Earliness Principle - Lear

More documents

Recommendations

Info

-24- effects are derived from the ECP, and the HMC as a descriptive generalization is, in certain cases, argued to be wrong. The other assumptions are open to similar challenges. Consider first Case-opacity. Case-opacity might not be a property of movement, but rather a property of chains _____ created by movement. This alternative view might be summarized as in (88): (88) A chain that contains a Case-opaque position may not contain a position from which Case is assigned. Suppose that µ, contrary to my arguments above, is _ an obligatorily present position. Consider the hypothesis that a trace in µ can be deleted. If a trace in µ could delete before condition (88) applies, we would still be able to maintain the hypothesis that movement to INFL stops in µ in the face of the absence of Case-opacity effects on movement to INFL. Example (89) shows the derivation: (89) V-to-µ a. INFL [ µ e] [ VP V… ————-> V-to-I b. INFL [ µ V i ] [ VP t i… ————-> µ-deletion c. V i -INFL [ µ t i [ VP t i… ————-> d. V i -INFL [ µ ∅ [ VP t i… satisfies (88) It is worth noting, however, that µ now accomplishes nothing as a filter on movement to I, since the effects of Case-opacity are nullified by µ-deletion before (88). A flowchart of questions and possible conclusions can be produced: W e need to ask (A) whether there is any independent evidence for µ as an obligatory constituent of IP. If the answer to is no, then we need to ask (B) whether there is at least any independent evidence against or in favor of µ-deletion. If there is evidence in favor of µ-deletion, then (C) the alternative view of Case-opacity effects shown above becomes plausible. If there is evidence neither against nor for µ-deletion, we need to ask (D) whether µ-deletion at least constitutes some sort of null hypothesis. If there is evidence against µ-deletion (and no independent evidence in favor of the obligatory status of µ), then we may conclude (E) that the alternative sketched in (89) is implausible. The answer to question (A) seems to be no, as we have seen above, but the answer to question (B), according to Chomsky (1989), is yes. Chomsky argues that deletion of µ plays a crucial role in the derivation of grammatical structures which satisfy the ECP but violate Travis’s HMC. Recall some of the basic properties of Chomsky’s system, shared by the system I have been outlining as well: 1. Lasnik’s filter requires I to participate in an adjoined structure containing V. 2. The filter is satisfied by V-to-I Raising whenever this is possible; V-to-I Raising is only possible for verbs of the have ___ _ or be __ class, due to θ-opacity. 3. Where V-to-I Raising is impossible, lower I-to-V. Except in the case where T may be deleted, the ECP motivates subsequent LF Raising to T. 4. Where Raising at LF is blocked, do __ may be inserted in I in the syntax. 5. What can block Raising at LF: a NegP with a filled head: [ Te] __ Neg [ VV AGR-S T]? Now consider examples like (90a-b):
-25- (90)a. Bill has i not t i been reading his assignments. b. Sue is i not t i happy. Granted that Raising at LF past Negation is impossible (as noted in point 5 above), why is Raising at S-structure possible? This is where the replacement of Travis’s HMC with the ECP is relevant, and where Chomsky makes crucial use of µ-deletion. Chomsky’s suggests that the impossibility of movement over Negation at LF _ _ is due to the ECP. Chomsky here adopts P ollock’s idea that Neg heads its own maximal projection. The possibility of movement over Neg at S-structure _________ is explained as follows: have ___ _ or be __ moves from its underlying position over Neg to INFL in two steps. First, have ___ _ or be __ moves to µ, and then it moves from µ to INFL: (91) Bill [ INFL have i +INFL] not [ µ t’ i ] t i left. The trace in µ, t’, _ antecedent-governs t _ _i. As a consequence, t’ _ assigns [+γ] to _t. This allows _t to satisfy the ECP at LF. Of course, t’ _ _itself is not antecedent-governed by have, ____ and should produce an ECP violation, since not ___intervenes. This is where deletion is important: t’ _ _may delete in the mapping from S-structure to LF, thus sidestepping the ECP. Returning to the impossibility of movement over Neg at LF, Chomsky provides reasons why t’ _ should be undeletable in these cases, which I will not discuss here. In any case, if Chomsky’s discussion is correct, then S-structure movement, but not LF movement, can sidestep the ECP. In turn, if µ-deletion is possible, then we also have a means of sidestepping Case-opacity formulated as in (8). Derivations that satisfy both the ECP and (8) may are schematized in (92): (92) V-to-µ a. INFL [ e] [ V… ————-> µ VP V-to-I b. INFL [ V ] [ t … ————-> µ i VP i γ-marking c. V -INFL [ t [ t … ————-> i µ i VP i µ-deletion c. V -INFL [ t [ t … ————-> i µ i VP i +γ > d. V i -INFL [ µ ∅ [ VP t i… satisfies ECP ___ and (88) +γ Some of the data I have presented in this paper allow a rather strong argument against Chomsky’s use of µ-deletion as a method of sidestepping the ECP. This argument, if correct, eliminates any presently available independent motivation for µ-deletion, but does require an alternative account of the S-structure/LF asymmetry in movement over Neg. In section 2.2, we saw that µ positions, while they may not be omnipresent, are ubiquitous: a µ position can be found above each auxiliary or main verb. The relevant data was presented in (48)-(52), of which a sampling is repeated here: (93)a. Mary soon will recently have won the Nobel prize. b. Mary soon will have recently won the Nobel prize. c. Mary will soon recently have won the Nobel prize. d. Mary will soon have recently won the Nobel prize. e. *Mary will have soon recently won the Nobel prize.
Page 1 and 2: LANGUAGE-P _______________ A RTICUL
Page 3 and 4: -3- Summarizing, Chomsky proposes (
Page 5 and 6: 1.3 Differences The Earliness Princ
Page 7 and 8: -7- (17)a. If Bill were permitted t
Page 9 and 10: -9- (25) o k i n n o k a s s
Page 11 and 12: 2.1.6 A Necessary Aside: Question I
Page 13 and 14: -13- (39)a. ?[ A book like this, [
Page 15 and 16: -15- ______________________________
Page 17 and 18: -17- I will suggest finally that no
Page 19 and 20: -19- Andrews (1983) noted that when
Page 21 and 22: -21- 3.2 Consequences of English Ma
Page 23: -23- One rough-and-ready potential
Page 27 and 28: -27- violates any conceivable princ
Page 29 and 30: -29- embedded question) will contai
Page 31 and 32: -31- (1987) that these phrases were
Page 33 and 34: NOTES -33- 1. Lasnik’s filter (p.
Page 35 and 36: -35- 16. Important questions are ra
Page 37 and 38: -37- which it attaches, and assume

Earliness Principle - Lear

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?