Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality and Adposition Stranding

K. Abels, 2003

for $22.95 x

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction (9)

Chapter 2: From Subjacency to Anti-locality (15)

                 2.1 The theory of movement and punctuated paths (16)

                                   2.1.1 Uniform versus Punctuated Paths (18)

                                   2.1.2 Reconstruction: Is it nowhere, everywhere, or just somewhere along the path? (22)

                                   2.1.3 Punctuated Paths! (26)

                                   2.1.4 Conclusion (33)

                 2.2 Escape Hatches (34)

                                   2.2.1 Punctuated Paths and the Null Hypothesis (37)

                                   2.2.2 Escape Hatches and Locality (38)

                                   2.2.3 Phases: Cyclic Spell Out vs. the Present View (62)

                                   2.2.4 Conclusion (75)

                 2.3 On the Nature of C-command (76)

                                   2.3.1 C-command (78)

                                   2.3.2 Movement (84)

                                   2.3.3 Closer (88)

                                   2.3.4 Conclusion (90)

                 2.4 Anti-locality (91)

                                   2.4.1 Feature Satisfaction (93)

                                   2.4.2 Last Resort and beyond (102)

                                   2.4.3 Conclusion (111)

                 2.5 Pulling Together the Threads (111)

Chapter 3: Co, vo, and anti-locality (114)

                 3.1 TP immobility under Co (116)

                                   3.1.1 TPs do not strand Co (116)

                                   3.1.2 TPs are mobile in principle (121)

                                   3.1.3 Some non-cases of TP-movement (123)

                                   3.1.4 Consequences (131)

                                   3.1.5 Conclusion (138)

                 3.2 VP immobility under vo (139)

                                   3.2.1 VPs are mobile (140)

                                   3.2.2 VPs do not strand vo (144)

                                   3.2.3 Conclusion (148)

                 3.3 Conclusion (149)

Appendix: Why do TPs move so little? (149)

Chapter 4: Anti-locality and the ban against adposition stranding (157)

                 4.1 The Stranding Generalization in non-P-stranding languages (159)

                                   4.1.1 Subextraction in Russian (160)

                                   4.1.2 Left Branch Extraction in Slavic (161)

                                   4.1.3 Combien-split in French (174)

                                   4.1.4 Subcomparatives into PP (176)

                                   4.1.5 Conclusion (177)

                 4.2 On the diagnosis of P-stranding (178)

                                   4.2.1 On How to Distinguish Traces from (null) Resumptive Pronouns (179)

                                   4.2.2 Frisian (186)

                                   4.2.3 Conclusion (192)

                 4.3 No P-stranding in German and Dutch! (192)

                                   4.3.1 R-R-pronouns-pronouns? (196)

                                   4.3.2 Are R-words Po-complements (201)

                                   4.3.3 So what are R-words? And where? (205)

                                   4.3.4 Extraction out of PP in German (210)

                 4.4 Pronominal Clitics as the complement of Po (217)

                 4.5 On the nature of P-stranding (230)

                                   4.5.1 The P-stranding generalizations (230)

                                   4.5.2 The Current Approach (233)

                                   4.5.3 Previous Approaches (240)

                                   4.5.4 Conclusion (259)

                 4.6 Conclusion (260)

Chapter 5: Head Movement and Anti-locality (262)

                 5.1 Head Movement (264)

                                   5.1.1 The The-higher-the-bigger-Theorem (264)

                                   5.1.2 Head Movement in Mirror Theory Brody 2000 (266)

                 5.2 *{Q/Adv} – E-site (271)

                                   5.2.1 Sags Generalization (273)

                                   5.2.2 The Radical Emptiness Account of Sags Generalization (274)

                 5.3 The Account (276)

                 5.4 Conclusion (283)

Chapter 6: Conclusion (285)

References (287)

Abstract

This thesis studies movement operations in natural languages. It is observed that certain heads – Co, vo, and, in most languages, Po – cannot be stranded; the complements of these heads never move without pied-piping the heads in question. This is surprising since (a) extraction out of CP, vP, and PP is possible in principle and (b) the complement categories of these heads, TP, VP, and DP or PP, are movable. Evidence for the more contentious of these claims is provided in chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 4 also investigates the ramifications of these facts for theories of adposition stranding. All heads in question have independently been argued to project what Chomsky (2000) calls phases. The generalization is that phase heads cannot be stranded.

                 Chapter 2 derives the ban against stranding phase heads within a derivational model of the grammar. The effect of phases on successive cyclicity is the following: To be licit, movement out of a phase must pass through the specifier position of that phrase. The idea of the account is that every step of movement must establish a relation between the moved item and some other element in the phrase marker which is in a well-defined sense closer than the relation they were in prior to movement. Movement from complement within the same phrase is in effect too short to achieve this. There are then well-defined anti-locality effects, which fallout from considerations of local economy.

                 The ban against stranding phase heads now follows. A category can leave its containing phase only be passing through its specifier position. Since complements cannot reach the specifier position in the same phrase, the complements of phase heads cannot move away.

                 Head Movement is prohibited by the same economy based reasoning. Chapter 5 focuses on Head Movement, advocating a version of Brodys (2000) Mirror Theory. In contrast to standard theories of Head Movement, Mirror Theory predicts what looks like downward Head Movement to be possible. Data from VP-ellipsis in English show that this prediction of Mirror Theory is correct.