Outline
Constraints on movement
IGRA 00: preparatory course
1
Modeling wh-movement
2
Constraints on Movement
Doreen Georgi
Leipzig University, Institute of Linguistics
April 15, 2014
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
1 / 45
Outline
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
2 / 45
Wh-movement
In many languages, a wh-phrase must surface in the sentence initial position.
1
This position is assumed to be SpecCP (it precedes auxiliaries, negation, modals,
the subject, the complementizer if overt).
Modeling wh-movement
(1)
2
Constraints on Movement
a. Which book are you reading?
b. Ich weiß nicht [ CP warum dass sie das gemacht hat ].
I know not
why
that she this done
has
‘I don’t know why she did this.’
German dialects
Due to the UTAH, wh-arguments are base-merged in the vP.
¯
Consequence: Wh-phrases are moved to SpecCP (A-movement).
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
3 / 45
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
4 / 45
Wh-movement
Outline
Implementation:
The wh-phrase bears a [wh]-feature: who [N, wh]
1
Modeling wh-movement
2
Constraints on Movement
An interrogative C bears the corresponding [uwh]-feature: Ø [C, uT, uwh]
[uwh] can be checked under sisterhood with a matching feature if the wh-phrase
moves to SpecCP.
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
5 / 45
Long-distance wh-movement
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
6 / 45
April 15, 2014
8 / 45
Long-distance wh-movement
The derivational model of syntax relies on
¯
A-movement
is in principle unbounded:
lexical items
(2)
operations (Merge)
[ CP Whatk [ IP do you think [ CP that [ IP Mary believes [ CP that [ IP Bill
bought k ]]]]]] ?
But in other contexts, wh-movement often becomes ungrammatical.
constraints
These constraints are used as a diagnostic for movement.
See M¨uller (2008) for an overview.
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
7 / 45
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
The A-over-A-Principle
The A-over-A-Principle
(3)
a. [ NP1 My letter to [ NP2 a friend in Italy ]] got lost
b.*[ NP2 Who ] did [ NP1 my letter to t2 ] get lost ?
c. [ NP1 Which letter to [ NP2 a friend in Italy ]] got lost?
(4)
a. John heard [ NP1 a rumour that you had read [ NP2 this book ]]
b.*[ NP2 What ] did John hear [ NP1 a rumour that you had read t2 ] ?
c. [ NP1 Which rumour that you had read [ NP2 this book ]] did John hear ?
A-over-A Principle (Chomsky 1964)
In a structure . . . [ A . . . [ A . . . ] . . . ] . . ., an operation can only affect the higher,
more inclusive category A (where ‘. . .’ = dominance).
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
9 / 45
The A-over-A-Principle
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
10 / 45
Islands
Problem:
The A-over-A-Principle is both too strong and too weak.
(5)
Well-formed NP-over-NP examples ruled out by the A-over-A Principle:
a. [ NP2 Who would you approve of [ NP1 my seeing t2 ]] ?
b. [ NP2 Which author ] did you read [ NP1 a book about t2 ] ?
(6)
Well-formed CP-over-CP examples ruled out by the A-over-A Principle:
a. John wouldn’t say [ CP1 that Mary thinks [ CP2 that Bill is nice ]]
b. [ CP2 That Bill is nice ] John wouldn’t say [ CP1 that Mary thinks t2 ]
(7)
An ill-formed example not ruled out by the A-over-A Principle: AP
movement from NP:
a. You have [ NP1 a [ AP2 very intelligent ] sister ]
b. [ NP1 [ AP2 How intelligent ] a t2 sister ] do you have ?
c.*[ AP2 How intelligent ] do you have [ NP a t2 sister ] ?
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
Ross (1967) identifies a number of categories that are not transparent for
movement: islands
11 / 45
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
12 / 45
The Complex NP Constraint
The Complex NP Constraint
The CNPC rules out movement from relative clauses:
(8)
The Complex NP Constraint (Ross 1967)
No element contained in a CP dominated by an NP may be moved out of that NP.
a.*[ NP1 Which book ] did John meet [ NP2 a child [ CP who read t1 ]] ?
b.*[ NP1 Who ] does Mary know [ NP2 a girl [ CP who is jealous of t1]] ?
And it covers some of the data that motivated the A-over-A Principle:
(9) *[ NP2 What ] did John hear [ NP1 a rumour [ CP that you had read t2 ]] ?
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
13 / 45
The Sentential Subject Constraint
(10)
No element dominated by a CP may be moved out of that CP if that CP is a
subject.
Constraints on movement
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
14 / 45
The Sentential Subject Constraint
Sentential Subject Constraint (Ross 1967)
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
April 15, 2014
15 / 45
a. [ NP1 Who ] did the reporters expect [ CP that the principal would fire t1
] ?
b.*[ NP1 Who ] was [ CP that the principal would fire t1 ] expected by the
reporters ?
c.*[ NP1 Who ] did [ CP that Mary was going out with t1 ] bother you ?
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
16 / 45
The Subject Condition
The Coordinate Structure Constraint
Observation:
NP subjects are also islands.
Generalization:
Coordinate Structure Constraint (Ross 1967)
Subject Condition (Chomsky 1973; Huang 1982; Chomsky 1986)
In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element
contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct.
No element may be moved out of a subject.
(11)
a.*[ NP2 Who(m) ] has [ NP1 a comment about t2 ] annoyed you ?
b.*[ PP3 About whom ] has [ NP1 a comment t3 ] annoyed you ?
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
17 / 45
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
The Coordinate Structure Constraint
The Coordinate Structure Constraint
(12)
Exception:
The CSC does not hold if a constituent is simultaneously moved from both
conjuncts: Across-the-board-movement (Ross 1967; Gazdar 1981)
Movement from a conjunct:
a. John is [ AP proud of [ NP1 his father ]] and [ AP tired of [ NP2 his mother ]]
b.*[ NP1 Who ] is John [ AP proud of t1 ] and [ AP tired of [ NP2 his mother ]] ?
c.*[ NP2 Who ] is John [ AP proud of [ NP1 his father ]] and [ AP tired of t2 ] ?
(13)
Movement of a conjunct:
a. John likes [ NP1 Mary ] and [ NP2 Bill ]
b.*[ NP1 Who ] does John like t1 and [ NP2 Bill ] ?
c.*[ NP2 Who ] does John like [ NP1 Mary ] and t2 ?
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
19 / 45
(14)
18 / 45
a. I wonder [ CP [ NP1 which books ] John hates t1 and Mary likes t1 ]
b. I know a man [ CP [ NP1 who ] John [ VP saw t1 ] and [ VP liked t1 ]]
c. The doctor [ CP [ NP3 who ] [ TP1 John worked for t3 ] and [ TP2 Mary
relied on t3 ]] died
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
20 / 45
The Left Branch Condition
The Left Branch Condition
(15)
a.*[ NP1 Which ] did you buy [ NP t1 books ] ?
b.*[ NP1 Whose ] did you meet [ NP t1 sister ] ?
(16)
a. Hans hat [ NP [ AP neue ] B¨
ucher ] gekauft.
Hans has
new books
bought.
‘Hans bought new books.’
b.*[AP Neue ] hat Hans [ NP t B¨
ucher ] gekauft.
new
has Hans
books
bought
‘Hans bought new books.’
Left Branch Condition (Ross 1967)
The leftmost item of an NP cannot be moved out of that NP.
In a number of languages Left Branch Condition violations are grammatical:
(17)
Russian:
ˇ
a. [ NP1 [ NP2 Cju
] [ N knigu ]] ty ˇcitaeˇs’ t1 ?
whose
book
you read
‘Whose book do you read?’
ˇ
b. [ NP2 Cju
] ty ˇcitaeˇs’ [ NP1 t2 [ N
knigu ]] ?
whose you read
book
Lit.: ‘Whose do you read book?’
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
21 / 45
The Wh-Island Condition
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
22 / 45
The Wh-Island Condition
(18)
Wh-Island Condition (Chomsky 1973)
Movement must not cross a CP with a wh-element in SpecCP or C.
a. How1 do you think [ CP that Mary solved the problem t1 ] ?
b.*How1 do you wonder [ CP whether Mary solved the problem t1 ] ?
c. [ NP1 Which book ] do you think [ CP that John read t1 ] ?
d.*[ NP1 Which book ] do you wonder [ CP [ PP2 to whom ] John gave t1 t2
]?
Wh-Island effects are not that strong if the wh-clause is an infinitive and the
moved item is a complement NP.
(19)
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
23 / 45
Weak Wh-Island Condition effects:
??[ NP1 Which book ] don’t you know [ CP whether to read t1 ] ?
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
24 / 45
The Adjunct Condition
The Superiority Condition
Adjunct Condition
Movement must not take place from an XP that has been merged without a
deletion of selectional features (no extraction from non-selected constituents).
(20)
Superiority Condition (Chomsky 1973)
In a structure α[uF ] . . . [ . . . β[F ] . . . [ . . . γ[F ] . . . ] . . . ] . . ., movement to [uF]
can only affect the category bearing the [F] feature that is closer to [uF].
(where ‘. . .’ = c-command)
a. [ NP1 Who ] did you get jealous [ CP because I talked to t1 ] ?
b. [ PP1 To whom ] did they leave [ CP before speaking t1 ] ?
c. [ NP1 Who ] did they leave [ CP before speaking to t1 ] ?
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
25 / 45
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
The Superiority Condition
The Minimal Link Condition
(21)
A-over-A-Principle vs. Superiority Condition:
dominance vs. c-command
a. Who1 t1 saw what2 ?
b.*What2 did who1 see t2 ?
c. I wonder [ CP who1 t1 bought what2 ]
d.*I wonder [ CP what2 who1 bought t2 ]
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
26 / 45
April 15, 2014
28 / 45
Combined constraint: Minimal Link Condition
April 15, 2014
27 / 45
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
Island constraints
The Subjacency Condition
Problem:
Subjacency Condition (Chomsky 1973)
a.
Most of the constraints look construction-specific.
They mention specific categorial features / selectional features.
b.
A meta-constraint: Constraints should be as general as possible.
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
In a structure α ... [ β ... [ γ ... δ ... ] ...] ..., movement of δ to α cannot
apply if β and δ are bounding nodes.
NP and TP are bounding nodes.
The SC is much more general than many of the constraints discussed so far. It
accounts for the effects of several constraints.
29 / 45
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
30 / 45
The Subjacency Condition
The Subjacency Condition
(22)
(23)
Wh-Island Condition:
a.*How1 does [ TP3 she know [ CP [ NP2 which car ] [ TP4 Mary fixed t2 t1
]]] ?
b.*[ NP1 Which book ] do [ TP3 you wonder [ CP [ PP2 to whom ] [ TP4 John
gave t1 t2 ]]] ?
c.
??Who1 do [ TP3 you wonder [ CP why C [ TP4 Mary loves t1 ]]] ?
(24)
Left Branch Condition:
*[ NP1 Whose ] did [ TP3 you meet [ NP2 t1 sister ]] ?
CNPC effects:
a.?[ NP1 Which book ] did [ TP3 John hear [ NP2 a rumour [ CP t’1 that you
had read t1 ]]] ?
b.*[ PP1 How ] did [ TP3 John hear [ NP2 a rumour [ CP t’1 that you had
fixed the car t1 ]]] ?
c.*The hat [ NP1 which ] [ TP3 I believed [ NP2 the claim [ CP t’1 that Otto
was wearing t1 ]]] is red
d.*[ NP1 Which book ] did [ TP3 John meet [ NP2 a child [ CP who [ TP4
read t1 ]]]] ?
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
31 / 45
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
32 / 45
The Subjacency Condition
(25)
The Subjacency Condition
Coordinate Structure Constraint:
a.*[ NP1 Who ] does John like [ NP3 t1 and [ NP2 Bill ]] ?
b.*[ NP1 Who ] is John [ AP proud of t1 ] and [ AP tired of [ NP2 his mother
]] ?
(25-a) follows if the coordination is an NP. (25-b) does not follow from
Subjacency.
(26)
A problem for the Subjacency Condition:
extraction of argument NPs that are merged in complement positions (objects)
(27)
a. [ NP1 Which author ] did [ TP3 you read [ NP2 a book about t1 ]] ?
b. [ NP1 Who1 ] did [ TP3 you see [ NP2 a picture of t1 ]] ?
Subject Condition:
a.*[ NP2 Who(m) ] has [ TP3 [ NP1 a comment about t2 ] annoyed you ] ?
b.*[ PP3 About whom ] has [ TP3 [ NP1 a comment t3 ] annoyed you ] ?
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
33 / 45
The Strict Cycle Condition
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
34 / 45
The Strict Cycle Condition
But the reverse order of the two movement steps would avoid this problem:
Observation:
The Subjacency violation explanation for wh-island effects presupposes the
following order of operations:
(29)
A wh-phrase moves to SpecCP of the embedded clause.
Afterwards, another wh-phrase moves across it.
Since the second wh-phrase cannot stop in the embedded SpecCP, a
Subjacency violation arises.
(28) */??Which book do you wonder to whom John gave?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
...
[ CP4 C[uwh] [ TP John gave [ NP1 which book ] [ PP2 to whom ]]]
[ CP4 [ NP1 which book ] C[uwh] [ TP John gave t1 [ PP2 to whom ]]]
...
[ CP5 C[uwh] [ TP you wonder [ CP4 [ NP1 which book ] C[uwh] [ TP John
gave t1 [ PP2 to whom ]]]]]
f. [ CP5 [ NP1 which book ] C[uwh] [ TP you wonder [ CP4 t’1 C[uwh] [ TP
John gave t1 [ PP2 to whom ]]]]]
g. [ CP5 [ NP1 which book ] C[uwh] [ TP you wonder [ CP4 [ PP2 to whom ]
C[uwh] [ TP John gave t1 t2 ]]]]
This derivation is excluded by the Strict Cycle Condition.
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
35 / 45
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
36 / 45
The Strict Cycle Condition
The Condition on Extraction Domains
The Subject Condition and the Adjunct Condition can be unified:
Strict Cycle Condition (Chomsky 1973)
a. No operation can apply to a domain dominated by a cyclic node α in such a
way as to affect solely a proper subdomain of α dominated by a node β which is
also a cyclic node.
b. Every XP is a cyclic node.
b. (McCawley (1984; 1988): Every projection is a cyclic node.)
Note:
The Cycle goes back to Chomsky et al. (1956). See also Chomsky (1964);
Chomsky and Halle (1968).
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
The Condition on Extraction Domains also accounts for Freezing effects because
movement ends in a specifier position.
Movement cannot take place from a moved XP.
37 / 45
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
38 / 45
April 15, 2014
40 / 45
Constraints in Minimalism
a.*Who1 do you think [ CP t’1 that [ NP2 pictures of t1 ] were painted t2 ] ?
b.*Who1 do you think [ CP t’1 that [ NP2 pictures of t1 ] John would like t2
] ?
c.*Who1 do you think [ CP [ PP2 to t1 ] he will talk t2 ] ?
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
a. Movement must not cross a barrier.
b. An XP is a barrier iff it is not a complement.
Freezing Principle (Ross 1967; Wexler and Culicover 1980)
The Freezing Principle
(30)
Condition on Extraction Domains (Huang 1982, see also Chomsky 1986; Cinque
1990)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
39 / 45
MLC (A-over-A-Principle + Superiority Condition)
Condition on Extraction Domains
Strict Cycle Condition
Phase Impenetrability Condition
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
The Phase Impenetrability Condition
The Phase Impenetrability Condition
Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC, Chomsky 2000; 2001)
Consequence of the PIC:
Once a phase HP is generated, the elements in the complement of H become
inaccessible to operations from outside of HP.
The domain of a head H of a phase HP is not accessible to operations outside
XP; only H and its edge are accessible to such operations.
Motivation for phases:
The edge of a head H is the residue outside of X′ ; it comprises specifiers of X
(and adjuncts to XP).
1
The complement of phase heads are transferred to the PF- and LF-interface
cyclic transfer: this reduces computational burden because derivational
information is periodically “forgotten”.
Standard assuption:
CP and vP are phases.
2
The PIC minimizes search space.
3
The PIC enforces successive-cyclicity.
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
41 / 45
The Phase Impenentrability Condition
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
42 / 45
Bibliography I
Chomsky, Noam (1964): Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Mouton & Co., The Hague.
In its present form, the PIC is too strong:
Chomsky, Noam (1973): Conditions on Transformations. In: S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, eds,
A Festschrift for Morris Halle. Academic Press, New York, pp. 232–286.
(31)
Chomsky, Noam (1986): Barriers. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 13, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass.
[ CP What1 did [ TP John2 [ VP t2 [ V′ read t1 ]]]]
Solution:
Elements can be moved from the complement of a phase head H to the edge
of H before the complement is transferred. SpecHP is an escape hatch.
Chomsky, Noam (2000): Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In: M. Roger, M. David and
J. Uriagereka, eds, Step by Step. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 89–155.
Chomsky, Noam (2001): Derivation by Phase. In: M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in
Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 1–52.
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle (1968): The sound pattern of English. Harper & Row, New
York.
Trigger for this movement: edge features (category-neutral
subcategorization features) that can be added to a phase head
Chomsky, Noam, Morris Halle and Fred Lukoff (1956): On Accent and Juncture in English. In:
M. Halle, H. Lunt and C. McLean, H. van Schooneveld, eds, For Roman Jakobson. Essays on
the occasion of his sixtieth birthday . Mouton, The Hague, pp. 65–80.
Question: When can edge features be added??
Cinque, Guglielmo (1990): Types of A-bar Dependencies . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Gazdar, Gerald (1981): ‘Unbounded Dependencies and Coordinate Structure’, Linguistic Inquiry
12, 155–184.
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
43 / 45
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
44 / 45
Bibliography II
Huang, Cheng-Teh James (1982): Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.
PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
McCawley, James D. (1984): Exploitation of the cyclic principle as a research strategy in syntax.
In: W. de Geest and Y. Putseys, eds, Sentential complementation. Foris, Dordrecht,
pp. 165–183.
McCawley, James D. (1988): The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Vol. 1, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
M¨
uller, Gereon (2008): ‘On deriving locality constraints on movement in a phase-based
approach to syntax’, Lecture Notes for a Compact Course, April 21-24, 2008, London:
ACTL, available at http://www.uni-leipzig.de/∼muellerg/.
Ross, John R. (1967): Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Wexler, Kenneth and Peter Culicover (1980): Formal Principles of Language Acquisition . MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Doreen Georgi (Leipzig University)
Constraints on movement
April 15, 2014
45 / 45

Minimalistische Morphologie

Craige Roberts - Department of Linguistics