Unbounded Successive-Cyclic Rightward MovementJason Overfelt, University of Massachusetts Amherst1. Introduction. The existence of rightward movement faces at least two serious challenges.First, Ross (1967) argued that it is subject to stricter locality conditions than, for <strong>in</strong>stance, whmovement.Second, Akmajian (1975) argued that rightward movement is not obviously successivecyclic<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> way that wh-movement is often taken to be (cf. Chomsky 1977). This paper arguesthat rightward DP-movement actually displays both of <strong>the</strong>se properties given appropriate licens<strong>in</strong>gconditions. In particular, rightward movement can apply successive-cyclically <strong>in</strong> a potentiallyunbounded fashion when licensed by a parasitic gap as <strong>in</strong> (1), adapted from Engdahl (1983).(1) John offended e by not recogniz<strong>in</strong>g pg immediately – my favorite uncle from Cleveland.2. The Nature of <strong>the</strong> Displacement Operation. Based on <strong>the</strong> presence of derived island effects(Wexler & Culicover 1980) and non-sensitivity to <strong>the</strong> Right Edge Restriction Wilder (Wilder1999), <strong>the</strong> paper argues that structures like (1) are not derived via Right Node Rais<strong>in</strong>g (cf. Postal1994, a.o.), but by rightward DP-movement. Start<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong> observation by (Larson 1989) thata parasitic gap is obligatory when a DP is displaced rightward over an adjunct clause (2), <strong>the</strong>movement operation is suggested to be licensed by <strong>the</strong> parasitic gap.(2) Sam stole e because Kim wouldn’t buy [pg/*anyth<strong>in</strong>g] for him – an autographed pictureof Jonathan Frakes.Diagnostics <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g VP-ellipsis, VP-front<strong>in</strong>g, and a form of antecedent-conta<strong>in</strong>ed deletionsuggest that only adjunct clauses adjo<strong>in</strong>ed above <strong>the</strong> locus of typical focus-driven Heavy-NP Shiftat <strong>the</strong> edge of vP require <strong>the</strong> parasitic gap. Thus, <strong>the</strong> parasitic gap <strong>in</strong> (1) and (2) is licens<strong>in</strong>gadditional movement beyond Heavy-NP Shift <strong>in</strong> violation of <strong>the</strong> Right Roof Constra<strong>in</strong>t (3).(3) RIGHT ROOF CONSTRAINT (adapted from McCloskey 1999)Rightward movement may move a DP to <strong>the</strong> right edge of <strong>the</strong> vP that most immediatelyconta<strong>in</strong>s X, but no fur<strong>the</strong>r.3. Type-Driven Rightward Movement. The paper proposes a <strong>the</strong>ory for <strong>the</strong> derivation ofrightward DP-movement and parasitic gaps that achieves <strong>the</strong> representation for parasitic gap licens<strong>in</strong>gproposed <strong>in</strong> Nissenbaum (2000) but allows a parasitic gap to license movement beyondvP accord<strong>in</strong>g to local economy considerations. The parasitic gap doma<strong>in</strong> is a null-operator structure,and thus a 〈et〉 predicate, which is merged cyclically to <strong>the</strong> type t matrix clause. Rightwardmovement is allowed because it converts <strong>the</strong> matrix clause to a derived predicate, which allowsit to compose via predicate conjunction with <strong>the</strong> parasitic gap doma<strong>in</strong>. This repair strategy ismade possible by a logical extension of <strong>the</strong> operation Merge based on <strong>the</strong> ideas that Merge canbe counter-cyclic (Lebeaux 1988, a.o.) and should be decomposed <strong>in</strong>to a number of smaller operations(Hornste<strong>in</strong> 2009). I propose a sub-type of Merge called Mixed Merge, which has beendecomposed <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> steps <strong>in</strong> (4).(4) XP : ?? =⇒ XP : ?? =⇒ XP : tvP : tAdjunctP : 〈et〉XP : ??DPXP : 〈et〉DPv 0VP Op... pg...vP : t AdjunctP : 〈et〉vP : 〈et〉AdjunctP : 〈et〉V 0DPv 0V 0VP Op... pg...ev 01VPV 0 e 1Op... pg...1
The operation that establishes a sisterhood relation between syntactic objects cyclically comb<strong>in</strong>esa copy of <strong>the</strong> DP with <strong>the</strong> matrix clause to extend <strong>the</strong> tree. However, <strong>the</strong> operation that <strong>in</strong>sertsa b<strong>in</strong>der <strong>in</strong>dex after movement applies counter-cyclically to change <strong>the</strong> vP node <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> needed〈et〉 derived predicate. Thus, this movement, like quantifier rais<strong>in</strong>g, is type-driven.4. Consequences and Predictions. This analysis straightforwardly accounts for <strong>in</strong>stances of aparasitic gap <strong>in</strong> an adjunct not <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same clause where <strong>the</strong> rightward moved DP orig<strong>in</strong>ates (5).(5) Tim th<strong>in</strong>ks [that Pam already bought e] because he knows she loved pg thoroughly –<strong>the</strong> documentary about Bengal tigers.This fact, <strong>in</strong> conjunction with <strong>the</strong> more basic obviations of <strong>the</strong> Right Roof Constra<strong>in</strong>t like <strong>in</strong> (2),suggests that rightward DP-movement is not subject to unique locality conditions and is potentiallyunbounded, just like wh-movement, when <strong>the</strong> appropriate licens<strong>in</strong>g conditions are present.It is also possible for a parasitic gap to simultaneously appear <strong>in</strong> an adjunct clause below and<strong>in</strong> an adjunct clause above negation (6).(6) Sam didn’t buy e before tast<strong>in</strong>g pg because he didn’t like pg last time – <strong>the</strong> Germanpotato salad at this deli.“Because Sam didn’t like <strong>the</strong> potato salad last time, it’s not <strong>the</strong> case that he bought itbefore he tasted it.”Given <strong>the</strong> analysis be<strong>in</strong>g proposed, <strong>the</strong> displaced DP must have ultimately moved beyond <strong>the</strong> vPand above negation. But it also must have moved cyclically through a position above each adjunct<strong>in</strong> order to repair <strong>the</strong> type mismatch between <strong>the</strong> parasitic gap doma<strong>in</strong> and <strong>the</strong> matrix clause.As a f<strong>in</strong>al po<strong>in</strong>t, it was noted above that this system allows <strong>the</strong> rightward movement to belicensed by a local economy constra<strong>in</strong>t on movement. This is a desirable property of <strong>the</strong> currentanalysis that <strong>the</strong> paper argues is absent from <strong>the</strong> pure late-merge analysis <strong>in</strong> Nissenbaum (2000).As Nissenbaum notes, a parasitic gap is required <strong>in</strong> every adjunct clause that <strong>the</strong> DP moves past.This is also true when <strong>the</strong> adjuncts are adjo<strong>in</strong>ed to different doma<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> (7) below, just as above.(7) Sam didn’t buy e before tast<strong>in</strong>g [pg/*<strong>the</strong> sample] because he didn’t like pg last time –<strong>the</strong> German potato salad at this deli.“Because Sam didn’t like <strong>the</strong> potato salad last time, it’s not <strong>the</strong> case that he bought itbefore he tasted <strong>the</strong> sample.”If a global economy constra<strong>in</strong>t licensed this movement, one would predict that a s<strong>in</strong>gle parasiticgap <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> higher adjunct should be enough to license <strong>the</strong> rightward displacement <strong>in</strong> (7).5. Conclusion. To conclude, this paper not only supports <strong>the</strong> existence of rightward movement,but demonstrates its potential unboundedness (a result reached <strong>in</strong>dependently for Right NodeRais<strong>in</strong>g constructions by Sabbagh 2007) and its successive-cyclic application. These supposeddifferences between rightward DP-movement and wh-movement, <strong>the</strong>n, are only apparent. The rema<strong>in</strong>derof <strong>the</strong> paper spells out <strong>the</strong> claim that <strong>the</strong> true difference between rightward DP-movementbeyond typical Heavy-NP Shift and wh-movement lies purely <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir licens<strong>in</strong>g conditions.References. Akmajian, A. 1975. LI 6:115–129. Chomsky, N. 1977. In Formal Syntax. Engdahl,E. 1983. <strong>L<strong>in</strong>guistics</strong> and Philosophy 6:5–34. Hornste<strong>in</strong>, N. 2009. A Theory of Syntax:M<strong>in</strong>imal Operations and Universal Grammar. Larson, R. 1989. In Lexicon Project Work<strong>in</strong>g Papers,Volume 27. Lebeaux, D. 1988. Doctoral Dissertation, UMass, Amherst, MA. McCloskey,J. 1999. Syntax 2:189–209. Nissenbaum, J. 2000. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Postal, P. 1994. LI 25:63–117. Ross, J.R. 1967. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Sabbagh, J. 2007. NLLT 25:349–401. Wexler, K. & P. Culicover. 1980. Formal Pr<strong>in</strong>ciples ofLanguage Acquisition. Wilder, C. 1999. In Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of WCCFL 18.2
- Page 1 and 2:
GLOW Newsletter #70, Spring 2013Edi
- Page 3 and 4:
INTRODUCTIONWelcome to the 70 th GL
- Page 5:
Welcome to GLOW 36, Lund!The 36th G
- Page 8 and 9:
REIMBURSEMENT AND WAIVERSThe regist
- Page 10 and 11:
STATISTICS BY COUNTRYCountry Author
- Page 12 and 13:
15:45-16:00 Coffee break16:00-17:00
- Page 14 and 15:
14:00-15:00 Adam Albright (MIT) and
- Page 16 and 17:
17:00-17:30 Anna Maria Di Sciullo (
- Page 18 and 19:
16.10-16.50 Peter Svenonius (Univer
- Page 20 and 21:
GLOW 36 WORKSHOP PROGRAM IV:Acquisi
- Page 22 and 23:
The impossible chaos: When the mind
- Page 24 and 25:
17. Friederici, A. D., Trends Cogn.
- Page 26 and 27:
Second, tests replicated from Bruen
- Page 28 and 29:
clusters is reported to be preferre
- Page 30 and 31:
occur (cf. figure 1). Similar perfo
- Page 32 and 33:
argument that raises to pre-verbal
- Page 34 and 35:
Timothy Bazalgette University of
- Page 36 and 37:
. I hurt not this knee now (Emma 2;
- Page 38 and 39:
Rajesh Bhatt & Stefan Keine(Univers
- Page 40 and 41:
SIZE MATTERS: ON DIACHRONIC STABILI
- Page 42 and 43:
ON THE ‘MAFIOSO EFFECT’ IN GRAM
- Page 44 and 45:
The absence of coreferential subjec
- Page 46 and 47:
PROSPECTS FOR A COMPARATIVE BIOLING
- Page 48 and 49:
A multi-step algorithm for serial o
- Page 50 and 51:
Velar/coronal asymmetry in phonemic
- Page 52 and 53:
On the bilingual acquisition of Ita
- Page 54 and 55:
Hierarchy and Recursion in the Brai
- Page 56 and 57:
Colorful spleeny ideas speak furiou
- Page 58 and 59:
A neoparametric approach to variati
- Page 60 and 61:
Lexical items merged in functional
- Page 62 and 63:
Setting the elements of syntactic v
- Page 64 and 65:
Language Faculty, Complexity Reduct
- Page 66 and 67:
Don’t scope your universal quanti
- Page 68 and 69:
Restricting language change through
- Page 70 and 71:
4. Conclusion This micro-comparativ
- Page 72 and 73:
2. Central Algonquian feature hiera
- Page 74 and 75:
availability of the SR reading in (
- Page 76 and 77:
Repairing Final-Over-Final Constrai
- Page 78 and 79:
a PF interface phenomenon as propos
- Page 80 and 81:
(b) Once the learner has determined
- Page 82 and 83: cognitive recursion (including Merg
- Page 84 and 85: can be null, or lexically realized,
- Page 86 and 87: feature on C and applies after Agre
- Page 88 and 89: Nobu Goto (Mie University)Deletion
- Page 90 and 91: Structural Asymmetries - The View f
- Page 92 and 93: FROM INFANT POINTING TO THE PHASE:
- Page 94 and 95: Some Maladaptive Traits of Natural
- Page 96 and 97: Constraints on Concept FormationDan
- Page 98 and 99: More on strategies of relativizatio
- Page 100 and 101: ReferencesBayer, J. 1984. COMP in B
- Page 102 and 103: Improper movement and improper agre
- Page 104 and 105: Importantly, while there are plausi
- Page 106 and 107: This hypothesis makes two predictio
- Page 108 and 109: (3) a. Það finnst alltaf þremur
- Page 110 and 111: (2) Watashi-wa hudan hougaku -wa /*
- Page 112 and 113: However when the VP (or IP) is elid
- Page 114 and 115: More specifically, this work reflec
- Page 116 and 117: modality, or ii) see phonology as m
- Page 118 and 119: (I) FWHA The wh-word shenme ‘what
- Page 120 and 121: 1The historical reality of biolingu
- Page 122 and 123: Rita Manzini, FirenzeVariation and
- Page 124 and 125: Non-counterfactual past subjunctive
- Page 126 and 127: THE GRAMMAR OF THE ESSENTIAL INDEXI
- Page 128 and 129: Motivating head movement: The case
- Page 130 and 131: Limits on Noun-suppletionBeata Mosk
- Page 134 and 135: Same, different, other, and the his
- Page 136 and 137: Selectivity in L3 transfer: effects
- Page 138 and 139: Anaphoric dependencies in real time
- Page 140 and 141: Constraining Local Dislocation dial
- Page 142 and 143: A Dual-Source Analysis of GappingDa
- Page 144 and 145: [9] S. Repp. ¬ (A& B). Gapping, ne
- Page 146 and 147: of Paths into P path and P place is
- Page 148 and 149: Deriving the Functional HierarchyGi
- Page 150 and 151: Reflexivity without reflexivesEric
- Page 152 and 153: Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of b
- Page 154 and 155: on v, one associated with uϕ and t
- Page 156 and 157: Merge when applied to the SM interf
- Page 158 and 159: 1 SachsThe Semantics of Hindi Multi
- Page 160 and 161: Covert without overt: QR for moveme
- Page 162 and 163: Morpho-syntactic transfer in L3 acq
- Page 164 and 165: one where goals receive a theta-rel
- Page 166 and 167: 51525354555657585960616263646566676
- Page 168 and 169: follow Harris in assuming a ranked
- Page 170 and 171: changing instances of nodes 7 and 8
- Page 172 and 173: Sam Steddy, steddy@mit.eduMore irre
- Page 174 and 175: Fleshing out this model further, I
- Page 176 and 177: (5) Raman i [ CP taan {i,∗j}Raman
- Page 178 and 179: properties with Appl (introduces an
- Page 180 and 181: econstruct to position A then we ca
- Page 182 and 183:
(5) Kutik=i ez guret-a.dog=OBL.M 1S
- Page 184 and 185:
sults summarized in (2) suggest tha
- Page 186 and 187:
Building on Bhatt’s (2005) analys
- Page 188 and 189:
Underlying (derived from ON) /pp, t
- Page 190 and 191:
out, as shown in (3) (that the DP i
- Page 192 and 193:
Word order and definiteness in the
- Page 194 and 195:
Visser’s Generalization and the c
- Page 196 and 197:
the key factors. The combination of
- Page 198 and 199:
Parasitic Gaps Licensed by Elided S
- Page 200 and 201:
Stages of grammaticalization of the