[ARTICLE ] EXTRAPOSITION AND CYCLIC SYNTAX MANABU MIZUGUCHI Nagano National College of Technology This paper explores extraposition from NP and claims that it provides evi- dence for the cyclic model of derivations proposed in the recent Minimalist Program. We propose that an extraposed phrase, which is base-adjoined, is interpretively associated with its host in the semantic component via cyclic Transfer. We show that the proposed analysis can give a natural account to attested properties of extraposition. Through our investigation, we dem- onstrate that our proposal not only endorses a Minimalist view of syntactic derivations but also has theoretical consequences for the way CHL constructs derivations, proposing a more derivationally oriented phase theory. We also argue that the proposed analysis straightforwardly explains well-formed sub- extraction from subjects.* Keywords: extraposition, base-adjunction, cyclic Transfer, phase syntax, sub- extraction from subjects 1. Introduction “Extraposition” is a name for the dislocation that moves a phrase to the right periphery of the sentence. Some illustrative examples of extraposition are the following: (1) a. A review [PP of this article] came out yesterday. b. A review came out yesterday [PP of this article]. (2) a. John read a book [PP on German linguistics] yesterday. b. John read a book yesterday [PP on German linguistics]. In (1b) and (2b), the bracketed PPs are dislocated from the subject and the object, respectively, to the end of the sentence. This paper investigates PP extraposition from NP (subjects and objects) in English as exemplified * For helpful comments, invaluable suggestions and constructive criticisms on earlier versions of this paper, I would like to thank Prof. Kinsuke Hasegawa, Prof. Hidekazu Suzuki, and especially, three anonymous EL reviewers. Needless to say, all remaining er- rors and inadequacies are my own. English Linguistics 26: 2 (2009) 293–328 －293－ © 2009 by the English Linguistic Society of Japan 294 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 26, NO. 2 (2009) in (1) and (2), and considers its properties and implications in an explana- tory framework of the Minimalist Program (MP) (Chomsky (1995), in par- ticular, Chomsky (2000) and his subsequent writings).1 We will claim that extraposition is evidence for the cyclic syntax envisioned in the MP. We will defend a non-movement analysis of extraposition advocated in Culi- cover and Rochemont (1990) and advancing their insight in a derivational framework, will propose that an extraposed phrase and its host DP are in- terpretively associated with each other via cyclic Transfer to the external components. We will demonstrate that the syntax, with its interaction with these interpretive components, explains known properties of extraposition in a principled way. In the course of our discussion, we will see that the pro- posed analysis not only endorses a Minimalist model of syntactic derivations but also has theoretical consequences for the way CHL (the computational system of human language) produces derivations. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we will provide theo- retical and empirical arguments against a movement analysis of extraposi- tion. In section 3, we will argue that extraposition is base-adjunction and claim that extraposition interpretation is warranted by an interpretive prin- ciple in the semantic component. In section 4, we will consider two re- strictions on extraposition and demonstrate that they straightforwardly follow from the proposed analysis. This section claims that extraposition interpre- tation applies cyclically by way of cyclic Transfer, which we will argue pro- vides evidence for the phase-based cyclic syntax proposed in the MP. In this discussion, we will propose a more derivationally oriented phase theory, as a consequence of which phases as a whole are Transferred. In section 5, we will show that well-formed sub-extraction from subjects is given a nat- ural account under the proposed analysis. In section 6, we will present the conclusion of this paper. 2. Extraposition from NP: Movement or Base-generation In this section, we will argue that movement is not involved in extraposi- tion. Since Ross’s (1967) formulation of extraposition as a transformational 1 Extraposition from NP includes PP extraposition as in (1) and (2), and CP extraposi- tion as in (i). In this paper, we restrict our discussion to PP extraposition (cf. fn. 27). (i) a. A man came into the room that no one knew. b. A report was made in public today that the ambassador was still in hiding. (Culicover and Rochemont (1990: 23)) EXTRAPOSITION AND CYCLIC SYNTAX 295 rule, a dominant view in the literature has been that an extraposed phrase is moved rightward to the end of the sentence, leaving its trace in the host DP, which allows the proper interpretation of the extraposed phrase. There are, however, theoretical (especially, in terms of the MP) and empirical argu- ments against this view. Below we will discuss them in turn. 2.1. Theoretical Arguments In the MP, where features are ineliminable and play a central role in determining the form and function of the basic operations of CHL, opera- tions are not free but motivated at each step and derivations proceed step by step through the local manipulation of uninterpretable features selected in functional heads; all syntactic operations follow the condition of last resort, which is an element of efficient computation. This shift of perspec- tive in the MP entails that there is no Move α (move anything anywhere anytime) but that every movement must have a trigger. Under this view of language design, rightward movement like extraposition goes against the last resort principle. Unlike other familiar instances of movement (e.g. subject raising, wh-movement), which are driven by morphological features such as φ, Case and wh, it is unclear what feature checking is involved in extraposition. Some may argue that there is an “extraposition feature.” It is unclear, however, to what extent this feature is independently motivated beyond extraposition, which casts doubt on the postulation of such a feature. To overcome this theoretical problem, one might resort to Fukui (1993), who claims that a movement operation which produces a structure consist- ent with the value of the head parameter is costless. Given that English is a head-initial language, rightward movement will be costless under Fukui’s proposal. This proposal, however, does not provide a fundamental solu- tion. This is because Merge, a structure building operation in the MP, simply pairs two syntactic objects together and does not specify their linear order in the newly formed object (Merge(α, β) → {γ, {α, β}}). Put dif- ferently, the head parameter is no longer a property of the syntax (but see Saito and Fukui (1998)). In addition to this problem, as we have already noted, Move α is disallowed in the MP and every movement is thus costly, whether a phrase moves leftward or rightward. 2.2. Empirical Arguments We now turn to some empirical arguments against a movement analysis of extraposition. The first empirical argument comes from the fact that ex- traposition is possible from subjects (= (1)). As illustrated in (3), movement 296 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 26, NO. 2 (2009) (sub-extraction) from subjects is disallowed: (3) a. * Whoi did [DP a picture of ti] please Bill? b. * Whoi did [DP stories about ti] terrify John? It has been well argued that the ungrammaticality of (3) is due to the Sub- ject Condition, which is descriptively stated as follows (Chomsky (1973), Huang (1982) among others): (4) Subject Condition Sub-extraction from subjects is prohibited. On the other hand, as we can see from (1b), extraposition is not subject to the Subject Condition. Since this condition seems to be an empirically robust generalization, the grammaticality of (1b), in contrast with the un- grammaticality of (3), suggests that movement is irrelevant to extraposition. The second argument is that extraposition, unlike subject raising and wh- movement, does not allow long distance movement and cannot be operated across clausal boundaries (Akmajian (1975), Ross (1967)). Consider the following examples: (5) a. * [Everyone believes [that [that a review will come out] is cer- tain] of this article]. b. * [Everyone believes [that [that a review will come out] is cer- tain of this article]]. c. [Everyone believes [that [that a review will come out of this article] is certain]]. (6) a. [Whati did you hear [that Sam thought [that Michael would sing ti]]]? b. [Garyi seemed [to appear [to be certain [to ti know the an- swer]]]]. Since extraposition cannot be considered as Case/φ-feature checking A- movement, it will be an instance of A′-movement under the familiar classification. Then if extraposition involves movement, long distance extraposition would be predicted to be possible just like wh-movement, thanks to successive-cyclic movement via [Spec, CP] (a so-called “escape hatch”). The ungrammaticality of (5a, b), however, shows that this is not borne out and that successive-cyclic movement is not available for extrapo- sition. A movement analysis would have to have some ad hoc stipulation to block long distance extraposition. On the other hand, if movement is extraneous to extraposition, the absence of long distance movement will be straightforward. Given that a long distance property is a hallmark of move- ment, the local nature of extraposition suggests that movement is irrelevant to extraposition. EXTRAPOSITION AND CYCLIC SYNTAX 297 The final argument comes from the directionality of movement. Extrapo- sition has been considered to be an instance of “rightward” movement. On the other hand, in typical instances of movement, XP moves leftward. On the assumption that linear orders are determined in the phonological compo- nent, this leftward-rightward distinction naturally follows if the movement of XP to the Spec of a head H in the syntax due to feature checking is an instruction to the phonological component that the XP must be linearized before H and its complement.