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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

. This is a pleasant room in which to work (Chomsky 1981:309) c. a(n easy) topic [about which to write] (Wilder 1991:126) Table 1 gives a more comprehensive overview of the different tensed and infinitival constructions apart from questions and topicalizations; for examples and discussion, see Browning (1989) and Cinque (1990) in general, Montalbetti (1984) for the Overt Pronoun Constraint OPC, and Bhatt (1999) for infinitival relatives. The properties are self-explanatory given the preceding discussion, except for the category of overt subject; this refers to whether the clause of the relevant construction allows an overt subject. [INSERT TABLE 1] The pattern indicates that TM OP clauses, degree clauses, and parasitic gaps go together, falling under the pure Ā-Agree by C OP analysis. 30 On the other hand, the pattern of infinitival relatives suggests that wh-movement is at least an option, leading to the possibility of overt operators (though obligatorily deleted under recoverability), which the C OP group cannot have. Such a conclusion would remove subject/object asymmetries from the diagnostic characteristics of pro Ā ; perhaps that is just as well, since as noted there is no clear understanding of how they arise. C OP thus shows no correlation with finiteness or the possibility of overt subjects. The contrast between it and infinitival relatives in the possibility of overt operators is valuable: it suggests that C OP must be stipulated to simply not project a specifier, namely to not have an EPP/OCC feature in current terminology. One could press this conclusion to answer question (ii) posed above, why C OP cannot have an overt goal such as a relative pronoun instead of pro Ā . If such an overt goal requires movement under Agree, it cannot be the goal of C OP . Relative pronouns in English are a good example: they must move to [Spec, CP] (or be contained within a constituent that does), and cannot stay in-situ: (67) a. The palette which Narmer had requested. b. The palette (that) Narmer had requested ∅/*which. c. The palette such that Narmer had requested it/*which. This leaves questions (i) and (iii): is there a deeper principle underlying the external distribution of C OP clauses apart from arbitrary selection (much as the distribution of C Q partly reduces to the semantics of questions), and why does pro Ā require C OP rather than e.g. topicalization. Browning's (1989:26f., 53ff.) idea is that the φ-features of OP, for her pro in an Ā-position and here pro with an Ā-feature, must be identified, in the sense of Rizzi (1986). This is promising: tough-movement and perhaps degree clauses involve φ-Agree between C OP and a higher T where φ-features are expressed, and the licensing of parasitic gaps refers to φ/Case features as well (Culicover 2001:35ff. and literature cited therein). Two broad groups of C OP occurrences should therefore exist. First, C OP in selected positions (compatible with it semantically) that lie within the reach of a higher φ-Agree. This ultimately identifies the φ-features of pro Ā : T Agrees with C OP which has Agreed with pro Ā . Toughmovement belongs here. Second, unselected adjuncts where the parasitic gap mechanism works, whatever it be. 31 This approach solves questions (i) and (iii) both. The distribution of pro Ā is tied to the distribution of C OP because only C OP is such that it both gets φ-features from pro Ā and 24
makes them available to external φ-Agree (section 3.2); and C OP must occur in contexts where a φ-identification mechanism such as φ-Agree is available, because by the answer to question (i) it requires pro Ā as goal. 5 Conclusion I end my discussion of tough-movement here. Of the four core problems laid out at the outset, the subject-gap linking problem falls out from just the syntax-semantics mapping needed for the interpretation of non-thematic positions, as does the scattered interpretation of TM subjects for quantification and selection. The subject-gap correlation problem also largely emerges from the same system, with the need to stipulate the limitation of φ-transparent clauses to copy-raising verbs in English. The OP-gap problem is a collection of anomalous behaviors on the part of the gap in contrast to more usual Ā- movement gaps; treating the tough-movement gap as a null pronoun with an Ā-feature, pro Ā , that undergoes pure Ā-Agree with a higher C OP , is promising. The fact that this pro Ā must be licensed by Agree and that C OP does not project a specifier limits them to co-occurring with each other. Finally, the selection problem has been addressed in terms of the distribution of C OP . Browning's hypothesis, still in need of a deeper understanding but with the air of explanation to it, leads us to expect C OP in configurations where the φ-features it gets from the gap are externally identified, and this fits its actual distribution. 25
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 and 10: In tough-movement, the TM subject i
Page 11 and 12: (28) *There were asked what things
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: Although there is reason to be caut
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?