String-vacuity and LF interpretation in A-chains: Cases of ECM and nominative-genitive conversion
-
Jun Abe
Abstract
This article aims to argue for the Agree-less plus single cycle approach, advocated recently by Hornstein (2009), according to which long-distance dependency is captured by regular movement plus the mechanism of which copy is pronounced. Based upon Lasnik’s (1999) observation that the “raising to object” involved in the ECM construction is optional, it is demonstrated that this can be best captured under this approach by assuming (i) that either the top (in the higher Spec-VP) or the bottom copy (in the embedded Spec-TP) of the A-chain involved is pronounceable and (ii) that the activation for LF interpretation such as binding and scope correlates with which copy is pronounced. It is further demonstrated that the same mechanism of pronunciation and LF interpretation also captures similar properties found in the Japanese ECM construction. The article also addresses the question how it is possible for the top copy of an A-chain to be active for LF interpretation even though the chain involves string-vacuous movement, following Abe and Hornstein’s (2012) mechanism of chain production. It is demonstrated that the revised mechanism of pronunciation and LF interpretation is well supported by the phenomenon of nominative-genitive conversion in Japanese.
Acknowledgments
Part of the material reported here was presented at the 15th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, held at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in 2013. I would like to thank the audience. I am also indebted to Norbert Hornstein and Howard Lasnik for helpful discussions and providing me with relevant English data. Finally, I would like to thank three TLR anonymous reviewers for their critical comments on an earlier version, which have led to considerable improvement of this article. All remaining errors are, of course, my own.
References
Abe, Jun. 1997. What triggers successive-cyclic movement. In Jeong-Seok Kim, Satoshi Oku & Sandra Stjepanović (eds.), ‘Is the logic clear?’: Papers in honor of Howard Lasnik, University of Connecticut Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 1–20. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Search in Google Scholar
Abe, Jun. 2002. On the displacement property of language and minimality. Ms., Tohoku Gakuin University.Search in Google Scholar
Abe, Jun. 2015a. The EPP and subject Extraction. Lingua 159. 1–17.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.03.001Search in Google Scholar
Abe, Jun. 2015b. The nature of scrambling and its resulting chains: Operator or Mediator of various constructions. Ms., Tohoku Gakuin University.Search in Google Scholar
Abe, Jun & Norbert Hornstein. 2012. ‘Lasnik-effects’ and string-vacuous ATB movement. In Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria & Vidal Valmala (eds.), Ways of structure building, 169–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644933.003.0008Search in Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parameterizing Agr: Word order, V-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(3). 491–539.10.1023/A:1006090432389Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3). 291–352.10.1007/BF00133902Search in Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. A-chains at the PF interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20(2). 197–267.10.1023/A:1015059006439Search in Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5(3). 167–218.10.1111/1467-9612.00051Search in Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 417–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freiden, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 506–569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110095869.1.9.506Search in Google Scholar
Groat, Erich & John O’Neil. 1996. Spell-Out at the LF interface: Achieving a unified syntactic computational system in the minimalist framework. In Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Hoskuldur Thráinsson & Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework, 113–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.12.07groSearch in Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001a. On nominative-genitive conversion. In Elena Guerzoni & Ora Matsushansky (eds.), A few from Building E-39, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39, 66–124. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Search in Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001b. Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In Ora Matsushansky, Albert Costa, Javier Martín-González, Lance Nathan & Adam Szczegielniak (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st HUMIT Student Conference in Language Research (HUMIT 2000), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40, 67–80. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Search in Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31(3). 445–483.10.1162/002438900554406Search in Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and universal grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511575129Search in Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9(4). 577–636.10.1007/BF00134751Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1985. Principles of particle constructions. In Jacqueline Guéron, Hans-Georg Obenauer & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Grammatical representation, 101–140. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783112328064-006Search in Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Keiichiro & Hideki Maki. 2002. A non-exceptional approach to exceptional Case-marking in Japanese. English Linguistics 19(2). 211–238.10.9793/elsj1984.19.211Search in Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1976. Subject raising. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative Grammar, 17–49. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368835_003Search in Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Working minimalism, 189–215. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito. 1991. On the subject of infinitives. In Lise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols & Rosa M. Rodriguez (eds.), Papers from the 27th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 324–343. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar
Maki, Hideki & Asako Uchibori. 2008. Ga/no conversion. In Shigeru Miyagawa & Mamoru Saito (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 192–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195307344.013.0008Search in Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1977. The Grammar of quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1993. LF Case-checking and Minimal Link Condition. In Collin Phillips (ed.), Papers on Case and agreement II, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 213–254. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Search in Google Scholar
Nakai, Satoru. 1980. A reconsideration of ga-no conversion in Japanese. Papers in Linguistics 13. 279–320.10.1080/08351818009370499Search in Google Scholar
Ochi, Masao. 2001. Move F and GA/NO conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10(3). 247–286.10.1023/A:1011224313676Search in Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Joseph, 2007. Ordering and linearing rightward movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(2). 349–401.10.1007/s11049-006-9011-8Search in Google Scholar
Sakai, Hiromu. 1994. Complex NP constraint and case-conversions in Japanese. In Masaru Nakamura (ed.), Current topics in English and Japanese, 179–203. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Search in Google Scholar
Sakai, Hiromu. 1998. Raising asymmetry and improper movement. In Noriko Akatsuka, Hajime Hoji, Shoichi Iwasaki & Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics: Volume 7, 481–497. Los Angeles, CA: The Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1990. Is there subject-to-object raising in Japanese? In Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrel & Errapel Mejias-Bikandi (eds.), Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, 445–457. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 2001. On the nature of the EPP. Ms., Tohoku University.Search in Google Scholar
Tanaka, Hidekazu. 2002. Raising to object out of CP. Linguistic Inquiry 33(4). 637–652.10.1162/002438902762731790Search in Google Scholar
Terada, Michiko. 1987. Unaccusativity in Japanese. In Joyce McDonough & Bernadette Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 17, 619–640. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Search in Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5(4). 373–410.10.1007/BF00132699Search in Google Scholar
Wexler, Ken & Peter Culicover. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- String-vacuity and LF interpretation in A-chains: Cases of ECM and nominative-genitive conversion
- Icelandic post-lexical syllabification and vowel length in CVCV phonology
- Binding and blocking in Nuosu
- Mandarin peripheral construals at the syntax-discourse interface
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- String-vacuity and LF interpretation in A-chains: Cases of ECM and nominative-genitive conversion
- Icelandic post-lexical syllabification and vowel length in CVCV phonology
- Binding and blocking in Nuosu
- Mandarin peripheral construals at the syntax-discourse interface
