On Bridge Requirements in English

• Authors: Joanna Śmiecińska
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

A minimalist analysis of island conditions and bridge requirements on wh-movement in English is proposed. It has been traditionally assumed within the generative framework that wh-movement is impossible or degraded across a range of structurally analysable configurations (islands) and acceptable elsewhere (bridges). Structures meeting the configurational requirements but nevertheless having a degraded grammaticality status (non-bridge constructions) were, not rightly, banished from the scope of syntactic research proper. With the advent of minimalism, a syntactic account of non-bridge constructions can be achieved. The paper employs and modifies ideas from, among others, Chomsky (1998 and 1999), Uriagereka (1999), and Franks (2000) to show that the time of merging of a given constituent is crucial for its islandhood. Thanks to a minimalist perspective taken here, unification of bridge and island conditions seems possible. Also, a reinvestigation of Erteschik's (1973) verb typology is offered with an interim conclusion that that factivity of verbs with complement clauses is a decisive factor for their island status.

Keywords

EN

bridge verbs; minimalist syntax; wh-movement; successive cyclicity

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Journal: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics
• Year: 2007
• Volume: 43
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 153-167

Dates

published

2007-08-01

online

2007-08-07

Contributors

author

Joanna Śmiecińska

• Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

References

• Chomsky, N. 1977. "On wh-movement". In Culicover, P., T. Wasow and A. Akmajian (eds.), 71-132.
• Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. 1998. "Minimalist inquiries: The framework". MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
• Chomsky, N. 1999. Derivation by phase. (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Davidson, D. 1969. "On saying that". In Davidson, D. and J. Hintikka (eds.), Words and objections. Dortrecht: Reidel. 158-174.
• Epstein, S. and N. Hornstein (eds.). 1999. Working minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Erteschik, N.S. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.]
• Franks, Steven. 2000. "A PF-insertion analysis of that". Syntaxis 3. 1-28.
• Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Kiparsky, C. and P. Kiparsky. 1970. "Fact". In: Bierwisch, M. and K.E. Heidolph (eds.), Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. 143-173.
• Lutz, U., G. Müller and A. von Stechow (eds.). 2000. Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Nunes, J. and J. Uriagereka. 2000. "Cyclicity and extraction domains". Syntax 3: 20-43.
• Stepanov, A. 2001. Cyclic domains in syntactic theory. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.]
• Śmiecińska, J. 2003. Bridge requirements and island conditions on wh-movement in English: An evaluation of succesive cyclic derivation of wh-questions. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.]
• Uriagereka, J. 1998. Rhyme and reason: An introduction to minimalist syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Uriagereka, J. 1999. "Multiple Spell-Out". In Epstein, S. and N. Hornstein (eds.). 251-282.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10010-007-0008-1