Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:33:20.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Movement Chains at the Interfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Anna Maria Di Sciullo  and
Daniela Isac
Anna Maria Di Sciullo
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal
Daniela Isac
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that Agree is an asymmetric relation. According to Asymmetric Agree, if x Agrees with y, then the features of y must be properly included in the features of x. If the links of a chain created by movement are related by Agree, this correctly predicts the properties of syntactic movement chains. And if the links of a chain created by movement are subject to the Proper Inclusion Condition, that accounts for the (un)availability of extraction out of a moved XP. The following distinctions interact with Asymmetric Agree: whether movement is A or A-bar, whether or not the constituent extracted out of the moved phrase is selected by the head of that phrase, and whether movement is overt or covert. Syntactic movement is feature-structure preserving, in that the Proper Inclusion Condition applies to sets of features in a particular configuration.

Résumé

Résumé

Nous proposons que l’Accord est une relation asymétrique. Selon l’Accord Asymétrique, si x s’accorde avec y, les traits de y doivent être proprement inclus dans les traits de x. Si les deux liens d’une chaîne créée pour le déplacement sont reliés par Accord, ceci prédit correctement les propriétés syntaxiques des chaînes de déplacement. Et si les deux liens d’une chaîne créée par le déplacement sont sujets à la condition sur l’inclusion propre, ceci rend compte de l’(in)disponibilité de l’extraction depuis un constituant déplacé. Les distinctions suivantes sont sensibles à l’Accord Asymétrique : si le déplacement est de nature A/A-barre, si le consituant qui est extrait depuis un syntagme déplacé est sélectionné par la tête de ce sytangme et si le déplacement est perceptible ou abstrait. Le déplacement syntaxique est préservatif de la structure des traits en ce que la condition sur l’inclusion propre s’applique aux ensembles de traits dans une configuration particulière.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 53 , Issue 2-3 , November 2008 , pp. 181 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. MIT Dissertations in Linguistics BOBA01.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Wurmbrand, Suzi. 2005. The domain of agreement. Naturai Language and Linguistic Theory 23:809–865.10.1007/s11049-004-3792-4Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and cliains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1995. Lexico-logicalform. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo. 1999. A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica 53:40–67.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Culicover, P., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A., 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001a. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001b. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael J., 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases, in Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P., and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and Control. Linguistic inquiry 8:425–504.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1995. The theory of principles and parameters. In The Minimalist Program, ed. Chomsky, Noam, 13–127, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2001. Eliminating labels. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Nowak, Andrzej 2002. Markedness, antisymmetry and complexity of constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2:3–28.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, Paul, Ileana, and Somesfalean, Stanca, 2003. The clause structure of extraction asymmetries. In Asymmetry in grammar, vol. 1: Syntax and semantics, ed. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, 279–300. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 2005. Asymmetry in morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel, Groat, Erich, Kawashima, Ruriko, and Kitahara, Hitatsugu. 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David, and Seely, T. Daniel, eds. 2002. Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny, and Pesetsky, David. 2003. Cyclic linearization and the typology of movement. Paper read at Linguistic Society of America Summer Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny, and Pesetsky, David. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31, ed. Kiss, Katalin É., 1–46.Google Scholar
Groat, Erich, and O’Neil, John. 1996. Spell-out at the LF Interface. In Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the Minimalist framework, ed. Abraham, Werner, Epstein, Samuel D., Thráinsson, Höskuldur, and Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter, 189–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1995 Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1998. Movement and chains. Syntax 1:99–127.Google Scholar
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in Generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1977. Logical Form and conditions on rules. In Proceedings ofNELS VII, ed. Kegl, J., Nash, D., and Zaenen, A., 189–207. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo, and Uriagereka, Juan. 2000. Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3:20–43.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1997. Optimality Theory and syntax: Parallels with phonology. In Optimality Theoiy: An overview, ed. Archangeli, Diana and Langendoen, D. Terence, 134–170. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, ed. Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, Danny, Hagstrom, Paul, McGinnis, Martha, and Pesetsky, David, 337–383. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1972. On some rules that are not successive cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 3:211–222.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. Scope Freezing. In Proceedings of NELS 28, ed. Kusumoto, K., 169–182. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 1999. Erasability and interpretation. Syntax 2:161–188.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. Cyclic domains in syntactic theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple Spell-Out. In Working Minimalism, ed. Epstein, Samuel and Hornstein, Norbert, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vicente, Luis. 2004. Derived vs base generated OV. In Leiden Papers in Linguistics 1, ed. Arsenijevic, Boban, Elouazizi, Noureddine, Salzmann, Martin, and Vos, Mark de, 83–96.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth, and Culicover, Peter W.. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of verb movement: A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar