DOCSLIB.ORG

A Theory of Generalized Pied-Piping Sayaka Funakoshi, Doctor Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Theory of Generalized Pied-Piping Sayaka Funakoshi, Doctor Of ABSTRACT Title of dissertation: A Theory of Generalized Pied-Piping Sayaka Funakoshi, Doctor of Philosophy, 2015 Dissertation directed by: Professor Howard Lasnik Department of Linguistics The purpose of this thesis is to construct a theory to derive how pied-piping of formal features of a moved element takes place, by which some syntactic phenomena related to φ-features can be accounted for. Ura (2001) proposes that pied-piping of formal-features of a moved element is constrained by an economy condition like relativized minimality. On the basis of Ura’s (2001) proposal, I propose that how far an element that undergoes movement can carry its formal features, especially focusing on φ-features in this thesis, is determined by two conditions, a locality condition on the generalized pied-piping and an anti-locality condition onmovement. Given the proposed analysis, some patterns of so-called wh-agreement found in Bantu languages can be explained and with the assumption that φ-features play an role for binding, presence or absence of WCO effects in various languages can be derived without recourse to A/A-distinctions.¯ ATHEORYOFGENERALIZEDPIED-PIPING by Sayaka Funakoshi Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2015 Advisory Committee: Professor Howard Lasnik, Chair/Advisor Professor Norbert Hornstein Professor Omer Preminger Professor Steven Ross Professor Juan Uriagereka c Copyright by ! Sayaka Funakoshi 2015 Acknowledgments First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor Howard Lasnik for his patience, support and encouragement. I have gained a lot of benefit from discussions with him over the five years. I also would like to thank my committee members, Norbert Hornstein, Omer Preminger, Steven Ross, and Juan Uriagereka, for tak- ing time to read this dissertation and giving me helpful and insightful comments and suggestions. Especially, I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Norbert and Omer. Discussions with them on my research have helped me deepen my ideas and under- standing to improve my work. I also wish to thank Alexander Williams, who is an unofficial 6th committee member, for his time, effort and helpful comments. I also want to express my gratitude to the people in the UMD linguistic de- partment who taught me linguistics and/or gave me comments, suggestions, and cross-linguistic data for my research in the five years: Sigr´ıDur Bj¨ornsd´ottir, Tonia Bleam, Dustin Chac´on, Rachel Dudley, Naomi Feldman, Michael Fetters, Kenshi Funakoshi, Micha¨el Gagnon, Jeffrey Green, Valentine Hacquard, Yuki Ito, Maki Kishida, Bill Idsardi, Kwang-sup Kim, Bradley Larson, Chris LaTerza, JeffLidz, Terje Lohndal, Gesoel Mendes, Akira Omaki, Dongwoo Park, CarolinaPetersen, Collin Phillips, Zoe Schlueter, and Alexis Wellwood. Their invaluable help played an important role in developing my research and widening my knowledge on lin- guistics. I also benefited from Tom Grano and Masahiko Takahashi, who were post-doctoral fellows in the UMD linguistic department. I owe a massive debt to the people outside the UMD who gave me comments, ii suggestions and cross-linguistic data for my research: Jun Abe, David Adger, Shinya Asano, Zeljkoˇ Boˇskovi´c, Nobu Goto, Eriko Hirasaki, Kazuya Kudo, Akitoshi Maeda, Ivana Mitrovic, Miki Obata, Yohei Oseki, Yoshiyuki Shibata, Yasuyuki Shimizu, Shinta Tamaki, Hideharu Tanaka, Hisako Takahashi, Yuta Tatsumi, and Yusuke Yoda. My sincere gratitude goes to Hiroyuki Ura, who is my previous advisor in Japan. He is a person who brought me into the world of linguistic research. Without his continuous support, I couldn’t get this far. I am also grateful to the following people, who had helped me to develop my ability to conduct linguistic research before I started the PhD program at University of Maryland: Koji Fujita, Ken Hi- raiwa, Taro Kageyama, Sachie Kotani, Haruo Kubozono, Kiyomi Kusumoto, Yoichi Miyamoto, Mitsue Motomura, Masao Ochi, Akio Ogawa, Hiroyuki Tanaka, and Akira Watanabe. Many thanks to my classmates at UMD: Dustin Chac´on, Kate Harrigan, Naho Orita, and Aaron White. I also thank Kathi Faulkingham and Kim Kwok for their help in administrative procedures. I am grateful to Peggy Antonisse and Tonia Bleam. I learned many things about teaching by working with Tonia as a teaching assistant. Peggy taught and helped me a lot when I led a seminar in spring 2014. I also thank UMD undergrad- uate students who participated in the seminar. Teaching and discussing with them deepened and widened my knowledge and understanding on Japanesesyntax. I would like to express my gratitude to my friends around College Park: iii Akiko Hirooka, Mike Hull, Momoko Ishikawa, Masaki Ishikawa, Maki Kishida, Shota Momma, Philip Monahan, Shizuka Nakayama, Ayaka Negishi, Yuki Ito, Mio Izumi, Yu Izumi, Carolina Petersen, Daigo Shishika, Eri Takahashi, Hisako Takahashi, Masahiko Takahashi, Mahito Yamamoto, and Maki Yamane. Especially,Iowea massive debt to Da Fan and Angela Xiaoxue He, who are my room mates in my fifth year. Special thanks go to Ayaka Sugawara, Masako Imanishi, and Yusuke Imanishi for making my visit to Boston more enjoyable. Thanks extend to the following things: Semantic Valueball led by Valentine Hacquard and Alexander Williams, Norbert’s cookies, Maryland Terrapins men’s basketball team, Washington Wizards, and Greenbelt Lake. They made my Mary- land days special, delightful and unforgettable. Last but not least, my greatest thanks go to my family, Kazuhiro, Yoko, Hiroyuki, Chie, Hinata, Masanobu, Kiyomi, Daiju, Mayu, and Hiyori, for their love and support. Especially, I would like to thank Kenshi for his love, patience, encouragement and huge support in every way possible. iv Table of Contents List of Abbreviations viii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overvew.................................. 1 1.2 TheoryofPied-pipingofFormalFeatures. 2 1.3 Outline................................... 7 2 Theory of Generalized Pied-Piping of Formal Features 13 2.1 Overview.................................. 13 2.2 Proposal.................................. 13 2.3 Background of the Adopted Assumptions . 26 2.3.1 Locality condition on generalized pied-piping . 26 2.3.2 Anti-locality condition on movement . 34 2.4 Checking, Movement, and Generalized Pied-piping of Formal Fea- tures under the Current Framework . 43 2.4.1 Movement and generalized pied-piping of formal features un- derthecurrentframework . 45 2.4.2 Feature checking under the proposed framework . 51 2.5 Conclusion................................. 58 3 Pied-Piping and Wh-Agreement in Bantu 60 3.1 Overview.................................. 60 3.2 Lubukusu ................................. 67 3.2.1 Subject/Object asymmetry in extraction in Lubukusus . 67 3.2.2 Analysis . 75 3.2.3 Object extraction in Lubukusu . 84 3.2.4 Summary: Wh-agreement in Lubukusu . 101 3.2.5 Variations of Lubukusu-type languages . 106 3.3 Kilega ...................................111 3.3.1 Agreement pattern in Kilega . 112 3.3.2 Subject in-situ in non-subject extraction in Kilega . 118 3.3.3 Variation of Kilega-type languages . 122 v 3.4 Kinande ..................................127 3.4.1 AgreementpatterninKinande. .127 3.4.2 Subject as Topic in Kinande . 128 3.4.3 Analysis . 140 3.5 Conclusion.................................150 4 Uniform Analysis for Binding: A Case Study of English 152 4.1 Overview..................................152 4.2 PreviousStudies .............................154 4.3 Pied-Piping of φ-features and WCO Effects in English . 161 4.3.1 WCO effectsinobjectquestions . .164 4.3.2 WCO effects in long-distance (subject) extraction . 180 4.3.3 WCO effects in covert movement . 187 4.4 Absence of WCO Effects in English . 193 4.4.1 Raising constructions . 194 4.4.2 Locative inversion . 199 4.5 Summary: Presence/Absence of WCO Effects in Clause-internal Move- mentinEnglish..............................206 4.6 WeakestCrossover ............................207 4.7 Strong Crossover vs. Weak Crossover: Condition C . .220 4.8 Specific(D-linked)Wh-phrases . .235 4.9 Apparent Subject Reconstruction Effects in English . .243 4.10Conclusion.................................252 5 Cross-linguistic Difference in WCO Effects 254 5.1 Overview..................................254 5.2 PreviousStudy:Goto2014. .257 5.3 Languages without WCO EffectsinObjectFronting. .271 5.3.1 Absence of WCO effects in German and comparison with other Germaniclanguages . .. .. .273 5.3.2 Absence of WCO effects in Japanese-type languages . 288 5.3.3 Absence of WCO effects in Hungarian-type languages . 297 5.4 Conclusion.................................305 6 Scrambling and Variable Binding in Japanese 307 6.1 Overview..................................307 6.2 Asymmetry in Binding Effects between Clause-internal Scrambling andLong-distanceScrambling . .312 6.3 Long-distance A-scrambling: Non-finiteness vs. Covertness ofthe Subject ..................................319 6.3.1 Nemoto(1993) ..........................320 6.3.2 New observation: A-scrambling out of a finite clause . 323 6.3.3 Previous analyses in the GB theory . 333 6.3.4 Japanese scrambling as Adjunction . 339 6.3.5 Analysis: deriving the new generalization . 345 vi 6.4 Long-distance A-scrambling: Subject/Object Asymmetry . ....368 6.4.1 Takano(2010)...........................370 6.4.2 New observation: Subject-Object asymmetry in long-distance A-scrambling ...........................376 6.4.3 Analysis: deriving the final version of the generalization . 384 6.5
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]