On Certain Consequences of Feature Spread in Phase-Based Syntax¹

• Authors: Jacek Witkoś , Piotr Cegłowski
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The paper presents some empirical consequences resulting from the application of Chomsky's phase-based system (Chomsky 2005, 2006) and, specifically, the implementation of feature spread between phase heads (C, v) and their complements (T, V), respectively. We begin with a brief overview of the "old" rules for the syntactic derivation and proceed with the description of the innovative concept of feature spread and the way it modifies the derivational process. Next, we hint at some problematic areas for the new system, i.e. extraction from the subject as well as that trace phenomenon. As for the former, we present, based on the comparison of the behaviour of raising as well as control verbs (including, among others, raising and control constructions), some evidence for the theory of Control as movement. What follows, we derive a parametrised version of Subject Condition. Finally, we look at certain facts from Polish (e.g. Genitive of Negation) that seem to lend credibility to the feature spread analysis.

Keywords

EN

Feature spread; subject extraction; phase-based derivation; Multiple Agree; That-trace Effect

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Journal: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics
• Year: 2007
• Volume: 43
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 149-172

Dates

published

2007-12-01

online

2008-01-28

Contributors

author

Jacek Witkoś

• Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

author

Piotr Cegłowski

• Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

References

• Abraham, W., S. Epstein, H. Kitahara and J. W. Zwart (eds.).1996. Minimal ideas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Boeckx, C. and N. Hornstein. 2004. "Movement under control". Linguistic Inquiry 35. 431-452.
• Bondaruk, A. 2004. PRO and Control. Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski.
• Boškovič, Z. 2002. "On multiple Wh-fronting". Linguistic Inquiry 33. 351-383.
• Cegłowski, P. 2006. Why Move? The analysis of the representational and derivational approaches to English syntax. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz Unviersity, Poznań.]
• Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. 1998/2000. "Minimalist inquiries: The framework". In Martin, R., D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays in honour of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 89-156.
• Chomsky, N. 1999. "Derivation by Phase". MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.
• Chomsky, N. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. [Manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, MA.]
• Chomsky, N. 2005. On phases. [Manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, MA.]
• Chomsky, N. 2006. Approaching UG from below. [Manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, MA.]
• Dziwirek, K. 1998. "Reduced constructions in Universal Grammar: Evidence from the Polish object control construction". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 53-99.
• Epstein, S. D. and N. Hornstein (eds.). 1999. Working minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Hendrick, R. (ed.). 2003. Minimalist syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Hiraiwa, K. 2001. "Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese". MIT Working Papres in Linguistics 40. 67-80.
• Hornstein, N. 2000. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
• Hornstein, N. 2003. "On Control". In Hendrick, R. (ed.), Minimalist syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. 6-81.
• Kenstowicz, M. (ed.). 2001. Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Koizumi, M. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.]
• Koopman, H. 1983. "ECP effects in main clauses". Linguistic Inquiry 14. 346-350.
• Landau, I. 2000. Elements of control. Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Landau, I. 2004. "The scale of finiteness and the calculus of Control". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 811-877.
• Landau, I. 2007. "Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian". [Manuscript, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba.]
• Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Lasnik, H. and M. Saito. 1984. "On the nature of proper government". Linguistic Inquiry 15. 235-289.
• Lubańska, M. 2005. Focus on Wh-questions. Franfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Martin, R., D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.). 2000. Step by step: Essays in honour of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Pesetsky, D. and E. Torrego. 2000. "T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences". In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.). 355-426.
• Przepiórkowski, A. 1999. Case assignment and the complement/adjunct dichlotomy. A nonconfigurational constraint-based approach. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen.]
• Przepiórkowski, A. 2004. "O wartości przypadka podmiotów liczebnikowych" [On the grammatical case of numeral subjects]. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 60. 133-144.
• Richards, N. 2001. Move in language; interactions and architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativised minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Tajsner, P. 1990. Case marking in English and Polish: A government and binding study. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.]
• Thrainsson, H. 1996. "On the (non)universality of functional projections". In Abraham, W., S. Epstein, H. Kitahara and J. W. Zwart, (eds.). 253-281.
• Thrainsson, H. 2003. "Syntactic variation, historical development and minimalism". In Hendrick, R. (ed.). 152-191.
• Uriagereka, J. 1999. "Multiple spell-out". In Epstein, S. D. and N. Hornstein (eds.). 251-82.
• Willim, E. 1990. "On case marking in Polish". Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 25. 204-220.
• Witkoś, J. 2004. "Some notes on single cycle syntax and Genitive of Negation". Generative Linguistics in Poland: Proceedings of the GliP-5 Conference. Instytut Podstaw Informatyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk: Warszawa.
• Witkoś, J. 2007. "Genitive of Negation in Polish and single-cycle derivations". To appear in Journal of Slavic Linguistics.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10010-007-0019-y