LINGUIST List 15.1284

Thu Apr 22 2004

Review: Syntax: Grohmann (2003)

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 Sheila Dooley Collberg at collberglinguistlist.org.

Directory

  • Jonathan White, Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies

    Message 1: Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies

     Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:57:09 -0400 (EDT)
    From: Jonathan White <jwhdu.se>
    Subject: Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies


    Grohmann, Kleanthes K. (2003) Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies, John Benjamins, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 66.

    Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-3127.html

    Jonathan White, H�gskolan Dalarna, Sweden

    CONTENTS

    Chapter 1: Locality in grammar The book begins with a discussion of basic locality phenomena. Two types are recognised, those related to displacement, i.e. islands; and those related to ''rules of construal'', i.e. conditions on coindexation, predication and control. Grohmann notes that, in Minimalist practise, these two types are collapsed into one. For instance Kayne (2002) analyses pronoun binding in terms of movement. Then the opposite phenomenon is considered, anti-locality. The case of thematic relations is taken up. An important point about Minimalist practise is that movement between thematic positions is not ruled out (under GB theory it would have been as a violation of the theta-criterion). If we allow movement-based derivations of binding and control (see, for example, Hornstein 1999, 2003), two thematic positions are related by movement:

    (1) [John wants [(John) to leave]]

    It is still the case, though, that movement between two thematic positions assigned by the same predicate are ruled out. (2a), meaning (2b), is ungrammatical:

    (2) a. [John [hit t]] b. John hit himself.

    The difference here is that movement takes place within the same thematic domain. This is what anti-locality is about. Movement can take place across such domains, which Grohmann calls ''prolific domains'', but not within them.

    Chapter 2: Rigorous Minimalism and Anti-locality The second chapter presents the theoretical framework Grohmann adopts. Some differences from Minimalism as presented in Chomsky (1993, 1995) are that multiple specifiers are ruled out, and that phrasal adjunction is a base- generated relation, not one created by movement. Also, right adjunction is not ruled out per se. Three prolific domains are proposed within which movement is ruled out if it creates non-distinct copies of the moved element - this part is crucial to the analyses to follow. The first domain is the thematic domain (the theta-domain) which consists of the vP-VP complex. The second is the agreement domain (the phi- domain), consisting of agreement and tense projections (a further important difference from Chomsky 1995 is that Grohmann keeps a series of agreement phrases). Finally, there is the discourse domain (the omega-domain), which consists of Topic, Focus and Complementizer phrases.

    Chapter 3: Anti-locality in anaphoric dependencies The first phenomenon that is treated in terms of prolific domains is anaphora. Grohmann departs from work like that of Hornstein (2001) in that the anaphor is not actually present in the numeration, but is inserted during the derivation. The point is that movement from internal complement to external argument position within the thematic domain violates anti- locality. However, the derivation can be saved if the lower copy is spelled out as an anaphor (thus creating distinct copies of the moved element):

    (3) [John v [likes (John)]] => [John v [likes himself]]

    This is shown to work for Exceptional Case-marking contexts as well.

    Chapter 4: Copy Spell Out and left dislocation This chapter and the next one deal with left dislocation constructions. Grohmann recognises three types with distinct properties. Firstly, there is the hanging topic construction (HTLD) which is seen in English:

    (4) This man, I don't know him.

    This is characterised by having a strong intonation break between the topic and remainder of the sentence and also presents new information. It is analysed by having the topic base-generated in the specifier of Topic Phrase, and the resumptive pronoun is also in the numeration. Anti-locality itself is not an issue here, therefore:

    (4') [CP This man [IP I don't [VP know him]]]

    The second construction is contrastive left dislocation (CLD), as seen in German:

    (5) Diesen Mann, den kenne ich nicht. This man that know I not

    CLD is seen as being different to Topicalization, in that no new information is presented, and there is no clear intonation break (among other things). This construction is analysed as movement from the complement position of ''know'' into the higher discourse domain. The resumptive pronoun is not part of the numeration. The topic is in CP, while the resumptive pronoun is in Topic Phrase. This pronoun performs the same function as the anaphors analysed in the previous chapter, in that they avoid a violation of anti-locality, but here in the discourse domain. Consider the derivation of (5) as illustration:

    (6) [CP Diesen Mann [TopP (diesen Mann) [...]]]

    ''Diesen Mann'' has moved into the omega-domain (the discourse domain), but cannot move between Topic Phrase and CP without violating anti- locality, unless a distinct copy is left behind. The resumptive pronoun performs this function:

    (6') [CP Diesen Mann [TopP den [...]]]

    Chapter 5: The Anti-locality of clitic left dislocation The final type of left dislocation construction is the clitic left dislocation one (CLLD), as illustrated in Greek:

    (7) Afton ton andra, dhen ton ksero. This the man not cl I-know

    Here anti-locality is argued to occur in the agreement domain (the phi- domain). The clitic, which is argued to be a DP structurally, is moved from its theta position to adjoin to the relevant agreement head:

    (8) [AgrP [Agr DP] [...]]

    This adjunction configuration is not one in which agreement features can be checked (specifier-head is required). Therefore, movement into the specifier of the Agreement Phrase is required. This is anti-local movement unless the clitic head is spelled out.:

    (8') [AgrP (DP) [Agr (DP)] [...]] => [AgrP (DP) [Agr CL] [...]]

    Then the DP moves on to Topic Phrase.

    Chapter 6: Prolific domains in the nominal layer Chapter 6 deals with an example of anti-local movement in nominals. The relevant construction is prenominal possessive doubling (PPD) as shown in German:

    (9) der Anna ihr Wagen the(dat) Anna her(nom) car (=Anna's car)

    Grohmann argues, as many have, that the structure of nominals is similar to that of clauses. Specifically three domains are assumed:

    (10) [DP [AgrP/PossP [NP]]]

    These three levels correspond to the discourse, agreement and thematic domains of clauses. Anti-local movement in PPD is argued to take place in the middle domain. The possessor moves from PossP to AgrP before moving on to DP. This is anti-local, and so the extra possessive (''ihr''in (9)) is the spell out of the copy in PossP:

    (11) [AgrP XP [PossP (XP) [NP ...]]] => [AgrP XP [PossP ihr [NP ...]]]

    Chapter 7: Successive cyclicity revisited Successive cyclic movement is considered in this final major chapter. The examples so far have related to movement across thematic domains. Successive cyclic movement, on the other hand, is seen as movement between domains of the same type. The advantage of this approach is that there is no need to assume that a moved phrase has to adjoin to intermediate positions. For instance, long distance wh-movement will take place from CP to CP with there being no need to land in other domains:

    (12) [CP XP ... [CP (XP) [AgrP (XP) [vP ...]]]]

    Chapter 8: A note on dynamic syntax The final chapter summarises the approach. One theoretical point that is taken up is where Spell-Out takes place. Grohmann argues that it does so after each prolific domain, mirroring Chomsky's (2000, 2001) recent suggestion that Spell- Out takes place after each phase.

    EVALUATION

    I have found this book to be an interesting addition to our understanding of movement processes and syntactic constraints on them. The unification of locality and anti-locality in terms of domains is well argued for, and all the areas under consideration have been presented clearly and concisely. I found the chapter on successive cyclicity to be particularly interesting. The idea that movement targets particular domains, and that there is no need for a phrase to pass through intermediate positions in other domains, is a very interesting proposal. It would have also been interesting to see how locality phenomena proper can be handled under these assumptions, such as tense and negation islands. There is also the question of covert movement. Many authors have proposed that covert phrasal movement should be possible (see, for example, Pesetsky 2000). Does this type of movement conform to similar locality or anti-locality conditions? My overall impression of the book is, though, a positive one. It is well argued and raises important questions for theorists about the nature of locality.

    REFERENCES

    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.

    Hornstein, Norbert (1999) Movement and control. In Linguistic Inquiry 30. 69-96.

    Hornstein, Norbert (2001) Move! A Minimalist theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Hornstein, Norbert (2003) On control. In Minimalist Syntax. Hendrick (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. 6-81.

    Kayne, Richard (2002) Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist program. Epstein and Seely (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell. 133-166.

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

    ABOUT THE REVIEWER

    Reviewer's research interests: Phrase structure, syntax and semantics of adverbials, interfaces between syntax and semantics and between syntax and morphology.