1 On tough-movement* Milan Rezac, University ... - Multimania.co.uk

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(26) a. [už-ā eni-r magalu-n/gon b-āc'-ru-łi] b/*r-iyxo mother-DAT boy-ERG bread.III.ABS-TOP III-eat-PAST.PART-NMLZ] III/*IV-know The mother knows the boy ate the bread. (Polinsky and Potsdam 2001:610) b. eni-r [šebi y-āk'i-ru-łi] y-iy-x-ānu mother-DAT wh.II.ABS II-go-PAST.PART-NMLZ II-know-PRES-NEG The mother does not know who left. (Polinsky and Potsdam 2001:638 note 20) Turning to English, φ-Agree should be possible with an Ā-goal unless blocked by an intervener. This, I propose, is what happens in tough-movement. Like most CPs in English, the complement of a TM trigger can have a C φ that intervenes for higher φ-Agree and triggers it insertion. This gives the clausal subject construction, (27)a. OP-movement either by-passes this barrier as in Tsez, or else the C associated with OP, C OP , has no inherent φ-features. In either case, the φ-features of OP itself are accessible to matrix φ-Agree, valuing the φ-probe of T, and the Match Condition requires Merge in [Spec, TP] of a subject matching the index feature of the gap. This results in the TM construction, (27)b. Without OP-movement, φ-Agree with a lower DP within the OP clause is out, explaining (27)c: either because C OP is a C φ , or because PRO intercepts the φ-probe. PRO itself cannot be the goal, because it is obligatorily controlled by the matrix experiencer whether overt or covert (Epstein 1984), so further λ-binding by the TM subject would result in Condition B or C between it and the experiencer, as show in (27)d. 13 The only case lacking a principled explanation is why the transparent CPs found in copy-raising cannot serve as the clausal complement of TM triggers, to give (27)e. This needs to be handled by selection, as must be in general both the distribution of both these clauses (available to seem but not be likely), and of C OP itself, available to impossible but not possible (Brody 1993:8f.). (27) a. It is easy for the rich [C φ for the poor/PRO to read these books]. b. The books 1 are easy (for Kate) [OP 1 C OP(φ) PRO to read e 1 ]. c. *The books 1 are easy (for Kate) [C (φ) PRO to read them 1 ]. d. *Kate 1 is easy (for her 1 ) [C PRO 1 to read the books]. e. *The books 1 are easy (for Kate) [(like) they 1 were read t 1 ]. The correlation problem of tough-movement is thus solved because φ-Agree of T determines permissible [Spec, TP] objects by the Match Condition: C φ as a goal determines it, OP as a goal determines a DP that λ-binds OP; no other choices converge. The maximal projection of C φ must also be responsible for ruling out (28), the analogue of which is fine in Algonquian and Tsez (cf. (26)b). In (28), where OP is not present, the maximal projection C φ P blocks [Spec, C φ P] from being accessed by the matrix T's φ-probe. Why does C φ P of an OP clause not render OP inaccessible as well? As noted, one possibility is that C OP , like the C head of the complements of seem but not be likely, lacks φ-features; the matter is then stipulated. Suppose instead C OP is in fact a C φ . The contrast between OP clauses and (28) then suggests that OP but not an overt wh-phrase can escape C φ (P) in English. Such a distinction between OP and overt Ā-phrases can be drawn in various ways. Section 4 proposes that OP is really pure Agree with the gap by C OP, which does not project a specifier, unlike other C's such as the C Q of questions that triggers both Ā-Agree and movement to [Spec, CP]. 10
(28) *There were asked what things 1 there are to do t 1 in Kolkhis. An interesting consequence of the proposed syntax is that OP counts as associate of the matrix T/[Spec, TP]. This explains the impossibility of the there-expletive as a TM subject, (29), simply through the definiteness effect, if its OP-gap associate is definite or pronominal, e.g Browning's (1989) pro; see 3.3 and 4. (29) a. *There is hard to believe e to have been a crime committed. (Chomsky 1981:309) b. It is hard to believe there to have been a crime committed. (Chomsky 1981:318 note 30) The semantics of tough-movement is exactly like that of (copy) raising in relevant respects. Assume that OP is an Ā-fronted pro. This serves as the goal of matrix φ-Agree and is bound as the predicate variable, itself ultimately binding the gap; under the assumption that the whole OP clause is the argument of the TM trigger, (30)a results. Alternatively, suppose the proposal in section 4 is correct and the gap is a null pronoun that Agrees with C OP but does not move. C OP is the goal of matrix T's φ-Agree, valuing it with the φ-features of the gap from which it has itself been valued; the matrix subject then λ-binds the gap directly, giving (30)b. (30) a. The books λx 1 [[x 1 λx 2 [PRO to read x 2 ]] is easy] b. The books λx 1 [[PRO to read x 1 ] is easy] Thus, the syntax and semantics of movement and copy-raising sketched in the last section succeed in accounting for the subject-gap correlation and linking problems. This seems a considerable step forward, given that the tools are independently necessary to implement the Compositional Theory of Movement in the first place. A tiny part of the selection problem is accounted for as well: φ-locality limits TM triggers to the raising type, lacking their own DPs. 3.3 Base-generation of the TM subject and its consequences A-movement and copy-raising differ in that the former involves copies, which are deleted by a copy-deletion algorithm ∆, and the latter overt pronouns. This difference correlates with the fact that a CP boundary is crossed by φ-Agree in copy-raising but not in raising and other A- movement. In Rezac (2004a:160ff., 2004b), I argue that the CP boundary blocks ∆, though for reasons derivable from other principles. Condition C, which ∆ obviates, determines that copyraising, where ∆ fails to apply, can use pronouns only. (31) a. Kate 1 seems like [she 1 /*the girl 1 /*Kate 1 left] copy-raising b. Kate 7 seems [Kate 7 /*she 1 /*the girl 1 to have left] movement This syntactic difference gives rise to significant interpretive differences. The non-thematic DP in both movement and copy raising is interpreted as λ-binding the goal identified by φ-Agree, which (ultimately) gives it its thematic interpretation. However, a pronoun is an e-type element, and thus non-e-type, quantificational, properties of its λ-binder cannot "reconstruct" into it. A copy on the other hand is a full representation, and the higher copy may be deleted, leaving quantificational properties to be interpreted in the lower copy (Sauerland 1998, 2004). 11
Page 1 and 2: On tough-movement * Milan Rezac, Un
Page 3 and 4: that it involves an Ā-step between
Page 5 and 6: d. *John is easy that anyone likes
Page 7 and 8: Adopting the copy theory for traces
Page 9: In tough-movement, the TM subject i
Page 13 and 14: . =No person is such that it seems
Page 15 and 16: constructions, all accounts share t
Page 17 and 18: the top of the OP clause. Various q
Page 19 and 20: not find an active wh-phrase as a g
Page 21 and 22: The pattern of goodness and degrada
Page 23 and 24: Although there is reason to be caut
Page 25 and 26: makes them available to external φ
Page 27 and 28: 14 It is an open question whether O
Page 29 and 30: References Abeillé, A., Goddard, D
Page 31 and 32: Kaplan, R. M. and Bresnan, J. 1982.
Page 33 and 34: Rizzi, L. Forthcoming. "On the form
Page 35: TABLE 1: Properties of "On wh-movem

1 On tough-movement* Milan Rezac, University ... - Multimania.co.uk

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?