On Government
, J. Uriagereka 1988
This thesis explores the notion government within the Principles and Parameters model of Universal Grammar. Following Chomsky's proposals in Barriers, government is defined recursively, the induction step in terms of the notion barrier. This is used to account for phenomena that fall under (i) Case Theory, (ii) Movement operations and representations, (iii) Binding Theory.
Barrier is defined in terms of maximal functional projections headed by a morphologically represented category. The process of Head Incorporation, since it leaves behind a non-morphological element (t), eliminates a class of potential barriers. Another class is eliminated by preventing the functional projection from taking a specifier, which results in the projection being non-maximal. Given this relativization, the same notion barrier can be used in different sub-systems.
Analyses are presented of phenomena within the Romance Languages, English, Basque, and others, all of which involve government: Case assignment, Subjacency parameters, Multiple Questions, Modification, Cliticization, et cetera. Apart from simplifying considerably the Theory of Barriers, an attempt is made to derive Binding Theory from government-related notions, such as the Empty Category Principle and Incorporation.
Chapter 1: ON THE NOTION GOVERNMENT 1
1.1. Introduction 1
1.1.1. Rectio vs. Concors 2
1.1.2. The Case of Post-posed Subjects 5
1.1.2.1. The Case Transmission Hypothesis 6
1.1.2.2. Partitive Case 9
1.1.2.3. Two Different Types of Small Clauses 12
1.2. Some Principles 15
1.2.1. Specifiers and Projection 15
1.2.2. The Visibility Hypothesis 18
1.2.3. The Full Interpretation Principle 21
1.3. Case Assignment at S-structure 26
1.3.1. The Case of Inverted D-structure Subjects 27
1.3.2. Long Distance Assignment of Nominative 30
1.3.3. A Recursive Definition of Government 32
1.3.4. Conditions on Case Assignment 36
1.4. Incorporation under Government 40
1.4.1. The Case of Small Clauses 41
1.4.2. Visibility and Incorporation 46
1.4.3. Determiner Cliticization in Galician 47
1.4.4. Syntactic Incorporation as Composition 51
1.4.4.1. Argument Substitution 51
1.4.4.2. Case as a Marker of Argument-type 54
1.5. Summary 59
End Notes 62
Chapter 2: GOVERNMENT AND MOVE α 71
2.1. Conditions on Movement 71
2.1.1. Barriers for Wh-movement 71
2.1.1.1. Subjacency and Incorporation 73
2.1.1.2. Subjacency Violations in Instances
without Incorporation 80
2.1.1.3. Specifiers and Barriers 83
2.1.2. Parametric Differences in Subjacency 86
2.1.2.1. The Status of IP Barriers 88
2.1.2.2. The Status of CP Barriers 93
2.1.2.2.1. Relative Clause Formation
vs. Question Formation 94
2.1.2.2.2. The Structure of Comp 99
2.1.2.2.3. When F is Morphological 105
2.1.2.3. The Status of DP Barriers 110
2.1.3. Extraction from Non-compliments 114
2.1.3.1. Extraction from Subjects 115
2.1.3.1.1. Extraction from Sentence
Internal Subjects 115
2.1.3.1.2. Extraction from Extracted
Subjects 120
2.1.3.2. Extraction from Adjuncts 124
2.1.3.2.1. A Potential Loophole
in The Barriers System 125
2.1.3.2.2. S-structure Extraction from
Adjuncts is Impossible 129
2.1.3.2.3. Generalized Transformations
and Some Empirical
Problems 133
2.1.3.2.4. The Path Condition 145
2.1.4. Summary and Conclusions 151
2.1.4.1. Further Processes Predicted by Subjacency 152
2.1.4.2. Degrees of Grammaticality in Subjacency
Violations 156
2.1.4.3. Further Constraints on Links 158
2.2. The Empty Category Principle (ECP) 164
2.2.1. Motivating The ECP 164
2.2.1.1. Super Raising 164
2.2.1.2. A Statement of the ECP 167
2.2.2. The That-trace Effect 175
2.2.2.1. The Classical Instances and Some of
Their Analyses 175
2.2.2.2. An Alternative Analysis 181
2.2.3. Adjuncts 185
2.2.3.1. Lack of That-trace Effects in Adjuncts 185
2.2.3.2. Multiple Wh-questions 189
2.2.3.2.1. Two Interpretations of
Multiple Questions 190
2.2.3.2.2. The Semantics of
Incriminatory Questions 192
2.2.3.2.3. The Syntax of Incriminatory
vs. Inquisitory Questions 197
2.2.3.3. Adjunct Interpretation 200
2.2.3.3.1. A Problem for Adjunct
Movement at LF 200
2.2.3.3.2. Adjunct Tags 202
2.2.3.3.3. Modification 208
2.2.3.3.4. Relativized Minimality 210
2.2.3.3.5. The Scope of Wh-adjuncts 214
2.2.4. Incorporation 218
2.2.4.1. Consequences of Incorporation for the ECP 219
2.2.4.1.1. Lexical Government 219
2.2.4.1.2. Lack of That-trace Effects in
Romance 220
2.2.4.1.3. Incorporation of Traces 223
2.2.4.1.4. That-trace Effects at LF in
Romance 229
2.2.4.2. Consequences of the ECP for Incorporation 232
2.2.4.2.1. Syntactic vs. Morphological
Incorporation 233
2.2.4.2.2. The Syntax of Incorporation 238
2.2.4.2.3. A Further Constraint on
Morphological Incorporation 243
2.2.5. Arguments 246
2.2.5.1. Some Differences Between Propositional
Attitude and Volitional Clauses in Spanish 248
2.2.5.1.1. Differences in Incorporation 249
2.2.5.1.2. Differences in Complexity
(Part I) 250
2.2.5.1.3. Differences in Complexity
(Part II) 256
2.2.5.2. An Analysis and Its Consequences 260
2.2.5.3. Nominal Arguments 264
2.2.5.3.1. Wh-extraction 264
2.2.5.3.2. Extending The Extended
Projection Principle 266
2.2.5.3.3. A-positions 268
2.2.5.3.4. The Uniformity Condition 271
2.2.6. Summary 276
2.2.6.1. The Final Statement of The ECP 277
2.2.6.2. The Full Interpretation Principle and
The ECP 280
2.2.6.3. Non-arguments and The ECP 282
End Notes 284
Chapter 3: GOVERNMENT AND BINDING 307
3.1. Introduction 307
3.2. Binding Theory 309
3.2.1. The Standard Theory 309
3.2.2. What The Standard Theory Really Looks Like 315
3.2.2.1. The Level(s) of Application of The
Binding Theory 316
3.2.2.1.1. Condition A 316
3.2.2.1.2. Condition B 320
3.2.2.1.3. Condition C 325
3.2.2.2. The Structural Notions Defining Binding 328
3.2.2.2.1. C-command or
M-command? 329
3.2.2.2.2. What does Co-indexation
Really Mean? 329
3.2.2.3. Some Further Peculiarities of Condition C 335
3.2.2.4. A Precise Statement of The Binding
Theory 337
3.2.3. Domains of Possible Binding--A Revised Binding Theory 339
3.2.4. Letting The ECP Do Some Binding Work 343
3.3. Argument Cliticization in Romance 346
3.3.1. Third Person Clitic Morphology 346
3.3.2. Third Person Clitic Placement 349
3.3.2.1. Spanish 349
3.3.2.2. Galician 351
3.3.2.3. French 355
3.3.3. The Order of Clitics 358
3.3.3.1. Double Object Constructions in Galician 358
3.3.3.1.1. The Data 359
3.3.3.1.2. Dative Shift As
Passivization 363
3.3.3.2. An ECP Account 367
3.3.4. Clitic Climbing 373
3.3.4.1. Clitics as Scope Markers 374
3.3.4.1.1. A De Re vs. a De Dicto
Interpretation 374
3.3.4.1.2. The Scope Principle and
The Path Containment
Condition 378
3.3.4.1.3. Scope Interactions and
Clitic Climbing 382
3.3.4.2. Domains of Clitic Climbing 387
3.3.4.2.1. A Binding Theory Approach 387
3.3.4.2.2. The Local Binding Condition 390
3.3.4.2.3. Some Consequences of The
Local Binding Condition 392
3.3.4.3. Clitic Movement as Syntactic Incorporation 399
3.3.4.3.1. Clitics as Determiners 400
3.3.4.3.2. Reanalysis as LF
Incorporation 404
3.4. Binding Conditions Revisited 419
3.4.1. Condition A Effects 419
3.4.1.1. Anaphoric Clitics 419
3.4.1.1.1. Se/Si Comes First 420
3.4.1.1.2. Se/Si is a Subject 423
3.4.1.1.3. Local Binding as Antecedent
Government 425
3.4.1.1.4. An Exception to "Se/Si
Comes First" 427
3.4.1.1.5. Se/Si Is an Expletive 429
3.4.1.1.6. Indexation of Se/Si 430
3.4.1.1.7. Se/Si in Causative
Constructions 433
3.4.1.2. Subject Oriented Anaphors 437
3.4.1.3. Object Oriented Anaphors 440
3.4.1.4. Long Distance "Picture-DP" Anaphors 445
3.4.2. Condition B Effects 452
3.4.2.1. A Further Lack of Complementarity
between Pronominals and Anaphors 453
3.4.2.2. Volitional Predicates 456
3.4.2.2.1. Some Counterexamples 457
3.4.2.2.2. De Re Volitional Predicates 460
3.4.2.3. Exceptional Case Marking Sites 468
3.4.3. Condition C Effects 472
3.4.3.1. Determined vs. Open Nominals 473
3.4.3.2. Names vs. Variables 475
3.4.3.3. Condition C is Sensitive to Determiners 481
3.4.3.4. De Dicto vs. De Re and Condition C 488
3.4.3.5. Types of Antecedents of R-expressions 491
3.4.3.6. Variables and The Local Binding Condition 497
3.5. Conclusions and Further Questions 502
End Notes 506
REFERENCES 524