The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová

support in favor of the assumption that G-movement is dependent on head movement.
1.4 The boundedness of G-movement
In this section, I will explore the further predictions and consequences of restricting G-
movement by head movement, namely, differences in locality restrictions on G-movement
that depend on the movement properties of the relevant facilitating head.
First of all, since head movement is clause bounded, we expect G-movement to be
clause bounded as well. This is indeed correct. As we can see in the following examples,
given elements can move only to the edge of their own embedded clause, even if the matrix
clause introduces only new information.
(37) For a long time I didn’t know what was going on with Mary.
a. Ale pak mi bývalá spolužačka řekla, že Marie si vzala Petra.
but then me former classmate told that Marie.Nom REFL took Petr.Acc
‘But then a former classmate of mine told me that Marie got married to Petr.’
b. Ale pak mi bývalá spolužačka řekla, že Marii potkalo velké
but then me former classmate told that Marie.Acc met big
štěstí.
happiness
‘But then a former classmate of mine told me that Marie got extremely lucky.
(She won a lottery.)’
c. #Marii mi bývalá spolužačka řekla, že potkalo velké štěstí.
Marie.Acc me former classmate told that met big happiness
In this respect G-movement differs from both wh-movement and contrastive focus movement,
which are not clause bound, as can be seen in (38) and (39).
(38) Koho, že jsi říkala, že si Marie
whom.Acc that Aux-you said that REFL Marie.Nom
‘Whom did you say Marie is going to Mary?’
bude
will
brát?
take
(39) Pavla, jsem ti říkala, si bude brát Marie, ne Lucie.
Pavel.Acc Aux-I you.Dat said REFL will take Marie.Nom not Lucie.Nom
‘I’ve (already) told you that it is Pavel who is going to marry Marie not Lucie.’
If G-movement were only restricted to clause boundaries, one might come up with another
explanation. For example, one could argue that this follows from the fact that G-movement
is A-movement (see appendix A for details)sec:AMovement. If this were the right explanation,
we would not expect further locality restrictions. In contrast, if G-movement is
restricted by head movement, we predict that G-movement is also not possible out of infinitival
domains because the infinitive head cannot move out of the domain either. The
latter prediction is borne out, as can be seen in (40). The relevant verbal head is marked by
a box.
26