Movement in Minimalism, Class 6: Diagnosing A

Home , Extraposition, Topicalization

Movement in Minimalism, Class 6: 2.1 Intervening DPs ¯ Diagnosing A- and A-movement . A-movement¯ can always cross intervening DPs. July 25, LSA Summer Institute 2017 (1) A-movement¯ crosses DPs: a. Who did you talk to ? b. the man [that Jess said [Kim talked to ]] 1 The problem of the A/A-distinction¯ . A-movement often cannot cross an intervening DP. In the minimalist view, all structure-building is achieved by Merge. (2) A-movement doesn’t cross DPs: = All else being equal, all movement should make use of the same mecha- nisms⇒ , and be subject to the same constraints. a. It seems [Jess has seen Kim]. b. *Kim seems [Jess to have seen ]. c. I showed Sam a book. Problem: There are many diﬀerent types of movement! d. *A book was shown Sam . (except in some British English varieties!) . Wh-movement . extraposition . topicalization . Heavy NP shift A well-known point of variation: . relativization . particle shift English allows raising across experiencers: . passivization . scrambling . raising . ... (3) Raising across experiencers: a. Jess seems to Kim [ to be smart]. A particularly clear instance of this problem arises with the A/A-distinction¯ , or b. Jess struck Kim [as clever]. the observation that there are two classes of movements that show a consistent set of correlated properties, which goes back at least to Postal (1971). But other languages don’t:

. A-movement: passivization, raising, A-scrambling (4) Raising across experiencers is blocked in Italian: . A-movement:¯ wh-movement, relativization, topicalization, A-scrambling¯ a. Sembra a Maria che Gianni è stanco. seems to Maria that Gianni is tired ‘It seems to Maria that Gianni is tired.’ Focus today: What properties correlate with the A/A-distinction?¯ b. Gianni sembra (*a Maria) [ essere stanco]. Gianni seems to Maria to.be tired ‘Gianni seems (to Maria) to be tired.’ (Rizzi 1986) 2 Locality

One of the most striking diﬀerence between A- and A-movement¯ is their local- 2.2 Escaping DPs ity signature: . A-movement¯ can escape a DP. . A-movement¯ can cross or escape a DP, but A-movement cannot (most of (5) A-movement¯ out of a DP: the time) a. Who did you see [DP a picture of ]? . A-movement¯ can escape ﬁnite clauses, but A-movement cannot (most of b. What did you observe [DP the destruction of ]? the time)

1 . A-movement cannot escape a DP. (10) Raising only out of a ﬁnite clause in Zulu:

a. ku-bonakala [CP ukuthi iqhina i-zo-phuma embizeni]. (6) A-movement is banned out of a DP: 17s-seem that 5steinbok 5s-fut-exit 3cooking.pot ‘It seems that the secret will come out.’ a. *Sam was seen [ a picture of ]. DP b. iqhina li-bonakala [ ukuthi i-zo-phuma b. *The city was observed [ the destruction of ]. CP DP 5steinbok 5s-seem that 5s-fut-exit embizeni]. Again, languages vary in this regard. In a number of languages, like Nez 3cooking.pot Perce, possessor raising is available: ‘It seems that the secret will come out.’ (lit. ‘It seems that the steinbok will leave the cooking pot.’) (7) Possessor raising in Nez Perce: c.* iqhina li-bonakala [ uku-phuma embizeni]. 5 5s inf 3 a. Angel-nim Tatlo-na paa-‘yaxna’ny-aˆ [ taaqmaal]. steinbok -seem -exit cooking.pot Angel-erg Tatlo-obj 3/3-find-rem.past hat.nom ‘It seems that the secret will come out.’ ‘Angel found Tatlo’s hat.’ (lit. ‘It seems that the steinbok will leave the cooking pot.’) b. ’ew-’niiyey’-se Angel-ne [ pike] taaqmaal. (Halpert 2015:6) 3obj-give-imperf Angel-obj mother.nom hat.nom ‘I’m giving Angel’s mother a hat.’ *I’m giving the mother Angel’s hat.’ 2.4 Improper movement (Deal 2013:399,403) The ban on A-movement out a finite clause has often been linked to an or- dering asymmetry between A- and A-movement.¯ A-movement¯ can follow A-movement, but A-movement cannot follow A-movement:¯ 2.3 Escaping clauses (11) a. Who was hugged? . A-movement¯ can escape a finite clause. b. Who seems [ is smart]?

One of the famous properties of A-movement¯ in that it can escape all types (12) Ban on improper movement: ¯ of clauses in many languages: A-movement cannot follow A-movement.

(8) A-movement¯ out of a clause: a. Who did Jess say [that Kim saw ]? 3 What phrases move b. Who does it seem [ is smart]? . A-movement¯ is not restricted in category and permits pied-piping

. A-movement (often) cannot escape a ﬁnite clause. . A-movement is mainly limited to DPs and does not allow pied-piping

In contrast, A-movement is often limited to non-finite clauses: 3.1 Restriction to nominals (9) A-movement only out of a non-finite clause in English: . A-movement¯ displays no categorial restriction. a. Jess seems [ to be smart]. b. *Jess seems [ is smart]. Like A-movement, A-movement¯ is possible with DP of all types: c. Jess was believed [ to be smart]. d. *Jess was believed [ is smart]. (13) A-movement¯ of simplex and complex DP: a. [Which student] did Jess see ? However, languages like Zulu do permit raising out of a finite clause: b. [Who] did Jess say [she saw ]?

2 Adjectives and adverbs also undergo A-movement¯ (in English just predica- b.[ DP The president] is Kim. tive adjectives, because of the ban on Left Branch Extraction): c.[ DP The president] seems [ to be Kim].

(14) A-movement¯ of adjectives and adverbs: Then we can see that A-movement of an adjective is banned as well:

a.[ AdjP How proud of Sam] are you ? b.[ AdvP When] did Casey say [she was singing ]? (20) No A-movement of AdjP predicate:

a. Jess is [AdjP proud of Lee]. A-movement¯ of PPs is also ﬁne, both of arguments and adjuncts: b.[ AdjP Proud of Lee] is Jess. c.*[ AdjP Proud of Lee] seems [ to be Jess]. (15) A-movement¯ of PP:

a.[ PP To whom] did you give the book ? A-movement of a PP is also generally banned: b.[ PP Under the table], Jess said [that Kim is sleeping ]. (21) No A-movement of PP: And you can front VPs and CPs as well (remember also the examples of a.*[ To Kim] seemed [ that it was raining]. VP/CP pied-piping from last week!): PP CP b.*[ PP Under the table] was slept. (16) A-movement¯ of VP and CP: However, there are cases of Locative Inversion, in which a PP occupies a.[ VP Criticize Lee] I never will . the subject position (22a–b). Further A-movement is also possible (22c–d): b.[ CP That Sasha is smart], Kim said [he wouldn’t admit ]. (22) Locative inversion: = Every category can in principle undergo A-movement.¯ 1 ⇒ a.[ PP Down the hill] rolled a ball. b.[ PP To Kim] was given a book. . A-movement is restricted to nominals. c.[ PP Down the hill] seemed [ to roll a ball]. A-movement can be distinguished from A-movement¯ in that it is generally d.[ PP To Kim] seemed [ to have been given a book]. restricted to nominals, like (17a–b). There is no A-movement of VP, for example in a passive: (17) A-movement of simplex and complex DP: (23) No A-movement of VP: a.[ DP The student] was spotted in the library. a.*[ Criticized Lee] will have . b.[ DP She] seems [ to be very smart]. VP b.*[ VP Slept] will have been . A-movement of adverbs is impossible: Complement clauses appear to be able to participate in A-movement: (18) No A-movement of adverbs: (24) Passive and raising of CP: a.*[ AdjP Loudly] was screamed . b.*[ AdvP Clearly] seemed [that it was raining]. a.[ CP That Sasha is smart] seems [ to be true]. b.[ CP That the world is round] is widely believed . Only predicative adjectives allow A-movement,¯ so we have to look at environments in which predicates can A-move, like (19a–c): However, it has been questioned whether CPs really occupy argument positions, and not a dummy pronoun (e.g. Koster 1978; Alrenga 2005): (19) A-movement of DP predicate:

a. Kim is [DP the president]. (25) CPs don’t occupy an argument positions: a. *I believed [ that the world is round] [ to be true]. 1Although there may be locality restrictions that prevent certain constituents from ever moving CP (see, for example, Abels 2003 on TP fronting). b. *Is [CP that the world is round] true?

3 (See Claire’s class for much more!) = A-movement is categorically restricted, and only generally produc- I’ll argue for the following picture: tive⇒ with nominals. . A-movement¯ does not establish new binding relations, but permits coreference (see also Ruys 2004; Saﬁr 2015) 3.2 Pied-piping . A-movement can feed binding (except when it doesn’t) . A-movement¯ displays pied-piping. One of the distinctive properties of A-movement¯ is that a phrase undergo- 4.1 Strong and Weak Crossover ¯ ing A-movement can drag along material it is contained in. . A-movement¯ shows crossover eﬀects (Postal 1971; Wasow 1972), of at A-phrases¯ can pied-pipe prepositions, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs: least two types: Strong Crossover and Weak Crossover:

(26) Pied-piping of various categories: (29) Strong Crossover:

a.[ PP To [DP whom]] did you give a book ? a. Whoi believes shei is smart? b.[ DP [DP Whose] book] did Jess read ? b. *Whoi does shei believe [ is smart]? c.[ AdjP [How] proud of Jess] is Lee ? (30) Weak Crossover: d.[ AdvP [How] silently] did they chase each other ? a. Whoi believes [DP heri mother] is smart? Pied-piping of CPs and VPs is much more restricted in most languages b. *Whoi does [DP heri mother] believe [ is smart]? (Cable 2007; Heck 2009): . A-movement does not display Weak Crossover: (27) No pied-piping of CP and VP: (31) No Weak Crossover with A-movement: a.*[ VP Criticize what] I never will ? Shei seemed to heri mother [ to be smart]. b.*[ VP What criticize] I never will ? c.*[ What Jess saw] did Kim say ? CP Does A-movement display Strong Crossover? d.*[ CP That Jess saw what] did Kim say ? (32) Raising across a reflexive in Italian: . A-movement never allows pied-piping. *Giannii sii sembra [ non fare il suo dovere]. Pied-piping configurations are not found with A-movement. A DP cannot Gianni self seems not to.do the his duty undergo passivization and drag along a PP (28a). ‘Gianni seems to himself not to do his duty.’ Similarly, there are no A-movement configurations in which it is demon- (Rizzi 1986:70) strably the features of the possessor that trigger movement (for example, to establish subject-verb agreement), and the possessum is dragged along: See McGinnis (2004) for a proposal.

(28) A-movement does not trigger pied-piping: 4.2 Weakest Crossover a.*[ PP To me] seem(s) [CP that it was raining]. b.*[ DP [DP My] friend] seem [ to be smart]. Lasnik and Stowell (1991): Not all A-movements¯ seem to display Weak Crossover (33a–c), like tough-movement, topicalization, and nonrestrictive relatives: 4 Binding and crossover eﬀects (33) No Weak Crossover with some A-movements:¯

In this section, we’ll discuss diﬀerent crossover eﬀects, including Strong a. Whoi will be easy for us to get [DP hisi mother] to talk to ? Crossover, Weak Crossover, and Weakest Crossover. b. This booki, I expect [DP itsi author] to buy .

4 c. Geraldi, [whoi hisi mother loves ], is a nice guy. 4.3 New antecedents for anaphors (Lasnik and Stowell 1991:691,698) A-movement provides new antecedents for anaphors, but A-movement¯ does These diﬀer from wh-movement and restrictive relatives: not:

(34) Weak Crossover with wh-movement and restrictive relatives: (39) Only A-movement can feed anaphor binding:

a. *Whoi does [DP heri mother] believe [ is smart]? a. Hei seemed to himselfi [ to be getting sick]. b. *the womani [CP that [DP heri mother] believes [ is smart]] b. *Whoi did it seem to herselfi [that you should call ]?

Lasnik and Stowell call this Weakest Crossover. If anaphors require binding, then this could reduce to Ruys’s conclusions about Weak Crossover. Is there really a third type of movement for crossover? Postal (1993): Weak Crossover effects reappear with movement of a quantified 4.4 Back to Strong Crossover phrase. Ordinarily, topicalization of a quantified DP is degraded, but they are better with an additional restriction: So where does Strong Crossover come from? One idea is that Strong Crossover derives from Principle C, which works for (35) Topicalization of a quantified DP: cases like (40): a. *Every man, the mosquitos bit . b. Every other man, the mosquitos bit . (40) *Which studenti did hei say [ is smart]? c. Every man in the room, the mosquitos bit . But it’s not clear that this should rule out Strong Crossover with who. And you get Weak Crossover effects with these: Strong Crossover and Dahl’s paradigm (36) A topicalized quantified DP triggers Weak Crossover: Fox (2000) proposes that Strong Crossover derives from an independent con- a. Every woman in the roomi believes [the mosquitos bit heri straint on binding, Rule H. Rule H is motivated by Dahl’s paradigm (Dahl friend]. 1973, 1974). b. *Every woman in the roomi,[DP heri friend] believes [the mosquitos bit ]. (41) Johni knows that hei loves hisi mother and Bill does too. ¯ a. Strict-strict = Weak Crossover is not restricted to particular A-movement types, but to Bill knows that Bill loves Bill’s mother. A-movement¯ ⇒ of quantificational phrases. b. Sloppy-sloppy Bill knows that John loves John’s mother. Ruys (2004) (and also Safir 2015): The division between referential and quan- c. Sloppy-strict tificational phrases follows if Weak Crossover is a restriction on binding, and Bill knows that Bill loves John’s mother. not on coreference. If correct, Weak(est) Crossover just reduce to (37). d.* Strict-sloppy Bill knows that John loves Bill’s mother. (37) Ruys/Safir interpretation of Weak Crossover: A-movement¯ does not establish binding relations. = What is ruled out here is a configuration in which the lowest pronoun is bound⇒ by John across the highest pronoun. An open problem: This is blocked by Rule H, which attempts to relate this to economy: (38) Who were you convinced [ is a genius] [after reading her work]? i i (42) Rule H: A pronoun A can be bound by an antecedent B only if there is no closer antecedent C such that it is possible to bind A by C and get the same interpretation (of the minimal constituent containing A, B and C).

5 Now note that Strong Crossover involves the same conﬁguration as (41b), 5.1 Parasitic gaps binding across a coreferent pronoun. Rule H then might block such LFs as well. Some adjuncts are islands unless the clause they attach to contains a gap as well, giving rise to parasitic gaps:

4.5 If you’re not tired of crossover yet (47) Some adjuncts tolerate gaps if an additional gap is present: a. Which book did you read [after buying it]? A-phrases¯ in pied-piped phrases also participate in crossover! This is known as b. *Which book did you read it [after buying ]? Secondary Strong Crossover (43a–b), and Secondary Weak Crossover (44a–b): c. Which book did you read [after buying ]?

(43) Secondary Strong Crossover: Restrictions on parasitic gaps:

a. [Whosei friend] said [she is smart]? b. *[Whosei friend] did she say [ is smart]? . The real gap cannot c-command the parasitic gap: (44) Secondary Weak Crossover: (48) *Which book convinced you [to leave [after reading ]]? a. [Whosei friend] said [heri mother is smart]? b. *[Whosei friend] did heri mother say [ is smart]? . The adjunct must c-command the real gap: = Even A-phrases¯ embedded in pied-piped XPs act as binders. ⇒ (49)* Which book did you throw away [after keeping it on the book- shelf [without reading ]]? 4.6 Reconstruction for Principle C . A-movement does not license parasitic gaps: In the ﬁrst class, we discussed instances in which A-movement¯ reconstructs for Principle C: (50) *That book was read [after buying ].

(45) A-movement¯ appears to reconstruct for Principle C: = Parasitic gaps are found in adjuncts that attach along the path of A-¯ movement⇒ . a. *Shei dislikes that side of Alexi. b. *Which side of Alexi does shei dislike ? c. *[How proud of Sami] is hei? 5.2 Depictives

We also looked at some experimental evidence suggesting that this eﬀect can Depictives in the usual case can modify subjects or objects (51a–b): be fragile with non-predicates (Adger et al. 2016; Bruening & Al-Khalaf 2017). (51) Depictives can refer to subjects and direct objects: A-movement deﬁnitely doesn’t display reconstruction for Principle C: Sami hugged Tedk drunki/k.

(46) No reconstruction for Principle C with A-movement: Depictives display some restrictions (e.g. Marušič, Marvin, and Žaucer 2008). In English, depictives cannot refer to an indirect object in (52a),2 or the com- a. *It seems to her [that this side of Alex is hidden]. i i plement of a preposition in (52b). b. This side of Alexi seems to heri [ to be hidden]. (52) Depictives in English cannot modify indirect objects and complements of P: a. Sam gave Ted coﬀee drunk . 5 Parasitic gaps and depictives i k i/*k 2Unless a light verb give is used, as in (i). See Bruening 2015 for a proposal for ditransitive structure that provides an account of this. . A-movement¯ is capable of licensing parasitic gaps, but not depictives (i) The nurse gave the patient his medication asleep . . A-movement licenses depictives, but not parasitic gaps i i

6 b. Sami danced with Tedk drunki/*k. References Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Doctoral If the indirect object or complement of P moves to Spec-TP, A-movement may dissertation, UConn. create novel interpretations for depictives (Koizumi (1994): Adger, David, Drummond, Alex, Hall, David, and Coppe van Urk. 2016. Is there Condition C reconstruction? Poster presented at NELS 47. (53) Depictives are licensed by A-movement: Alrenga, Peter. 2005. A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for a. Tedk was given coffee drunkk. complement selection. Syntax 8:175–207. b. Tedk was danced with drunkk. Bruening, Benjamin. 2015. Depictive secondary predicates, light verb give, and theories of Double Object Constructions. Ms., University of Delaware. However, A-movement¯ does not license a depictive: Bruening, Benjamin, and Eman Al-Khalaf. 2017. No argument-adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C. Manuscript, University of Delaware and (54) Depictives are not licensed by A-movement:¯ University of Jordan. Cable, Seth. 2007. The grammar of Q: Q-particles and the nature of Wh-fronting, as revealed a. Whok did Sami give coffee drunki/*k? b. Who did Sam danced with drunk ? by the Wh-questions of Tlingit. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. k i i/*k Dahl, Östen. 1973. On so-called sloppy identity. Synthese 26:81–112. Like parasitic gaps, depictives can be licensed on the path of movement (55a–b). Dahl, Östen. 1974. How to open a sentence: Abstraction in natural language. In Logical grammar reports, volume 12. University of Götenburg. (55) Depictives are licensed by intermediate A-movement: Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44:391–432. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and scope. MIT Press. Ted turned out [ to have been told all the secrets drunk ]. k TP k Halpert, Claire. 2015. Raising hell. Ms, University of Minnesota. Heck, Fabian. 2009. On certain properties of pied-piping. Linguistic Inquiry 40:75–111. = Depictives attach along the path of A-movement. ⇒ Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1994. Secondary predicates. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3:25–79. Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don’t exist. In Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. by Samuel Jay Keyser, 53–64. MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard, and Tim Stowell. 1991. Weakest Crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22:687– 720. 6 Summary Marušič, Frank, Tatjana Marvin, and Žaucer, Rok. 2008. Depictive secondary predication with no PRO. In Formal description of Slavic languages, ed. by Gerhild Zybatow, Luka Szucsich, Uwe Junghanns and Roland Meyer, 423–434. Peter Lang. A-movement A-movement¯ McGinnis, Martha. 2004. Lethal ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 35:47–95. Postal, Paul. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. cannot cross or escape DP/CP can cross and escape DP/CP Postal, Paul. 1993. Remarks on Weak Crossover effects. Linguistic Inquiry 24:539–556. ¯ cannot follow A-movement can follow A-movement Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. On chain formation. In The syntax of pronominal clitics, ed. by Hagit restricted to nominals not categorically restricted Borer, 65–95. New York: Academic Press. no pied-piping participates in pied-piping Ruys, Eddy. 2004. A note on Weakest Crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 35:124–140. establishes binding cannot establish binding Safir, Ken. 2015. The A/A-distinction¯ as an epiphenomenon. LingBuzz, ling- no reconstruction for Principle C reconstruction for Principle C buzz/002798. licenses depictives licenses parasitic gaps Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.