in Dinka2

2Again, see Appendix A for an overview of van Urk’s 2015 theory and an explanation of how it applies here.

5


3 TM and cross-clausal A/A′-Agree

• Two issues set aside above:

1. Can composite A/A′-movement feed A-movement?

2. How does ϕ/A′-Agree obtain cross clausally?

3.1 TM and the ban on improper movement

• Ban on Improper movement, basically, A′-movement cannot precede A-movement

(28) Ban on improper movement: No instance of A′-movement of constituent XP may be followed

by an instance of A-movement of constituent YP reflexively dominated by XP (Chomsky 1973; May

1979; Chomsky 1981; Cinque 1990; Bošković 1994; Starke 2001; Abels 2007, a.o.)

• Classical view (May 1979; Chomsky 1981): incongruities between the binding capacity of A-moved elementsand the binding requirements of A′-traces

• In van Urk’s (2015) system, the antecedent and trace in a composite A/A′-chain are indistinguishable fromthe corresponding elements in an A-chain (both involve abstraction over and binding of individual (type e)

variables)

⇒ A/A′-movement can feed A-movement (let’s just take it for granted for now)

3.2 CP-intervention

• Phase theory: C and v are obligatory intermediate landing sites for all movement


CP

C

A′TP

T

ϕ

vP

. . .

(30) English middle-field:

vP

v

A′,ϕ

VP

V

(ϕ)

. . .

• Feature distribution: movement to Spec(CP) must be A′-movement in English

• Ban on improper movement: no A′-movement before A-movement

⇒ No movement chain that crosses a CP can feed an A-movement step later in the derivation

• TM involves a derivation-terminal step of A-movement

• CPs, insofar as they are phases, are islands for TM

(31) [TP DP [T [vP DP [vP v [tough [. . . [CP DP [CP C [. . . [vP DP [vP v [. . . DP. . . ]]]]]]]]]]]]

A/A′-movementA′-movementA/A′-movementX

A-movement

ϕ/A′-AgreeA′-Agreeϕ/A′-Agreeϕ-Agree

⇒ Licit examples of TM require the absence of or the ability to ignore a CP-phase boundary

• This explains without further stipulation the restricted nature of TM compared to A′-movement

6


3.3 TM and the absence of a left-peripheral phase boundary

• Wurmbrand (2013, 2014, to appear); Pesetsky (2016); Landau (2015):

– Control infinitives differ from finite indicatives and for-to infinitives in that they lack a left-peripheral

phase boundary

⇒ TM should be possible out of (arbitrarily many) control infinitives

(32) [TP DP [T [vP DP [vP v [tough [Inf . . . [vP DP [vP v [. . . DP. . . ]]]]]]]]]]

ϕ/A′-Agreeϕ/A′-Agree

X

ϕ-Agree

(33) a. Cucumbers are fun [Inf to eat t].

b. Cucumbers were hard [Inf to convince Mary [Inf to tell Bill [Inf to ask Sue [Inf to feed t to Dan]]]].

⇒ Absent other mechanisms, TM should be impossible past for-to infinitives and finite indicative CPs

(34) [TP DP [T [vP DP [vP v [tough [. . . [CP DP [CP C [. . . [vP DP [vP v [. . . DP. . . ]]]]]]]]]]]]

X

ϕ/A′-AgreeA′-Agreeϕ/A′-Agreeϕ-AgreeX

(35) a. *My book is frustrating that no-one likes t.

b. ??Max is impossible for there to be a book about t.

(Lasnik and Fiengo 1974)

• Not the whole story

– for-to infinitives aren’t completely impermeable (see (35-b))

– Embedded CPs have a much weaker blocking effect (see (36))

(36) a. Mary is tough for me [Inf to believe [CP that Joan would ever yell at t]]

(Kaplan and Bresnan 1982)

b. This book is difficult [Inf to convince people [CP that they ought to read t]]

(Chomsky 1981)

3.4 Ignoring the left-peripheral phase boundary

• English A′-movement sometimes appears to “skip-over” CP-phases (Pesetsky 1984; Cinque 1990; Postal 1998;O’Brien 2015; a.o.)

• Clear case: wh-island, relative-clause island

(37) a. ?Which book1 were you wondering [CP who had written t1]?

b. ??Which man did the police arrest everyone [CP who might be able to identify t]?

(adopted from Postal 1998)

• Interrogative phrase or complementizer in the CP-domain blocks further operations of movement from tar-geting Spec(CP)

⇒ (37) depend on movement skipping over a phasal CP-level

(38) . . . [vP DP [v [VP wonder [CP DPwh [Cwh [TP t [. . . [vP t . . . ]]]]]]]]

X

7


• Characteristic properties of subjacency violating movement

1. Is marginal in all cases (Cinque 1990; Postal 1998; a.o.), and worse out of relative clauses

(39) a. ?Which book did you ask who read t?

b. ??Which professor did you meet the student who yelled at t?

2. Requires that the lowest copy in the chain be interpreted as a pronoun at LF (Postal 1998; ?; O’Brien

2015)

(40) a. John weighs 25kgs/*it/*them on Mars.

b. How much does John weigh t on Mars?

c. *How much do you wonder [CP whether John weighs t on Mars]?

3. Is unavailable for non-DPs and subjects (see Pesetsky 1984; Cinque 1990; Postal 1998)

(41) a. *Which author did John ask [CP if Mary said [t came to the department]]?

b. *Which author did you wonder [CP who believed [t was good]]?

• TM can violate subjacency

– Lowest copy in a TM-chain is always interpreted as a pronoun (?)

– TM can escape wh-islands (Browning 1989; Rezac 2006)

(42) a. ?Mary was easy to learn how to annoy t.

b. ?That problem was exhilarating to realize how to solve t.

⇒ TM should be marginally possible for objects past finite CPs and for-to infinitives

3.4.1 for-to infinitives

• Complicated because most TMPs also take for -PP arguments, which leads to ambiguity

(43) a. The book was easy [for Mary] [PRO to read]

b. The book was easy [for Mary to read]

• Constructions that force a for-to infinitival construal degrade TM (Bresnan 1971; Berman and Szamosi 1972;Chomsky 1973; Lasnik and Fiengo 1974)

– Non-thematic associates

(44) a. It’s impossible [CP for there to be a book about Max]

b. [*]Max is impossible [CP for there to be a book about t]

(Lasnik and Fiengo 1974)

(45) a. It’d be annoying [CP for it to rain at the party].

b. ??The party would be annoying [for it to rain at t]

– not-initial DPs

(46) a. I hoped [CP for not many people to show up at the talk]

b. *I hoped [PP for not many things]

(Postal 1974)

8


(47) a. It would be tough [CP for not many students to like my book]

b. ??My book would be tough [CP for not many students to like t]

(48) a. It would be impossible [CP for not many people to buy my book]

b. ??My book would be impossible [CP for not many people to buy t]

• The interpretation associated with a for-to parse is difficult to access under TM

(49) It was hard for every lawyer to pass the bar exam

a. Matrix PP: = every lawyer had trouble passing the bar exam

b. for-to: = it was unlikely to come about that every lawyer passed the bar exam

(50) The Bar Exam is hard for every lawyer to pass

a. = For each individual lawyer, he or she has a hard time passing the bar exam

b. ??= It was unlikely to come about that every lawyer passed the bar exam

• Ellipsis possibilities differ between for-to infinitives and for+DP sequences under TM

(51) *I needed [CP for Billy to win] more than Arthur did [CP for Sally to win].

(52) a. These leeks were harder for John to grow than they were for Sue to grow.

b. #These leeks were hard for Sue.

⇒ TM is degraded but possible past for-to infinitives3

(53) [TP DP [T [vP DP [vP v [tough [CP Cfor [. . . [vP DP [vP v [. . . DP. . . ]]]]]]]]]]

??


??

ϕ-Agree

3.4.2 Finite CPs

3.4.2.1 Embedded finite CPs

• TM across embedded phasal CP-layers is degraded for objects and completely unacceptable for subjects(Chomsky 1981; Browning 1989; Rezac 2006)

(54) a. ?Mary is tough for me [Inf to believe [CP that Joan would ever yell at t]].

(Kaplan and Bresnan 1982)

b. ?This book is difficult [Inf to convince people [CP that they ought to read t]].

(Chomsky 1981)

(55) a. *John is hard to believe [CP t liked Sue].

b. *That book was easy to show [CP t sold well when it was first released].

⇒ TM out of embedded phasal-CPs involves subjacency violating movement

3See Longenbaugh (to appear) for a refutation of Hartman’s (2011) arguments that it is for -PPs, not for-to infinitives,

that degrade TM, and for discussion of the interactions between TM and various types of PP arguments.

9


⇒ TM is possible but degraded for objects and impossible for subjects past embedded phasal-CPs

(56) [TP DP [T [vP DP [vP v [tough [Inf . . . [vP DP[vP v [vP . . . [CP C [. . . [vP DP [vP v [. . . ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

??


??

ϕ-Agree

(57) [TP DP [T [vP DP [vP v [tough [Inf . . . [vP DP[vP v [vP . . . [CP C [TP DP [TP T [vP v [. . . ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

X

ϕ/A′-Agreeϕ/A′-AgreeX

ϕ-Agree

• These previously puzzling constraints on TM compared to A′-movement follow as a corollary of the presentanalysis, without further stipulation

3.4.2.2 Finite CP arguments to TMPs

• But why are finite clausal arguments to TMPs are completely impermeable to TM?

(58) a. *My vegetables were hard (on me) that Sue stole t.

b. *My hat was irritating that I lost t.

• Proposal: finite clausal arguments to TMPs are merged as the external argument, above the search domainof the composite probe on v, thus rendering TM impossible

• Finite CP arguments induce a psychological reading of TMPs

(59) Despite the fact that it causes Will Hunting extreme emotional distress . . .

a. It’s not hard for him [Inf to prove difficult mathematical theorems]

b. #It’s not hard for/on him [CP that he has to prove difficult mathematical theorems]

• Non-experiencer arguments (including CPs) to psych predicates can bear one of two thematic roles: causeror subject matter (Postal 1971; Belletti and Rizzi 1988; Pesetsky 1995; Hartman 2012)

(60) a. It is surprising to me that Mary left (CP is causer)

b. It is evident to me that Mary left (CP is subject matter)

• Diagnostics for psych predicates that take causer-CPs (Hartman 2012)

1. Can be paraphrased with causative constructions X

(61) a. It was annoying to John that Mary wore his name-tag.

= That Mary wore his name-tag caused John to experience annoyance.

b. It was hard on Fred that Sue called on him repeatedly in class.

= That Sue called on him repeatedly in class caused Fred to experience hardship

2. Resist nominalization X

(62) a. *My hardness/hardship that I have to read five papers by Monday.

b. *My annoyance that I have to read five papers by Monday.

⇒ Non-experiencer arguments to hard, annoying are causers

10


• causers are merged above experiencers in the argument structure

(63) Thematic hierarchy

. . .causer ¿¿ experiencer ¿¿ subject matter. . .

(Pesetsky 1995; Hartman 2012; a.o.)

• Hartman (2012): causer-CP arguments to psych predicates are merged as the external argument

⇒ Finite indicative CP arguments to TMPs are merged as the external argument

(64) [vP CPcause [vP vcause [AdjP annoying [PP to me]]]]

• Novel syntactic evidence for CP ¿¿ PP structural configuration

(65) a. It was hard on him1 [CP that the government denied John1 a visa]

b. It was upsetting to him1 [CP that the government denied John1 a visa]

c. *The letter finally convinced him1 [CP that the government denied John1 a visa]

⇒ The composite probe on v is too low to see into the external argument

(66) [vP [CPcause . . . DP[iϕ:5,iTop:7] . . . ] [vP vcause[uϕ: ,iTop: ] [AdjP annoying [PP to me]]]]

Xϕ/A′-Agree

⇒ TM is impossible out of causer CP arguments

• Prediction: TM should be marginally acceptable out of CP arguments that don’t induce a pscyh-reading

(67) a. ?The schedule is important that we stick to t.

b. ?This article is crucial to demand that your students read t.

3.5 Summary

• The ban on improper movement & the feature distribution in the English left periphery entail that phasal-CPs are islands for TM

• Control infinitives lack a left-peripheral phase boundary

⇒ TM is freely available past (succesively embedded) control infinitives

• Finite indicative CPs and for-to infinitives have a left-peripheral phase boundary

– Licit TM requires subjacency violating movement

⇒ TM is possible but degraded for objects and impossible for subjects past finite indicatives and for-toinfinitives

• Finite CP arguments induce a psych-reading of TMPs, where the CP is causer

– causer arguments to psych predicates are merged as external arguments

– Finite CP arguments to TMPs are above the search domain of v

⇒ TM is impossible out of finite CP arguments to TMPs

⇒ The constrained nature of TM relative to other types of long-distance movement is a direct

consequence of its composite A/A′-nature

11


4 TM and information-structure

• Essential facet of composite-probe approach: TM is motivated in part by A′-feature

(68) [vP DP[iϕ:6,iTop:9] [vP v[uϕ:6,iTop:9] [AdjP tough [. . . [vP DP[iϕ:6,iTop:9] [vP PRO [vP v [. . . DP. . . ]]]]]]]

ϕ/A′-Agree

• What kind of A′-feature are we dealing with, and how can we detect its presence?

• Proposal: TM is a topicalization operation, driven in part by a [+topic] A′-feature

– The apparent lack of scope-reconstruction (Fleisher 2013) refelcts instead an incompatibility between

indefinites and topicality

– TM reconstructs, resolving the apparent paradox mentioned in the introduction

4.1 A reconstruction paradox

• TM allows reconstruction for variable binding (Sportiche 2002; Hicks 2009; cf. TM and WCO below)

(69) a. Friends of his1 mother are hard for [every boy]1 to talk to.

b. ??Friends of his1 mother talked to every boy1.

(70) a. At least two of his1 students are hard for every professor1 to reach.

b. ??At least two of his1 students flummoxed every professor1.

• TM also allows reconstruction for Principle A (Pesetsky 1984, 2012)

(71) a. Pictures of himself1 are fun for John1 to look at t.

b. *Pictures of himself1 are fun for John1’s sister to look at t.

(Pesetsky 2012)

• TM’d indefinites appear unable to take in situ scope (Postal 1974; Epstein 1989; Fleisher 2013)

(72) It’s easy to talk to two students.

a. = For two students x, it’s easy to talk to x

b. = Sets of two students are easy to talk to



b. 6= Sets of two students are easy to talk to(Epstein 1989)

• TM forces a generic reading of bare plurals, which can be interpreted existentially in situ (Postal 1971; Lasnikand Fiengo 1974; Rezac 2006)

(74) It was fun to meet with students yesterday.

a. = There are students that it was fun to meet

with yesterday.

b. = Students, in general, were fun to meet

with yesterday.

(75) Students were fun to meet with yesterday.

a. 6= There are students that it was fun to meetwith yesterday.

b. = Students, in general, were fun to meet

with yesterday.

• Paradox: TM reconstructs for variable binding, but it appears to be impossible for TM’d indefinites or bareplurals to take on readings associated with an in-situ interpretation

12


4.2 Scrambling, topic, and the interpretation of indefinites

4.2.1 Reconstruction and interpretation in German scrambling

• An identical situation obtains with (certain types of) German scrambling4

– Scrambled indefinites and bare plurals are forced to be interpreted as partitive and generic in contrast

to the cardinal and existential readings available in situ, respectively

– Scrambled DPs can clearly take scope in their base position

• Scrambled indefinites must be specific/partitive; in situ indefinites can be cardinal (Diesing 1992; Thráinsson2001; Jäger 2001; a.o.).

(76) a. weilsince

ja dochindeed

zweitwo

Cellistencellists

inin

diesemthis

Hotelhotel

abgestiegentaken-room

sind.are

‘Since indeed there are two cellists in this room’

= The cardinality of the set of cellists in this room is two

b. weilsince

[zweitwo

Cellisten]cellists

ja dochindeed

t inin

diesemthis

Hotelhotel

abgestiegentaken-room

sind.are

“Since two cellists have indeed rented rooms in this hotel”

= For two cellists x, x has rented a room in this hotel

(Diesing 1992: 78)

• Scrambled bare plurals must be generic; in-situ bare plural objects can be existential (Diesing 1992; a.o.)

(77) weilsince

ja dochindeed

professorenprofessors

verügbaravailable

sind.are

‘since there are professors available’

(78) weilsince

Professorenprofessors

ja dochindeed

verfügbaravailable

sindare

“since, in general, professors are available.”

(Diesing 1992: 37)

• These effects are independent of the scope the scrambled phrase (Frey 1993; Büring 1997; Sauerland1999; Jäger 2001; contra Diesing 1992)

– Scrambled quantifiers can take scope in surface and base position (Frey 1993; Wurmbrand 2008; a.o.)5

– Scrambled DPs can reconstruct for variable binding (Grewendorf and Sabel 1999; Lechner 1998; Wurm-

brand 2008)6

(79) weilsince

sieshe

[ein[a

Bildpicture

vonof

seinem1his

Auftritt]2appearance]

[jedem[every

Kandidaten]1candidate]

t2 zeigteshowed

‘since she showed every candidate a picture of his appearance’ (Wurmbrand 2008: 21)

⇒ Scope is not the only factor dictating the interpretations available to indefinites and bare plurals

4.2.2 Topic and the interpretation of indefinites

• Proposal: Topic-hood and the cardinal/existential reading of indefinites/bare plurals are intrinsically in-compatible (?; Büring 1997; Sauerland 1999; Jäger 2001)

⇒ Scrambling (when associated with topicalization) forces indefinites/bare plurals to be interpreted aspartitive/generic

4I restrict discussion here to those cases of scrambling that are clearly associated with topcialization, as diagnosed by the

rise-fall pitch accent (Büring 1997; Wurmbrand 2008) or a high landing site. See Büring (1997); Jäger (2001); Wurmbrand

(2008) for more discussion of the complex interaction of focus, topic, prosody on scrambling.5Thanks to I. Heim for pointing out the content of Frey’s (1993) work (in German) to me.6For scrambling that lands below the subject, this result is crucially dependent on the rise-fall pitch accent associated

with the topic-hood of the scrambled phrase (cf. Lechner 1998, Wurmbrand 2008).

13


• Several formal approaches (see at least ?; Büring 1997; Jäger 2001), but intuitively, topic-hood, which entailsdiscourse salience/givenness, clashes with the novelty condition on indefinites

(80) Givenness condition on topic:

Topics must be discourse salient/given

(81) Novelty condition on indefinites:

Indefinites can’t refer to a familiar discourse referent

(Heim 1982)

• Taking the cardinal/existential readings to be true indefinites, they are incompatible with topic; the parti-tive/generic readings avoid this clash

⇒ Topicality forces partitive/generic readings of indefinites/bare plurals

4.3 TM as a topicalization operation

• Proposal: TM is a topicalization operation

• TM shows the signature of topicality-related movement

1. Indefinites are obligatorily interpreted as partitive



b. 6= Sets of two students are easy to talk to

2. Bare plurals are obligatorily interpreted as generic

(83) Students were fun to meet with yesterday.

a. 6= There are students that were fun to meet with yesterday.b. = Students were, in general, fun to meet with yesterday.

3. Reconstruction is possible according to other diagnostics

(84) a. Friends of his1 mother are hard for [every boy]1 to talk to t.

b. At least two of his1 students are hard for every professor1 to reach t.

• Independent support for TM as topicalization

– Perlmutter and Soames (1979), Pulman (1993), ? (2000a, ?), Hicks (2009): TM reorients the utterance

so that it is about the TM’d DP, so (85-a) reports a fact about the world, but (85-b) specifically concerns

kitchens

– Applying TM to a non-discourse salient entity requires a high degree of accommodation (see (86))

(85) a. It is easy to clean kitchens.

b. Kitchens are easy to clean.

(86) Sophie really loves her new roommates, especially because. . .

a. #The kitchen is easy to clean t with them.

b. They are easy to clean the kitchen with t.

c. It’s easy to clean the kitchen with them.

– Associates to expletive there must be cardinal/existential (Milsark 1974; a.o.), and are thus incompatible

with topic; TM is correctly ruled out

(87) a. It’s hard to believe there have arrived three men.

b. *Three men are hard to believe there have arrived t.

(88) a. It’s hard to believe there were five books purchased.

b. *Five books are hard to believe there were t purchased.

⇒ TM involves topicalization

14


4.4 Summary

• A essential facet of the composite probing approach is that TM involves an A′-component, argued here to betopic

(89) [vP DP[iϕ:6,iTop:9] [vP v[uϕ:6,uTop:9] [AdjP tough [. . . [vP DP[iϕ:6,iTop:9] [vP PRO [vP v [. . . DP. . . ]]]]]]]]

ϕ/A′-Agree

– TM and German scrambling show a constellation of interrelated properties

∗ TM’d/scrambled indefinites are obligatorily interpreted as partitive∗ TM’d/scrambled bare plurals are obligatorily interpreted as generic∗ Reconstruction is possible for variable binding

– A rich body of literature has identified topic as the salient factor in deriving this paradigm

∗ Cardinal/existential readings of indefinites, which must introduce a novel discourse referent, areincompatible with topicality, which requires discourse salience

∗ Topicalized indefinites/bare plurals must be partitive/generic

⇒ TM is a topicalization operation

⇒ TM allows reconstruction, as expected if it is a movement operation

⇒ TM’s apparently paradoxical reconstruction behavior are due to the information-structural

effects associated with its status as composite A/A′-movement

5 Further consequences

5.1 Movement into the matrix clause

• On the present approach, A/A′-movement crosses into the matrix clause

– A/A′-movement is associated with creating islands for further A′-extraction, parasitic gap licensing

⇒ TM should license parasitic gaps in and create islands for crossed-over matrix clause arguments

(90) [TP DP [TP is [vP t tough [Inf [vP t [VP V t ]]]]]]

A/A′A/A′A

5.1.1 Island-phenomena

• TM creates islands for matrix arguments

(91) a. Who was it hard for t [PRO to get along with John]?

b. *Who1 was John2 hard for t1 [PRO to get along with t2]?

c. John was hard for Mary [PRO to get along with t].

(92) a. Who was it foolish of t [PRO to yell at Bill]?

b. *Who1 was Sue2 foolish of t1 [PRO to yell at t2]?

c. ?Sue was foolish of Bill [PRO to yell at t].

15


5.1.2 Parasitic Gaps

• A caveat: TM isn’t the most robust licensor of parasitic gaps, and PGs are difficult in PP arguments toadjectives

• of -PP arguments to foolish-class TMPs can host PGs (cf. TM data in (93), wh-movement data in (94))

(93) a. ?That topic was clever [of the people who work on pg] [PRO to present t in that way].

b. ?That cause was shortsighted [of the people who donate to pg] [PRO to not investigate t thor-

oughly]

(94) a. ?Which candidate was it wise of supporters of pg to give up on t?

b. ?Which cause was it shortsighted of donors to pg to not investigate t?

• for -PP arguments to TMPs can host PGs (Hukari and Levine 1990)

(95) a. These books were tough [for critics of pg] to praise t sincerely.

(Hukari and Levine 1990: 142, ex.41)

b. ?The party was pleasant [for the organizers of pg] [PRO to set up t].

c. ?Mary was easy [for friends of pg] [PRO to admire t].

• for+DP is a matrix PP here:

(96) The party was pleasant [for the organizers of pg] [PRO to set up t]

a. = the organizers took pleasure in setting things up

b. 6= an unspecified individual experienced pleasure from the organizers setting things up

5.2 Highest clause subjects

• Question: Why is TM impossible for highest clause subjects?

(97) *John was hard [t to paint]

[vP DP [vP v [AdjP hard [Inf. . . [vP DP [vP v [VP . . . ]]]]]]]

ϕ/A′-Agree

• Proposal: TMPs fall into Pesetsky’s (1991) demand -class, where both A- and A′-extraction of the comple-ment clause subject is illicit

• Identifying demand -class predicates

– Can select for control infinitival, for-to, and finite indicative complements

(98) I demanded

[PRO to arrest John]

[for John to be arrested]

[that John be arrested]

– Subject extraction, either A- or A′-, is illicit

(99) A-movement (raising to object)

a. I demanded (*for) John to be arrested.

b. I hoped (*for) Sue to win the race

(100) A′-movement

a. *Who did you demand (for) t to be arrested?

b. *Who did you hope (for) t to be arrested?

• No A′-extraction of subjects in complements to TMPs

16


(101) a. *Who was it hard for John (for) t to talk to Bill?

b. *Who was it tough for the rich (for) t to do the work?

⇒ Independent factors rule out extraction of subjects

• TMPs pattern like other well-known classes of predicates

5.3 The scope of composite probes in English

• Question: Are composite probes relativized to the ϕ-topic combination associated with TM, or can otherϕ/A′-feature combinations also form composite probes?

• There is cross-linguistic precedent for limiting composite probes to particular feature combinations

• Ominiverous agreement in Mi’gmaq (Eastern Algonquin)

– In the presence of 1st/2nd singular or 3rd plural subject, suffixal agreement references subject (see

(102))

– When a clause contains a 1st/2nd plural argument, agreement references this argument, independent

of its grammatical function (see (103))

(102) a. Muneg

nem-u’ln-u-eg.see-2obj-neg-1.excl

“We.excl don’t see you.sg.”

b. Muneg

nem-i’li-w-eg.see-1obj-neg-1.excl

“You.sg don’t see us.excl.”

(Coon and Bale 2014:92)

(103) a. Muneg

nem-i’li-w-g.see-1.obj-neg-3

“She doesn’t see me.”

b. Muneg

nem-u’ln-u-eg.see-2obj-neg-1.excl

“Weexcl doesn’t see yousg.”

c. Muneg

nemi-a-w-gw-ig.see-3.obj-neg-1.incl-3.pl

“Weincl don’t see them.”

(Coon and Bale 2014:89, via van Urk 2015)

– Intervening plural or 1st/2nd person arguments do not block agreement unless they are both plural and

1st/2nd person

∗ The Agree probe ignores intervening instances of a subset of the features borne by the goal⇒ We are dealing with a composite probe (Coon and Bale 2014)

– The composite probe only shows up in the presence of the feature combination [+plural], [+participant];

other combinations of features show no evidence of similar behavior

⇒ Composite-probes can be relativized to certain feature combinations

• Whether composite ϕ/A′-probes arise in other domains of English grammar is an empirical question, inde-pendent of the results obtained here

– assure-class verbs (Kayne 1984; see Rezac 2013 for a related argument)

(104) a. *I assured [the reader] [Inf the propositions to be incorrect].

b. v[ϕ: ] [VP assure IO[ϕ:5] [Inf SBJ[ϕ:7] . . . ]]

X

(105) a. [Which propositions]1 did you assure the reader [Inf t1 to be incorrect]?

b. v[ϕ: ,wh: ] [assure IO[ϕ:5] [Inf SBJ[ϕ:6,wh:9]]]

X

– Particularly intriguing: non-finite relatives, purpose clauses, too/enough-constructions, all of which

show related CP-aversion properties

17


6 Conclusion

• Assuming a strict dichotomization of A- and A′-movement, it has been impossible to capture the full arrayof behaviors that characterize Northern Germanic TM




• This talk: Building on van Urk’s (2015) analysis of parallel data in Dinak (Western Nilotic), relax the A/A′-dichotomy, in a principled way, to analyze TM

• Proposal: TM involves cyclic composite A/A′-movement through the specifiers of successive v heads, ter-minating in matrix Spec(vP), followed by a step of ϕ-driven movement to Spec(TP)




• The confounding array of behaviors that characterizes Norther Germanic TM follows as a direct consequenceof the composite A/A′-nature of the involved movement


– In van Urk’s (2015) theory, composite A/A′-movement shows the exact array of mixed A/A′-

properties observed with TM


– The feature structure of the English left-periphery imposes constraints on the availability of com-

posite A/A′-movement, deriving the constrained nature of TM relative to A′-movement


– The A′-component of the TM operation is associated with the information-structural notion of

topic; the apparent reconstruction paradox reflects an incompatibility between indefinites and top-

icality; TM reconstructs, as does all movement

⇒ TM involves composite A/A′-movement

⇒ The characteristic properties of TM are unsurprising if we relax the A/A′-dichotomy

• In conjunction with the arguments from Dinka, this suggests a wholesale rethinking of the traditional devisionbetween A- and A′-movement is in order

18


Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Naomi Francis, Daniel Margulis, Ethan Poole, Stefan Keine, John Gluckmann, Ben Storme,

audiences at LFRG and in 24.991 at MIT, Adam Albright, Sabine Iatridou, Masha Polinsky, Irene Heim, Danny

Fox, Roger Schwarzschild, and especially David Pesetsky for helpful discussion and comments.

References

Abels, K. (2007). Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement. Linguistic variation yearbook, 7(1):53–120.

Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6(3):291–

352.

Berman, A. and Szamosi, M. (1972). Observations on Sentential Stress. Language, 48:304–325.

Bhatt, R. and Pancheva, R. (2004). Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 35(1):1–46.

Bhatt, R. and Pancheva, R. (2007). Degree quantifiers, position of merger effects with their restrictors, and

conservativity. Direct compositionality, (14):306–335.

Bošković, Ž. (1994). D-structure, theta-criterion, and movement into theta-positions. Linguistic Analysis, 24(3-

4):247–286.

Bresnan, J. (1971). On sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language, 47:257–281.

Brody, M. (1993). Theta-theory and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(1):1–24.

Browning, M. A. (1989). Null operator constructions. Garland: New York.

Bruening, B. (2001). Syntax at the Edge: Cross-Clausal Phenomena and the Syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD thesis,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Büring, D. (1997). The meaning of topic and focus: the 59th Street Bridge accent, volume 3. Psychology Press.

Cable, S. (2007). The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles and the Nature of Wh-Fronting, as Revealed by the Wh-Questions

of Tlingit. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Cable, S. (2010). The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement and Pied-Piping. Oxford University Press.

Charnavel, I. and Sportiche, D. (to appear). Anaphor binding domains. Linguistic Inquiry.

Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P., editors, A festschrift for

Morris Halle, pages 232–286. New York: Academic Press.

Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P. Wasow, T. and Akmajian, A., editors, Formal syntax.

New York: Academic Press.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R. Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J., editors,

Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, pages 89–155. MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M., editor, Ken Hale: A life in language, pages 1–52.

MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Freidin, R. Otero, C. P. and Zubizarreta, M., editors, Foundational issues in

linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, pages 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A′-dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Coon, J. and Bale, A. (2014). The interaction of person and number in Mi’gmaq. Nordlyd, 41(1):85–101.

Deal, A. R. (2014). Properties of probes: Evidence from Nez Perce complementizer agreement. Presentation at

NELS 45, MIT.

Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Epstein, S. D. (1989). Quantification in null operator constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(4):647–658.

Fleisher, N. (2013). On the absence of scope reconstruction in tough subject a-chains. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(2):321–

332.

Fox, D. (1999). Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(2):157–196.

Fox, D. (2000). Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Fox, D. (2002). Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(1):63–96.

Freidin, R. (1986). Fundamental issues in the theory of binding. In Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora, pages

19


151–188. Springer.

Frey, W. (1993). Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation: über Bindung, implizite Argumente

und Skopus, volume 35. Akademie Verlag.

George, L. M. and Kornfilt, J. (1981). Finiteness and boundedness in turkish. page 105. MIT Press.

Grewendorf, G. and Sabel, J. (1999). Scrambling in German and Japanese: Adjunction versus multiple specifiers.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17(1):1–65.

Haegeman, L. (2012). Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery: The

Cartography of Syntactic Structures, volume 8. Oxford University Press.

Hartman, J. (2011). (Non-) intervention in A-movement: Some cross-constructional and cross-linguistic considera-

tions. Linguistic Variation, 11(2):121–148.

Hartman, J. (2012). Varieties of clausal complementation. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts,

Amherst.

Hicks, G. (2009). Tough-constructions and their derivation. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(4):535–566.

Hukari, T. E. and Levine, R. D. (1990). The complement structure of tough constructions. In Proceedings of the

7th Annual Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, The Ohio State University.

Jäger, G. (2001). Topic-Comment Structure and the Contrast Between Stage Level and Individual Level Predicates.

Journal of Semantics, 18(2):83–126.

Kaplan, R. M. and Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation.

In Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, pages 29–130.

Kayne, R. S. (1984). Connectedness and binary branching. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland.

Keine, S. and Poole, E. (2016). Intervention in tough constructions. Ms. UMass.

Kotek, H. (2014). Wh-Fronting in a two-probe system. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32(4):1105–1143.

Landau, I. (2015). A two-tiered theory of control, volume 71. MIT Press.

Lasnik, H. (2008). On the development of case theory: Triumphs and challenges. In Freidin, R., Peregrin Otero,

C., and Zubizarreta, M., editors, Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger

Vergnaud, volume 45, page 17. MIT PRESS.

Lasnik, H. and Fiengo, R. (1974). Complement Object Deletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(4):535–571.

Lasnik, H. and Stowell, T. (1991). Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(4):687–720.

Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts,

Amherst.

Lebeaux, D. (1998). Where does binding theory apply? Technical report.

Lechner, W. (1998). Two kinds of reconstruction. Studia Linguistica, 52(3):276–310.

Legate, J. A. (2003). Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry, 34(3):506–516.

Longenbaugh, N. (to appear). Non-intervention and tough-movement. In Proceedings of NELS, volume 46.

May, R. (1979). Must COMP-to-COMP movement be stipulated? Linguistic Inquiry, 10(4):719–725.

Milsark, G. (1974). Existential Sentences in English. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,

Massachusetts.

Mulder, R. and den Dikken, M. (1992). Tough parasitic gaps. In Broderick, K., editor, The proceedings of NELS

22, pages 303–317. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.

O’Brien, C. (2015). How to get off an island. Unpublished Ms. MIT.

Perlmutter, D. M. and Soames, S. (1979). Syntactic argumentation and the structure of English, volume 231.

University of California Press.

Pesetsky, D. (1984). Conditions on extraction and a surprising subject-object asymmetry. GLOW Colloquium,

University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Pesetsky, D. (1991). Zero Syntax: Vol. 2-Infinitives. Unpublished manuscript available at

http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/l/linguistics/www/pesetsky/infins.pdf.

Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Number 27. MIT press.

Pesetsky, D. (2012). Phrasal movement and its discontents. In Cheng, L. and Corver, N., editors, Diagnostics in

syntax. Oxford University Press.

Pesetsky, D. (2016). Finiteness & Clause size. Unpublished class notes.

20


Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. (2001). T-to-C movement: Causes and Consequences. In Kenstowicz, M., editor, Ken

Hale: A life in language, pages 355–426. MIT PRess.

Postal, P. (1971). Cross-Over Phenomena. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, New York.

Postal, P. M. (1974). On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications, volume 5. MIT

Press.

Postal, P. M. (1998). Three Investigations of Extraction. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Pulman, S. G. (1993). The recognition and interpretation of idioms. In Idioms: Processing, structure, and inter-

pretation, pages 249–270. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reinhart, T. (1992). Wh-in-situ-an apparent paradox. In Proceedings of the eight Amsterdam Colloquium.

Rezac, M. (2006). On tough-movement. In Boeckx, C., editor, Minimalist essays, pages 288–325. Amsterdam:

Benjamins.

Rezac, M. (2013). Case and licensing: evidence from ecm+ doc. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(2):299–319.

Richards, N. (2014). A-bar movement. The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, page 167.

Richards, N. (2015). Contiguity Theory. Manuscript, MIT.

Riemsdijk, H. v. and Williams, E. (1981). NP-structure. The Linguistic Review, 1:171–217.

Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Ruys, E. G. (2000). Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(3):513–539.

Safir, K. (2014). One true anaphor. Linguistic Inquiry, 45(1):91–124.

Sauerland, U. (1998). The meaning of chains. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,

Massachusetts.

Sauerland, U. (1999). Erasability and interpretation. Syntax, 2(3):161–188.

Sauerland, U. (2003). Intermediate adjunction with A-movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 34(2):308–314.

Sauerland, U. (2004). The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics, 12:63–127.

Sportiche, D. (2002). Movement types and triggers. Glow Newsletter, 48:116–117.

Starke, M. (2001). Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. PhD thesis, University of Geneva.

Stowell, T. (1986). Null antecedents and proper government. In Proceedings of NELS, volume 16, pages 476–493.

Takahashi, S. (2011). The composition and interpretation of tough movement. In Talk presented at GLOW.

Takahashi, S. and Hulsey, S. (2009). Wholesale late merger: Beyond the A/A′ distinction. Linguistic Inquiry,

40(3):387–426.

Thráinsson, H. (2001). Object Shift and Scrambling. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, chapter 6,

page 148.

van Urk, C. (2015). A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor. PhD thesis, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology.

Von Stechow, A. (2000). Some remarks on choice functions and lf-movement. In Reference and anaphoric relations,

pages 193–228. Springer.

Wurmbrand, S. (2008). Word order and scope in German. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik,

46:89–110.

Wurmbrand, S. (2013). QR and selection: Covert evidence for phasehood. In Proceedings of the North Eastern

Linguistics Society Annual Meeting, volume 42, pages 277–290.

Wurmbrand, S. (2014). Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry.

21


Appendix: van Urk’s (2015) approach to deriving the A/A′-distinction

• I limit discussion to the distinctions between A- and A′-movement detailed in (107) (see, e.g., Richards 2014for a more extensive list).

(107) Properties of A- and A′-movement

A-movement A′-movement

Crosses NP/DPs X XSensitive to WCO X XReconstructs obligatorily for Principle C X XCreates new antecedents for binding X X

• (In)ability to cross-over NP/DPs

– Assumption: ϕ- but not A′-features are obligatory on NP/DPs (see e.g. Cable 2007; 2010)

– Assumption: the grammar behaves some notion of minimality, e.g., (108)

(108) Attract closest:

A probe on head H searching for feature F must Agree with the closest XP bearing F, where

closeness is defined on the basis of asymmetric C-command (Rizzi 1990 et seq.; Starke 2001).

– (108) bars ϕ-Agree from “skipping-over” any projection bearing ϕ-features, effectively ruling out deriva-

tions where a DP moves past another DP that asymmetrically C-commands it (absent special mecha-

nisms like multiple agree)

– The logic of Attract Closest dictates that DPs (and XPs in general) should intervene for A′-movement

if and only if they bear optional A′-features

∗ wh-movement freely crosses non-interrogative DPs, although a blocking effect does appear in in-stances of wh-movement across interrogative DPs (and XPs) that bear A′-features (Chomsky 1973;

cf. (110-a), (110-b))

(109) a. What[ϕ:7,wh:9] C[wh: ] did Mary[ϕ:6] buy t?

b. *What[ϕ:7,wh:9] C[wh: ] did who[ϕ:6,wh:8] buy t?

• Reconstruction for Principle C

– van Urk (2015) borrows Takahashi and Hulsey’s (2009) account of the A/A′-distinction in this domain

(see Riemsdijk and Williams 1981; Freidin 1986; Lebeaux 1988; Chomsky 1995)

– Assumption: Agree triggered by ϕ-features but not A′-features is associated with NP/DP licensing

(George and Kornfilt 1981; Chomsky 1981, 2000, 2001, 2008; Lasnik 2008; Rezac 2013)

– Proposal (Wholesale late merger): When an XP is moved, the complement to the phrase head X

has the option of merging counter-cyclically to the higher copy of the chain, as long as the result is

syntactically and semantically well-formed (Takahashi and Hulsey 2009; see also Lebeaux 1988, 1998;

Fox 2002; Bhatt and Pancheva 2004, 2007)

– WLM of NP to D under A-movment:

∗ Semantic well-formedness: Fox’s (2002) mechanism of trace-conversion makes it possible to inter-pret lower copies involving bare D heads without their NP arguments

∗ Syntactic well-formedness: the licensing effect of ϕ-Agree ensures that as long as NP is merged toD before the final step of ϕ-Agree, the result is syntactically well formed: NP gets Case

– WLM of NP to D under A′-movement

∗ Semantic well-formedness: X

22


∗ Syntactic well-formedness: A′-Agree is not associated with a licensing effect, so any structureinvolving WLM of an NP to the higher copy of an A′-chain will involve an unlicensed NP

– The A/A′-distinction with respect to reconstruction for Principle C then follows:

∗ A-movement: the NP part of a moved DP will always be able to merge late, so that R-expressionsin this NP will optionally only be present in the highest copy

∗ A′-movement: the NP part will always have to merge in the lowest copy, so any Principle Cviolations expected in the base position show up in movement configurations as well

(110) a. *[CP [DP Which [NP facet of John1’s personality]] did [TP he1 [VP hate [DP Which

[NP facet of John1’s personality]]]]] (*Principle C)

b. [TP [DP That [NP facet of John1’s personality]] [VP seemed to him1 [Inf [DP That

] [VP to be his1 best quality]]]]. (XPrinciple C)

• Variable binding and WCO

– van Urk (2015) adopts Sauerland’s (1998) proposal that A- and A′-movement chains are interpreted

differently at LF

∗ Movement chains associated with ϕ-agreement are interpreted as abstractions over individuals (typee)

∗ Movement chains associated with A′-agreement are interpreted as abstractions over choice functions(functions from sets to singleton members of those sets, type 〈〈e, t〉, e〉; Sauerland 1998, 2004; Ruys2000)

– Sauerland (1998), Ruys, 2004: WCO reflects the inability of A′-moved phrases to bind variables

– Pronouns have roughly the following structure: JheK = JtheK(λy. y = x), where the reference of x issupplied either by discourse context or by some higher λ-abstraction

– A′-movement involves abstraction over choice-functions, which is of the wrong type to bind the free

variable over individuals that is implicit in all pronouns

⇒ A′-movement will never license the binding of a pronominal variable– A-movement, which involves abstraction over individuals, can always, in principle, bind a free variable

of type e.

– van Urk (2015) extends this logic to account for anaphor binding by proposing that a necessary condition

on the syntactic licensing of an anaphor is that it be semantically bound by its antecedent, in addition

to whatever other syntactic conditions might be required to obtain (see Safir 2014; Charnavel and

Sportiche to appear for recent proposals)

• What properties should composite ϕ/A′-Agree show?

• Reconstruction for Principle C

– The Case/DP-licensing properties of ϕ-agreement are preserved in a composite probe, thus permitting

WLM to the higher copy of a composite A/A′-chain

⇒ Composite ϕ/A′-movement should behave like A-movement with respect to reconstruction for PrincipleC

• Locality

– Intervening goals that bear only a subset of the features that make up a composite probe do not block

agreement with a goal bearing the full set of relevant features (for an explicit example, see Coon and

Bale 2014 on omnivorous agreement in Mi’gmaq; see also Chomsky 1995: secs 4.4.4, 4.5.2, 2001: 15-19;

Bruening 2001; Rezac 2013; Richards 2015)

⇒ Composite A/A′-movement should show the locality profile of A′-movement when it comes to interveningDPs

23


– Composite movement should create islands for further extraction insofar as DPs bearing ϕ- and A′-

features i) exhaust the ability of a given head to further probe and ii) block Agree with lower XPs

bearing ϕ- and/or A′-features

• Variable binding/WCO

– The null hypothesis seems to be that composite movement can in principle involve either type CF or

type e abstraction

⇒ Composite A/A′-movement should create new antecedents for variable binding and fail to exhibit WCOeffects.

(111) Properties of A- and A′-movement

A-movement A′-movement Composite Movement TM

Crosses NP/DPs X X X XSensitive to WCO X X X XReconstructs obligatorily for Principle C X X X XCreates new antecedents for binding X X X X

24

di cult movementnslonge.scripts.mit.edu › site › wp-content › uploads › 2016 › 05 ›...

Documents