LINGUIST List 14.1360

Mon May 12 2003

Review: Syntax: Alexiadou et al. (2002)

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomilinguistlist.org>

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in.

If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Simin Karimi at siminlinguistlist.org.

Directory

  • Jonathan White, Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants

    Message 1: Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants

     Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 13:21:51 +0000
    From: Jonathan White <jwhdu.se>
    Subject: Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants


    Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers and Hans-Martin G�rtner (2002) Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 48.

    Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/13/13-2930.html

    Jonathan White, H�gskolan Dalarna, Sweden

    CONTENTS

    Chapter 1: Introduction (Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou, Barbiers and G�rtner)

    It is often assumed in the Minimalist program that there are two types of movement, overt movement and covert movement, the difference being that we can see the effects of overt movement on the sentence string, but not the effects of covert movement. Movement is seen as an operation where a particular feature is checked by a functional head (Chomsky 1995). One approach to covert movement is that only the relevant feature needs to move, since there is no need for the others to do so. In particular, phonological features should not move at all. In pre-Minimalist terms, this means that overt movement may be phrasal, but covert movement has to be head movement. However, research has indicated that full phrasal covert movement may be necessary as well (Kennedy 1997, Pesetsky 2000). Recent work by Chomsky (2000, 2001) suggests, though, that feature checking can take place at long distance via the Agree relation, and does not have to trigger movement. This, then, eliminates the need for covert feature movement. An alternative approach is to say that all movement involves phrases. The effect of this is to eliminate head movement (see work such as Koopman and Szabolsci 2000). They have suggested that head movement can be replaced by remnant movement, where a phrase is moved which has had material extracted from it. These two approaches are represented by works in this volume.

    Chapter 2: Raising without infinitives and the role of agreement (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou)

    The authors of this chapter argue that Case and agreement are not linked, as has been previously assumed. The assumption under Principle and Parameters theory was that thematic-roles were only assigned if the relevant phrase was Case-checked (Chomsky 1981). Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou cite examples from Greek subjunctives where raising is allowed, but there is still full agreement in the base position of the raised phrase. The intermediate positions are only filled as a result of the requirement that subject position be syntactically filled (the Extended Projection Principle - EPP). They argue that the EPP is related to agreement, and that Case is related to the present of semantic tense (indicated by independent time reference).

    Chapter 3: Prosodic diagnostics for remnant AP movement in Polish (Banski)

    This contribution argues that a distinction should be made between head movement and remnant movement, contrary to an approach like that of Koopman and Szabolsci (2000). Banski uses Polish data to show that prosodic tests can distinguish the two. Specifically, when the agreement clitic in a copular construction hosts a head, both penultimate and antepenultimate stress are possible - this is the case if the copular itself is hosted. If it hosts a phrase, only antepenultimate stress is possible, as is the case when the predicate adjective is hosted. Some additional arguments are supplied in support of this argument. For instance, we expect only a phrase to be fronted, since the head would have to cross the copular verb, in violation of movement constraints:

    (1) *[A-cl [copular [AP t/A]]]

    Chapter 4: Remnant stranding and the theory of Movement (Barbiers)

    Chomsky (2000, 2001) proposes that movement may only take place to the left edge of functionally complete constituents (called phases). For Chomsky, the constituents that are phrases are vP and CP. Barbiers argues on the contrary that not all clausal complements are phases. The phenomenon under consideration is remnant stranding as illustrated below:

    (2) a. [Daar op] heeft Ed t gezeten. There on has Ed t sat Ed sat on it b. [Daar] heeft Ed [op] gezeten. There has Ed on sat

    The full PP is fronted in (2a), but only its complement in (2b), thus leaving behind a remnant PP. This may only take place to matrix vPs, but only to those that dominate factive complement clauses. As a result, factives must be possible landing-sites for movement. This entails that they are phases. Propositional clauses, on the other hand, do not allow stranding. Therefore, they cannot be phases.

    Chapter 5: VOS in Portuguese: arguments against an analysis in terms of remnant movement (Costa)

    The VOS order in Portuguese can contain an intonation break, but does not have to. Costa argues that, where there is no intonation break, the subject is thematic; if there is such a break, the subject is non-thematic. There are two ways of deriving the former. One is a scrambling approach, where the object is scrambled and the verb moves to I. The alternative is a remnant movement approach, where either a VP or TP is moved over the subject. Evidence is presented against a remnant movement analysis. For instance this VP or TP constituent resists fronting or clefting when the verb form is complex. Also the object takes scope over, and therefore must c-command, the subject. This is the case under the scrambling analysis, but not under the remnant movement version.

    Chapter 6: Against remnant VP-movement (Fanselow)

    Fanselow looks at data in German where there is incomplete VP fronting:

    (3) Geschenkt hat sie dem Fritz ein Buch. Sent have they to Fritz a book

    Based on a configurational theory of theta-role assignment (such as Hale and Keyser 1993), free constituent order is seen as a process of merger, not of movement. Since theta-roles need not be checked before LF, it does not matter that arguments are not in thematic positions at Spell-Out. Some more concrete evidence against a remnant movement account is that the scrambling process necessary to empty the VP of all but its head is associated with particular semantic, pragmatic and syntactic features, none of which are exhibited by the construction under investigation. Also, elements that are stranded are usually islands to further extraction. Fanselow demonstrates that this is not the case with ''stranded'' elements in his examples.

    Chapter 7: Remnant movement and partial deletion (Hinterh�lzl)

    Hinterh�lzl argues that there is an alternative way of deriving apparent partial movement phenomena which are frequently derived by remnant movement nowadays, and that is partial deletion. For instance the example in (4a) can be derived as in (4b):

    (4) a. Gelesen hat Hans das Buch. Read has Hans the book b. [(Das Buch) gelesen] hat Hans [das Buch (gelesen)]

    What is happening here is that the whole VP has been copied and fronted (according to the copy theory of movement of Chomsky 1993). Then the direct object is deleted from the fronted position, and the verb is deleted from the base position. The author argues that both mechanisms are available to grammar. Remnant movement is allowed only when pied-piping is unavailable, which Hinterh�lzl argues is the case in restructuring. Partial deletion is allowed when pied-piping is available, as it is in PP extraposition from NP.

    Chapter 8: Derivations and complexity filters (Koopman)

    As was noted in the Introduction, Koopman and Szabolsci (2000) argue for a remnant movement approach to head-movement. Koopman admits that this approach is shown to be too powerful, in that it allows too many possible derivations cross-linguistically, some of which are not attested. She argues that this is due to complexity filters. These impose a maximum size on fronted constituents for each language. This is shown to explain why Dutch restructuring infinitives are allowed to invert when there are two verbs, but not when there are three - the same is not found in similar languages like German and Hungarian.

    Chapter 9: Feature movement or agreement at a distance? (Lasnik)

    Lasnik argues for a feature movement-based approach to pseudo-gapping and sluicing:

    (5) a. You might not believe me but you will Bob. b. Someone left, but I don't know who.

    In both cases we can argue that ''Bob'' and ''who'' have moved overtly, leaving behind a phrase to delete. The question arises what happens with verb movement in the clauses. Lasnik proposes that overt feature movement has taken place. This though would result in a phonologically defective phrase marker if it were left behind, but this is allowed because the material is subsequently deleted, thus removing the problem.

    Chapter 10: Two types of remnant movement (M�ller)

    M�ller looks at what he calls primary and secondary remnant movement. Typical examples of the two types are incomplete category fronting (primary) and negative NP-preposing (secondary, according to an analysis by Kayne). The basic difference for M�ller is that the operations underlying primary movement are all feature driven, while for secondary ones it is only the first. He accounts for these differences through an Optimality Syntax approach, which sees feature checking as a process whereby shape is conserved. Thus, secondary remnant movement is a repair strategy to preserve linear order.

    Chapter 11: On feature movement (Nakamura)

    Null operator movement (NOM) is seen as a feature movement process (following Takahaski 1997). Standard NOM is taken to be from non-subject positions, since the trace (copy) of NOM will not be properly governed, at least in English. Nakamura cites examples from Niuean where this is the case, though. The features is argued to be head-adjoined to C which entails correctly that NOM is subject to island effects.

    Chapter 12: CP-pied-piping and remnant IP movement in long distance wh-movement (Noonan)

    The Complementizer in Irish associated with wh-movement (notated aL) is argued to be an agreement particle, not a fully fledged lexical item. Specifically it reflects agreement with a shifted object:

    (6) Cen paisti a chreideann Sean [a d'imreodh __ ansea]? Which children aL believes Sean aL play-COND here Which children does Sean believe would play here?

    The particle in the ''play'' clause is uncontroversially caused by movement of ''which children''. The one in the ''believes'' clause is associated instead with object shift of the CP. Noonan argues that all objects undergo covert (at least) shift to check Case, even clauses. Other constructions such as partial wh-movement are argued to exhibit similar properties.

    Chapter 13: Phrasal movement in Hebrew adjectives and possessives (Sichel)

    Finally, Sichel uses the approach of Kayne (1994) to argue that Hebrew N-initial orders within Noun Phrases are derived through leftward movement of various types. When there are attributive adjectives, they appear in a mirror image order to that in English:

    (7) ha-mexonit ha-aduma ha-gdok the-car the-red the-big ''the big, red car'' This is argued to be derived through pied-piping of NPs and DPs. Consider next construct state and free state genitives:

    (8) a. tmumet ha-xamaniot pictures the-sunflowers ''the pictures of the sunflowers'' b. ha-be'ayot Sel ha-plitim the-problems of the-refugees

    In the case of the construct state, (8a), there is head movement of N to D. In the free state version, this is not possible because of the presence of ''Sel'' which is analysed at a Determiner. Here, the genitive is argued to be base-generated within NP, raised, and then the remnant NP is raised over that.

    EVALUATION

    My overall feelings are that this is a valuable addition to the literature on movement theory. There are a variety of views presented in the volume, with no one theoretical position in ascendancy. There are interesting arguments for keeping head movement in particular (Banski, Costa). Banski's is an important paper in that it proposes tests to distinguish remnant movement from other classes of movement (whether or not we assume head movement is possible). This is something that is necessary if we are to keep syntax Minimalist, so this paper fills a vital function.

    Chomsky's argument from 2000, 2001 that head movement is a PF process, not a syntactic one, is mentioned in a footnote, but is not discussed further. A discussion of this issue, in my opinion, would have made the volume even stronger, but it is a minor point.

    The papers on remnant movement are well argued, in particular Koopman's contribution where she compares alternative approaches, and shows that RM is a superior approach to take for the data she analyses.

    An interesting comparison can be made between Fanselow's and M�ller's papers. They come to a completely different conclusion on the same theoretical point, namely whether remnant movement is a justifiable analysis of partial constituent fronting. Fanselow argues that it is not since the scrambling operation on the object NP needed to allow RM to take place is not itself justified (because of the lack of semantic, etc. properties attributed to scrambling). M�ller, on the other hand, comes to the opposite conclusion on the same point. It would have been interesting to see M�ller's comments on Fanselow's results.

    I have a question mark about Barbiers' paper, in that the evidence is slightly confusing. His arguments was that factive clauses are phases, while propositional clauses are not. The argument is weakened by the fact that material may not be stranded at the left edge of factives. He argues that this is because factives are adjuncts, but this then would entail that they are strong islands. This is not the case as Melvold (1991) argues.

    The most interesting conclusion that I see from this collection is that all of these movement processes (remnant movement, head movement, feature movement, phrasal covert movement) may be justified for different data. What, then, are the consequences for the theory of Universal Grammar of this conclusion? What does it mean specifically for the Minimalist program? It appears, on the face of it, that it is a problem, since many movement operations are attested that produce similar results. As Brody (1995) argues concerning the presence of both the Move operation and the Chain concept in Minimalism, this can be seen as a weakness in the theory. Whether we can distinguish such operations, as argued by Banski and Costa, is a question that needs to be addressed in further research.

    REFERENCES

    Brody, Michael (1995) Lexico-logical Form: A radically minimalist theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chomsky, Noam (1993) A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20. Hale and Keyser (eds.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1-52.

    Chomsky, Noam (1995) Categories and transformations. In The Minimalist Program. Chomsky (ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 219-394.

    Chomsky, Noam (2000) Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Martin, Micheals and Uriagereka (eds.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 89-155.

    Chomsky, Noam (2001) Derivation by phase. ms. MIT.

    Hale, Ken and Samual J. Keyser (1993) On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from Building 20. Hale and Keyser (eds.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 53-109.

    Kayne, Richard (1994) The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Kennedy, Christopher (1997) Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the syntax of quantification. In Linguistic Inquiry 28(4). 662-688.

    Koopman, Hilda and Szabolsci (2000) Verbal complexes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Melvold, Janis (1991) Factivity and definiteness. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15. Cheng and Demirdache (eds.). 97-117.

    Pesetsky, David (2000) Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Takahashi, Daiko (1997) Move-F and null operator movement. In The Linguistic Review 14. 181-196.

    ABOUT THE REVIEWER

    The reviewer's research interests include phrase structure, syntax and semantics of adverbials, and interfaces between syntax and semantics and between syntax and morphology.