DOCSLIB.ORG

Movement Within and Without a Clause 1 Introduction 2 Relevant Bengali

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Movement Within and Without a Clause 1 Introduction 2 Relevant Bengali • I will present previously unnoticed facts about the scope and bind- ing behavior of the PJE which, along with certain assumptions about the interpretation of pied-piping at LF, supports Bayer & Dasgupta Movement within and without a clause* (2016)’s claim that the word order asymmetry facts in (1-2) derive from clausal pied-piping: Yadav Gowda ([email protected]) Claim: Bengali Comp-internal clauses involve clausal pied-piping FASAL9 • Reed College • March 17th 2019 driven by long scrambling of the PJE into the matrix clause. That is, it is the PJE which is driving movement, pulling the rest of the clause along for the ride. • Additionally, I will show that certain Comp-internal clauses involve 1 Introduction A-pied-piping (that is, pied-piping driven by movement to an A- position), which, in addition to being novel in itself, gives us an • This talk will focus on the derivation and interpretation of so-called example of long distance A-movement (hyperraising) in Bengali. ‘Comp-internal clauses’ in Bengali (Bhattacharya, 2001). • Finally, I will argue that this pied-piping is narrow syntactic move- • CPs headed by the head-initial complementizer je normally obligato- ment (that is, not PF movement) necessitated by an interface con- rily appear post-verbally (1). However, when an element (henceforth dition on preservation of prosodic structure, ultimately driven by called the PJE, or pre-je-element) appears in first position within a enclitic properties of the complementizer je. je clause, the clause must appear pre-verbally (2). (1) Bengali post-verbal clauses 2 Relevant Bengali syntax a. ami bollam [je Aparṇa deri korlo] I said C Aparna late did • Bengali sentences are normally verb-final, however je clauses obli- I said that Aparna was late. gatorily appear post-verbally. (Bayer, 2013) b. * ami [je Aparṇa deri korlo] bollam • Matrix indirect objects are able to bind into a rightward je clause: (2) Bengali Comp-internal clauses (3) Binding into a rightward embedded clause (Bayer, 2013, p. 264) a. ami [AparṇaPJE je tPJE deri korlo] bollam I Aparna C late did said ami prottek-ṭa chele-ke bole-chi [je ek-jon ta-ke durga I said that Aparna was late. I each-cl boy-acc say-prf C one-cl he-acc Durga b. * ami bollam [AparṇaPJE je tPJE deri korlo] pujo-y notun jama kapoṛ debe] *Thanks to Neil Banerjee and Pratiti Deb for sharing their Bengali judgments, and Puja-loc new clothes give will to Sugoi Retegi-Carrión for his Basque judgments. Thanks to Norvin Richards, David Pesetsky, Danny Fox, Sabine Iatridou, Suzana Fong, Elise Newman, Neil Banerjee, and the I told every boyi that someone will give himi new clothes at the participants at MIT’s Syntax Square for helpful discussion and comments. Durga Puja. Yadav Gowda 2 • Based on this fact, I will be assuming in this talk that post-verbal • Most relevant here is the account of Bayer & Dasgupta (2016), who je clauses are in their base generated position, and their rightward argues based on the Bengali data and similar data from Bavarian position arises as a result of a post-syntactic operation. German that Comp-internal clauses involve clausal pied-piping. However, their account crucially differs from mine in that they as- • Bengali, as is cross-linguistically common (Mahajan, 1990; Ko, 2018), sume that all of the pied-piping is driven by information structural has ‘VP-internal’ scrambling which exhibits properties of A-movement: features, and that the PJE does not exit the clause. (4) VP-internal scrambling (Bhattacharya & Simpson, 2011) • As noted by Datta (2018), movement to the PJE position of an em- a. Hori [prottek sikkok]-ke [kono ek-ṭa chatr-er khata] bedded clause appears to obey syntactic locality restrictions: Hori each teacher-acc some 1-Cl student-Gen copy dekhalo. (5) Movement to PJE position obeys syntactic locality (Datta, 2018) showed a. * [Ram-erPJE je tPJE shathe Robi porto], Raja jane Hori showed every teacher some student’s copy. [∀ > ∃, Ram-gen C with Ravi studied Raja knows *∃ > ∀] That Ravi was Ram’s classmate, Raja knows. b. Hori [kono ek-ṭa chatr-er khata]i [prottek sikkok]-ke ti b. * [Ram-er poribarPJE je tPJE ar Anup-er bondhura Hori some 1-Cl student-Gen copy each teacher-acc Ram-gen family C and Anup-gen friends dekhalo. berate gache], … showed tour gone Hori showed every teacher some student’s copy. [∀ > ∃, That Ram’s family and Anup’s friends went for a tour, … ∃ > ∀] • I assume due to the fact that the PJE appears to the left of the • Here, in the base generated order we are only able to get surface complementizer je that the PJE position is Spec,CP. scope, but if we scramble the direct object over the indirect object, • While Bayer & Dasgupta claim that Comp-internal clauses require a we can either get surface scope, or indirect scope, which means this particular information structure (specifically that the PJE is either movement has created new binding possibilities. focused or topicalized), Hsu (2016) notes that no special information structure is required as long as the PJE is the embedded subject. For example, indefinite and quantificational embedded subjects, 3 Comp-internal clauses which are normally not allowed to be topicalized or focused, are allowed to be PJEs: • Previous accounts of Comp-internal clauses include Dasgupta 1980, who argues that clause-medial je is not in fact a complementizer (6) No special information structure needed for embedded subject but a focus marker, and Hsu (2016), who argues in a Match Theoretic PJEs (Hsu, 2016) setting that the pronunciation of je clause-internally is the result a. Jon [du-to chatro je t esheche] bollo of pronouncing je on a head in the lower left periphery, motivated PJE PJE John two-cl student C come.perf said by its prosodic properties. John said that two students came. FASAL9, Reed College, March 16-17th 2019 Movement within and without a clause Yadav Gowda 3 b. Jon [kewPJE je tPJE ase-ni] bollo • Hsu additionally notes that in Comp-internal clauses, je is an affixal John anyone C come-neg said enclitic on the PJE – we can see that je carries the pitch-peak for John said that no one came. the prosodic constituent containing the PJE, which means that it’s inside the same prosodic constituent as the PJE (Fig2). c. * Jon [kau-kePJE je dadubhai tPJE dekh-e-ni] bollo John anyone-acc C grandfather see-perf-neg said John said that grandfather saw no one. • This restriction in similar to the requirement for Spec,CP in Germanic V2 clauses (Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007). • To account for this information-structural property, I propose that movement of a non-subject to embedded Spec,CP requires move- ment to a Topic head higher than the canonical subject position, which avoids a violation of Relativized Minimality: “John said that grandfather took medicine last night.” (7) Movement of a non-subject to PJE position [CP PJEns [C’ je [TopicP PJEns [Topic’ Topic [TP Subj … [VP PJEns … Figure 1: Boundary tones appear on both sides of Comp-internal clauses. • Otherwise, movement to Spec,CP is ‘free’ for the subject: (8) Movement of a subject to PJE position [CP PJEsubj [C’ je …[TP PJEsubj … • The PJE seems to be inseparable from the rest of the clause – for instance, we cannot put a matrix element in between it and the rest of the clause: “Mary said that Romila came.” (9) Inseparability of the PJE Figure 2: je carries the pitch peak for the PJE’s prosodic phrase. * AparṇaPJE ami [je tPJE deri korlo] bollam Aparna I C late did said • This prosodic relationship, between je and the PJE, will play an Attempted: I said that Aparna was late. important role in explaining why we must do clausal pied-piping when we try to move the PJE to the matrix clause. • Additionally, as noted by Hsu (2016), the PJE and the rest of the clause form a prosodic unit to the exclusion of the rest of the clause, with boundary tones appearing on both sides (Fig1). FASAL9, Reed College, March 16-17th 2019 Movement within and without a clause Yadav Gowda 4 4 The pre-je-element c. ami [proti-ṭa chelePJE je tPJE deri korlo] taari/j maa-ke I every-cl boy C late did his mother-acc • In this section, I will bring to light previously unnoticed facts that bollam suggest that contrary to the surface form, the PJE occupies its own said matrix specifier at LF. I told hisi/j mother that every boyi was late. • With respect to Principles A and B, PJEs act as though they are in the matrix: • The lack of a WCO effect here suggests that the movement involved is A-movement, which would be surprising if it were the result of a (10) Principle A effects probe which targeted the clause, given that clauses are generally a. Aparṇa [nijePJE je tPJE deri korlo] bollo assumed to be Caseless (Stowell, 1981). Aparna self C late did said • Quantificational subject PJEs also take scope over the matrix verb1: Aparnai said that shei was late. b. * Aparṇa bollo [je nije deri korlo] (13) PJEs take scope over the verb Aparna said C self late did a. ami bollam [je proti-ṭa chele deri korlo] (11) Principle B effects I said C every-cl boy late did a. ami Aparṇa-ke [oPJE je tPJE deri korlo] bollam I said that every boy was late. [say > ∀ (single speech act), *∀ I Aparna-acc she C late did said > say] I told Aparnai that she was late.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Syncom.Sluicing
    SynCom Case 98 Sluicing Jason Merchant University of Chicago August 2003 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Movement vs. non-movement approaches 3. Theoretical consequences 3.1. Non-movement approaches 3.2. Movement approaches 4. Puzzles and prospects 4.1. Sluicing-COMP generalization puzzles 4.2. Sluicing in non-wh-in-specCP languages 4.3. Multiple sluicing 4.4. Swiping 5. Conclusion References Glossary 1. Introduction Sluicing is the ellipsis phenomenon illustrated in (1), in which the sentential portion of a constituent question is elided, leaving only a wh-phrase remnant. (1) a. Jack bought something, but I don’t know what. b. A: Someone called. B: Really? Who? c. Beth was there, but you’ll never guess who else. d. Jack called, but I don’t know {when/how/why/where from}. e. Sally’s out hunting — guess what! f. A car is parked on the lawn — find out whose. The sluices in (1) should be compared to their non-elliptical counterparts in (2), with which they are synonymous. (2) a. Jack bought something, but I don’t know what he bought. b. A: Someone called. B: Really? Who called? c. Beth was there, but you’ll never guess who else was there. d. Jack called, but I don’t know {when/how/why} he called. e. Sally’s out hunting — guess what she’s out hunting! f. A car is parked on the lawn — find out whose is parked on the lawn. Sluicing appears to be widespread cross-linguistically (unlike VP-ellipsis), and may in fact be found in some form or another in every language (like nominal ellipses, 1 gapping, stripping, and fragment answers).
    [Show full text]
  • Circumstantial Evidence for Syntactic Head Movement
    Circumstantial Evidence for Syntactic Head Move ment Bartosz Wiland University of Pozna 1. Introduction Recently, a number of analyses have advanced a thesis that syntactic heads are immobile and that head movement does not exist in grammar (cf. Mahajan 2001, 2003; Müller 2004, a.o.) or is severely restricted (e.g. Koopman and Szabolcsi 2000, Nilsen 2003). Such approaches take dislocation of the head X0 to be an instance of a remnant movement of the XP-constituent, preceded by vacating movements of other members of the XP. Detrimental to the claim that head movement does not exist is a scenario in which a dislocation of X0 is followed by a remnant movement of the XP-constituent. Such a derivational scenario is outlined in (1). 0 0 0 (1) a. [YP Y [P [XP X ZP]]] 0 0 0 b. [YP Y [P X + [XP tX0 ZP]]] 0 0 0 c. [YP [XP tX0 ZP][Y Y [P X + tXP ]]] The only possibility of dislocating the head X0 before remnant XP-fronting (in (1c)) is by X0-movement (in (1b)). In this paper, I argue that the derivational scenario in (1) is attested in Polish and it allows us to explain the interpretive contrast between (2a–d) and (2e). (2) a. Jan znowu pos a Marii ksi k . (repetitive) Ja n-NOM again sent Mary-DAT book-ACC b. Jan znowu Marii pos a ksi k . (repetitive) Ja n-NOM again Mary-DAT sent book-ACC c. Jan znowu ksi k pos a Marii. (repetitive) Jan-NOM again book-ACC sent Mary-DAT d.
    [Show full text]
  • Wh-Concord in Okinawan = Syntactic Movement + Morphological Merger
    University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 22 Issue 1 Proceedings of the 39th Annual Penn Article 20 Linguistics Conference 2016 Wh-Concord in Okinawan = Syntactic Movement + Morphological Merger Kunio Kinjo Yohei Oseki Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation Kinjo, Kunio and Oseki, Yohei (2016) "Wh-Concord in Okinawan = Syntactic Movement + Morphological Merger," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 22 : Iss. 1 , Article 20. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol22/iss1/20 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol22/iss1/20 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wh-Concord in Okinawan = Syntactic Movement + Morphological Merger Abstract The main purpose of this paper is to provide a novel account for Wh-Concord in Okinawan based on the Copy Theory of Movement and Distributed Morphology. We propose that Wh-Concord interrogatives and Japanese-type wh-interrogatives have exactly the same derivation in the syntactic component: the Q- particle -ga, base-generated as adjoined to a wh-phrase, undergoes movement to the clause-final position. The two types of interrogatives are distinguished in the post-syntactic component: only in Wh-Concord, the -r morpheme on C0 triggers Morphological Merger, which makes it possible to Spell-Out lower copy of -ga. It is shown that the proposed analysis correctly predicts three descriptive generalizations on the distribution of -ga in
    [Show full text]
  • Derivational Economy in Syntax and Semantics
    Derivational Economy in Syntax and Semantics Željko Bošković and Troy Messick Summary Economy considerations have always played an important role in the generative theory of grammar. They are particularly prominent in the most recent instantiation of this approach, the Minimalist Program, which explores the possibility that Universal Grammar is an optimal way of satisfying requirements that are imposed on the language faculty by the external systems that interface with the language faculty which is also characterized by optimal, computationally efficient design. In this respect, the operations of the computational system that produce linguistic expressions must be optimal in that they must satisfy general considerations of simplicity and efficient design. Simply put, the guiding principles here are do something only if you need to; and if you do need to, do it in the most economical/efficient way. These considerations ban superfluous steps in derivations and superfluous symbols in representations. Under economy guidelines, movement takes place only when there is a need for it (with both syntactic and semantic considerations playing a role here), and when it does take place, it takes place in the most economical way: it is as short as possible and carries as little material as possible. Furthermore, economy is evaluated locally, on the basis of immediately available structure. The locality of syntactic dependencies is also enforced by minimal search and by limiting the number of syntactic objects and the amount of structure that are accessible in the derivation. This is achieved by transferring parts of syntactic structure to the interfaces during the derivation, the transferred parts not being accessible for further syntactic operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Syntactic Movement 24.900/R02
    October 19, 2018 Syntactic movement 24.900/R02 Syntactic movement Introduction to Linguistics, Instructor: Prof. Adam Albright Section R02, Suzana Fong ([email protected]) Recitation #6, October 19, 2018 1 Overview and recap Recall: this is the structure that we have for sentences: (1) CP 0 C C IP 0 NP I I VP 0 (modifier(s)) V V (XP) Where XP is the complement of the verb; it can be an NP, a PP, or a CP. This gives us a neat structure to capture the linear order of English interrogative sentences: (2) Yes/No question (closed-ended question) (3) Constituent question (open-ended question) a. The dog will eat the watermelon. a. Rosa has criticized Ana. b. Will the dog eat the watermelon? b. Who has Rosa cricitized ? Hypothesis: auxiliaries and interrogatives phrases (what, which picture, etc) are born in the position that their non- interrogative counterparts occupy and then they are moved to C and Spec-CP, respectively. ² Movement: an operation that takes a constituent (phrase or head) and places it elsewhere in the sentence. ² Consequence of movement: constituents can be interpreted in one position (e.g. complement of VP), but pro- nounced in another (e.g. Spec-CP). This property of languages is called displacement. 1/10 October 19, 2018 Syntactic movement 24.900/R02 Formalizing movement (4) a. Take an element α (word or phrase) and move it to an eligible higher position P. i. P must be empty (no overt morpheme). ii. P must be a suitable host for the type of element (heads to heads/argument positions, phrases to modifier positions) b.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment of Multiword Expressions and Compounds in Bulgarian
    Treatment of Multiword Expressions and Compounds in Bulgarian Petya Osenova and Kiril Simov Linguistic Modelling Deparment, IICT-BAS Acad. G. Bonchev 25A, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria [email protected] and [email protected] Abstract 2012)), we will adopt the Multiword Expressions The paper shows that catena represen- classification, presented in (Sag et al., 2001). They tation together with valence information divide them into two groups: lexicalized phrases can provide a good way of encoding and institutionalized phrases. The former are fur- Multiword Expressions (beyond idioms). ther subdivided into fixed-expressions, semi-fixed It also discusses a strategy for mapping expressions and syntactically-flexible expressions. noun/verb compounds with their counter- Fixed expressions are said to be fully lexicalized part syntactic phrases. The data on Mul- and undergoing neither morphosyntactic variation tiword Expression comes from BulTree- nor internal modification. Semi-fixed expressions Bank, while the data on compounds comes have a fixed word order, but “undergo some degree from a morphological dictionary of Bul- of lexical variation, e.g. in the form of inflection, garian. variation in reflexive form, and determiner selec- tion” (non-decomposable idioms, proper names). 1 Introduction Syntactically-flexible expressions show more vari- Our work is based on the annotation of Multi- ation in their word order (light verb constructions, word Expressions (MWE) in the Bulgarian tree- decomposable idioms). We follow the understand- bank — BulTreeBank (Simov et al., 2004). We ing of (O’Grady, 1998) that MWEs have their in- use this representation for parsing and analysis of ternal syntactic structure which needs to be rep- compounds. BulTreeBank exists in two formats: resented in the lexicon as well as in the sentence HPSG-based (original - constituent-based with analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Scrambling As Case-Driven Obligatory Movement
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons IRCS Technical Reports Series Institute for Research in Cognitive Science April 1993 Scrambling as Case-Driven Obligatory Movement Young-Suk Lee University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports Lee, Young-Suk, "Scrambling as Case-Driven Obligatory Movement" (1993). IRCS Technical Reports Series. 15. https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/15 University of Pennsylvania Institute for Research in Cognitive Science Technical Report No. IRCS-93-06 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/15 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Scrambling as Case-Driven Obligatory Movement Abstract In this thesis I explore the nature and properties of scrambling in Korean. Contrary to the widely accepted view that scrambling is truly optional, I propose that scrambling is a consequence of case-driven obligatory movement, a proposal consistent with the "last resort" condition on movement in [Chomsky 1991] and [Chomsky 1992]. I assume that scrambling is adjunction and defend this view in Ch. 5. In Ch. 2 and Ch. 3 based on binding facts and scope reconstruction, I claim that scrambling is best analyzed as A-movement. Scrambling either creates a binding relation which does not obtain in the base order, or destroys a binding relation which obtains in the base order. A scrambled element undergoes optional reconstruction for scope interpretation. All these properites are consistent with those of standard A-movement. In Ch. 4, I propose that scrambling is a consequence of case-driven movement. On the basis of case and word order possibilities in event nominal clauses, I first establish that in orK ean nominative case is licensed by INFL, and accusative case by a complex category formed by the head raising of VERB-to-INFL.
    [Show full text]
  • SYNTACTIC VS. POST-SYNTACTIC MOVEMENT* Susi Wurmbrand
    SYNTACTIC VS. POST-SYNTACTIC MOVEMENT* Susi Wurmbrand University of Connecticut 1. Introduction This paper addresses the question of where word order variation that has no semantic effect is represented. The case I will concentrate on is multiple verb constructions in West Germanic, which involve complex patterns of re-ordering of the verbal elements involved. As an illustration consider (1): while Dutch allows either order between a modal and the selected infinitive (in this construction), the infinitive has to precede the modal in German, whereas the modal has to precede the infinitive in Afrikaans. Importantly, all sentences in (1) have the same meaning and re-ordering has no semantic effect. (1) John can work tomorrow. a. dat Jan morgen werken kan / kan werken Dutch that Jan tomorrow work can / can work b. dass Hans morgen arbeiten kann / *kann arbeiten German that John tomorrow work can / can work c. dat Jan môre *werk kan / kan werk Afrikaans that Jan tomorrow work can / can work In this paper I will pursue the idea that semantically vacuous word order changes are not part of syntax proper, but rather occur in a post-syntactic (PF) component. The mechanism suggested for this re-ordering will be language and construction specific inversion of sister nodes. I will present two preliminary arguments for this view: i) morphological operations feed verb cluster re-ordering; ii) only the word orders that cannot be derived by simple inversion of sister nodes show semantic/pragmatic effects. 2. Re-ordering tools Before discussing various options that have been suggested to derive the word order differences in verb clusters, it is important to note that some re-ordering mechanism is necessary and that the different word orders cannot be just the result of different base structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Observations on the Hebrew Desiderative Construction – a Dependency-Based Account in Terms of Catenae1
    Thomas Groß Some Observations on the Hebrew Desiderative Construction – A Dependency-Based Account in Terms of Catenae1 Abstract The Modern Hebrew (MH) desiderative construction must obey four conditions: 1. A subordinate clause headed by the clitic še= ‘that’ must be present. 2. The verb in the subordinate clause must be marked with future tense. 3. The grammatical properties genus, number, and person tend to be specified, i.e. if the future tense affix is underspecified, material tends to appear that aids specification, if contextual recovery is unavailable. 4. The units of form that make up the constructional meaning of the desiderative must qualify as a catena. A catena is a dependency-based unit of form, the parts of which are immediately continuous in the vertical dimension. The description of the individual parts of the desiderative must address trans-, pre-, and suffixes, and cliticization. Catena-based morphology is representational, monostratal, dependency-, construction-, and piece-based. 1. Purpose, means and claims The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the Hebrew desiderative construction. This construction is linguistically interesting and challenging for a number of reasons. 1. It is a periphrastic construction, with fairly transparent compositionality. 2. It is transclausal, i.e. some parts of the construction reside in the main clause, and others in the subordinated clause. The complementizer is also part of the construction. 3. The construction consists of more than one word, but it does not qualify as a constituent. Rather the construction cuts into words. 4. Two theoretically 1 I want to thank Outi Bat-El (Tel Aviv University) and three anonymous reviewers for their help and advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Malagasy Extraposition: Evidence for PF Movement
    Nat Lang Linguist Theory https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-021-09505-2 Malagasy extraposition Evidence for PF movement Eric Potsdam1 Received: 28 August 2018 / Accepted: 23 January 2021 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature 2021 Abstract Extraposition is the non-canonical placement of dependents in a right- peripheral position in a clause. The Austronesian language Malagasy has basic VOXS word order, however, extraposition leads to VOSX. Extraposed constituents behave syntactically as though they were in their undisplaced position inside the predicate at both LF and Spell Out. This paper argues that extraposition is achieved via movement at Phonological Form (PF). I argue against alternatives that would derive extraposi- tion with syntactic A’ movement or stranding analyses. Within a Minimalist model of grammar, movement operations take place on the branch from Spell Out to PF and have only phonological consequences. Keywords Malagasy · Extraposition · Movement · Phonological Form · Word order 1 Introduction Extraposition—the non-canonical placement of certain constituents in a right- peripheral position—has been investigated in detail in only a small number of lan- guages. There is a considerable literature for English, SOV Germanic languages Ger- man and Dutch, and the SOV language Hindi-Urdu. The construction has not been widely explored in other, typologically distinct languages. This lacuna means that we have probably not seen the full range of options and have also not tested pro- posed analyses in the widest possible way. The goal of this paper is to investigate in some detail extraposition in Malagasy, an Austronesian language with basic VOXS word order spoken by approximately 17 million people on the island of Madagascar.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Scrambling Eljko Boškovi£ It Is Uncontroversial That Slavic
    Scrambling ¢ eljko Boškovi £ It is uncontroversial that Slavic languages have topicalization and focalization. It is less clear whether they also have the scrambling operation of the kind found in languages like Japanese and Korean. The goal of this chapter is to address the issue of whether Slavic languages have Japanese-style scrambling (JSS) in addition to topicalization/focalization. I will confine my attention to Russian and Serbo-Croatian (SC), focusing on three properties of JSS which differentiate it from topicalization/focalization, namely the undoing effect (i.e. semantic vacuity of long-distance scrambling), the impossibility of adjunct scrambling, and the absence of relativized minimality effects with scrambling.1 As discussed by a number of authors, long-distance scrambling in Japanese is semantically vacuous (see, e.g., Saito1992, Boškovi £ and Takahashi 1998, Saito and Fukui 1998, Tada 1993), which has led the above-mentioned authors to conclude that Japanese long-distance scrambling is completely undone in LF. Consider (1), involving long-distance scrambling of the embedded object daremo-ni.2 ¥ ¥ ¦ (1) Daremo-ni dareka-ga [Mary-ga e atta to] omotteiru. ¤ > ; * > DAT NOM NOM everyone- someone- Mary- met that thinks ‘Everyone, someone thinks that Mary met.’ (Boškovi § and Takahashi 1998) Daremo-ni in (1) must have narrow scope, i.e. it cannot scope over the matrix clause subject. This fact illustrates semantic vacuity of long-distance scrambling Japanese. In this respect, JSS clearly differs from topicalization and focalization, which do affect scope (see (5) below).3 Another property of Japanese scrambling that differentiates it from topicalization/focalization concerns inability of adjuncts to undergo scrambling, illustrated by Saito’s (1985) examples in (2).4 1A word of caution is in order regarding the term “scrambling”, one of the most abused items in the linguistic vocabulary.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Notes on Scrambling and Object Shift*
    Some Notes on Scrambling and Object Shift* Roland Hinterholz1 1 Introduction Though object shift in Scandinavian and one type of scrambling in West Ger- manic have the same information-structural trigger — discourse-given objects move across adverbs taken to mark the boundary of vP — they differ in a number of re- spects: First, object shift typically applies to weak pronouns and is widely taken to be obligatory (for an opposing view see Josefsson 2003), while scrambling in West Germanic can apply to pronominal DPs, nominai DPs and PP complements alike and is taken to be optional. Second, object shift in Scandinavian, including the shift of nominai DPs in Icelandic, is subject to a minimality condition, while scrambling of German DPs applies freely, thus allowing for any kind of order be- tween the arguments of the verb. Third, object shift may occur only in contexts where the main verb has moved out of the vP ("Holmberg's generalization," cf. Holmberg 1986). Since there is no verb movement in embedded clauses in Main- land Scandinavian, object shift is generally absent in these clauses, as it is missing in main clauses with periphrastic tenses. No such restriction holds for scrambling in West Germanic. Most accounts of these phenomena thus assume that object shift and scram- bling are different operations (e.g. Haider and Rosengren 1998). Such proposals also posit that scrambling and object shift are defined in purely syntactic terms which reflect language-specific restrictions. Hardly any approach argues that there is a unique universal operation of preposing discourse-given objects and relates the *This short contribution is intended to express my gratitude to Valéria Molnar for several won- derful stays in Lund during the last three years and for long and inspiring discussions of both theoretical issues and personal matters on these occasions.
    [Show full text]