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