Mobility as a feature: Evidence from Zulu*

This paper provides evidence for the view that syntactic movement of an element Y to a position X is not driven by features of the target X, but by features of the moving element Y. The data that constitute evidence for this type of analysis come from A-bar movement constructions (object left and right dislocation; object relativisation) in the Bantu language Zulu. As I show, only object-DPs that move out of the VP in Zulu are active Goals for Agree-relations and can trigger object agreement with the verb. The fact that the functional head responsible for object agreement must be able to identify a DP in its c-command domain as an active Goal entails that the “mobility” of this DP must be encoded as a property of the DP. Based on this conclusion, I also discuss two proposals about the nature of the feature that activates a DP for movement in Zulu and examine the conditions that determine how this feature is checked and deleted through movement.

[1]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Minimalist Program , 1992 .

[2]  Danny Fox,et al.  Extraposition and Scope: A case for overt QR* , 2009 .

[3]  A. Kratzer.  Severing the External Argument from its Verb , 1996 .

[4]  A. Marantz.  Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions , 1993 .

[5]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Minimalist inquiries : the framework , 1998 .

[6]  Jochen Zeller.  Argument prominence and agreement: explaining an unexpected object asymmetry in Zulu , 2015 .

[7]  Jochen Zeller.  On the relation between noun prefixes and grammaticalisation in Nguni relative clauses , 2006 .

[8]  Nikki Adams,et al.  The Zulu ditransitive verb phrase , 2010 .

[9]  Jochen Zeller.  Object marking in isiZulu , 2012 .

[10]  Samuel David Epstein,et al.  A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations , 1998 .

[11]  Höskuldur Thráinsson,et al.  Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English , 1989, Nordic Journal of Linguistics.

[12]  Jochen Zeller,et al.  wh-Question Formation in Nguni , 2006 .

[13]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Problems of projection , 2013 .

[14]  L. Buell.  The Zulu Conjoint/Disjoint Verb Alternation: Focus or Constituency? * , 2006 .

[15]  Leston Chandler Buell,et al.  Issues in Zulu Verbal Morphosyntax , 2005 .

[16]  Andrew van der Spuy.  Dislocated noun phrases in Nguni , 1993 .

[17]  L. Downing,et al.  Where's the topic in Zulu? , 2009 .

[18]  Claire Halpert.  Argument licensing and agreement in Zulu , 2012 .

[19]  Jochen Zeller.  Relative clause formation in the Bantu languages of South Africa , 2004 .

[20]  Evidence for Survive from covert movement , 2009 .

[22]  Thomas S. Stroik,et al.  Locality in Minimalist Syntax , 2009 .

[23]  Noam Chomsky.  Approaching UG from Below , 2006 .

[24]  Noam Chomsky.  Derivation by phase , 1999 .

[25]  L. Rizzi.  Relativized Minimality Effects , 2008 .

[26]  Winfried Lechner.  Structure Building From Below: More on Survive and Covert Movement1 , 2012 .

[27]  Željko Bošković,et al.  On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More Minimal Theory , 2007 .

[28]  Ž. Bošković.  Now I’m a Phase, Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis , 2014, Linguistic Inquiry.

[29]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[30]  G. Grewendorf.  Multiple Wh-Fronting , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.