The importance of being a complement : CED-effects revisited

Title of dissertation: THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING A COMPLEMENT CED-EFFECTS REVISITED Johannes Jurka, Doctor of Philosophy, 2010 Dissertation directed by: Professor Norbert Hornstein Department of Linguistics This dissertation revisits subject island effects (Ross 1967, Chomsky 1973) crosslinguistically. Controlled acceptability judgment studies in German, English, Japanese and Serbian show that extraction out of specifiers is consistently degraded compared to extraction out of complements, indicating that the Condition on Extraction domains (CED, Huang 1982) is still empirically viable, contrary to recent claims (Stepanov 2007). As a consequence, recent treatments of the CED in terms of Multiple Spell-Out (Uriagereka 1999) are still tenable. First, a series of NPsubextraction experiments in German using was für -split is discussed. The results indicate that subject island effects cannot be reduced to freezing effects (Wexler & Culicover 1981). Extraction out of in-situ subjects is degraded compared to extraction out of in-situ objects. Freezing incurs an additional cost, i.e., extraction out of moved domains is degraded compared to in-situ domains. Further results from German indicate that extraction out of in-situ unaccusative and passive subjects is en par with extraction out of objects, while extraction out of in-situ transitive and intransitive unergative subjects causes a decrease in acceptability. Additionally, extraction out of indirect objects is degraded compared to extraction out of direct objects. It is also observed that a second gap improves the acceptability of otherwise illicit was für -split, a phenomenon dubbed Across-the-Board (ATB)-was für -split and analysed in terms of Sideward Movement (Hornstein & Nunes 2002). Furthermore, wh-extraction out of non-finite sentential arguments also shows a significant subject/object asymmetry. Experiments in English indicate that NP-subextraction yields the familiar subject/object asymmetry, while the contrast largely disappears when PPs are fronted. Further results show that ECM and passive predicates do not improve the acceptability of the extraction out of subjects. Finally, subject subextraction patterns in Japanese and Serbian are investigated. Both Long-distance scrambling and clefting out of sentential subjects in Japanese leads to a stronger degradation than out of sentential objects. PP-extraction in Serbian also shows the same subject/object asymmetry, while no such contrast is found for Left Branch

[1]  Jennifer Culbertson,et al.  Are Linguists Better Subjects? , 2009, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[2]  Yoshihisa Kitagawa.  Subjects in Japanese and English , 2018 .

[3]  M. Saito,et al.  Order in Phrase Structure and Movement , 1998, Linguistic Inquiry.

[4]  Jeffrey Lidz,et al.  Constructions on holiday , 2009 .

[5]  Carson T. Schütze.  The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology , 1998 .

[6]  Sam Featherston.  Coreferential objects in German: Experimental evidence on reflexivity , 2002 .

[7]  Adele E. Goldberg,et al.  Constructions at Work , 2005 .

[8]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Are all subject islands created equal , 2009 .

[9]  I. Rosengren,et al.  EPP: A Syntactic Device in the Service of Semantics , 2002 .

[10]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  Animacy effects on crossing wh-movement in German , 2011 .

[11]  Frank Keller,et al.  Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality , 2001 .

[12]  L. Rizzi.  The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery , 1997 .

[13]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Total Reconstruction, PF Movement, and Derivational Order , 2002, Linguistic Inquiry.

[14]  Tanya Reinhart,et al.  Definite NP Anaphora and C. Command Domains , 1981 .

[15]  Daiko Takahashi,et al.  Minimality of movement , 1994 .

[16]  Dominique Sportiche.  A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure , 1988 .

[17]  Guglielmo Cinque,et al.  Types of Ā-dependencies , 1990 .

[18]  T. Ishii.  An asymmetry in the composition of phrase structure and its consequences , 1997 .

[19]  Gert Webelhuth,et al.  Syntactic saturation phenomena and the modern Germanic languages , 1989 .

[20]  A. Sorace.  Gradients in Auxiliary Selection with Intransitive Verbs. , 2000 .

[21]  Juan Uriagereka.  Multiple spell-out , 2005 .

[22]  Zeljko Boskovic,et al.  On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP , 2005 .

[23]  Jon Sprouse,et al.  A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowlege , 2007 .

[24]  Kenneth Wexler,et al.  Formal Principles of Language Acquisition , 1980 .

[25]  Sam Featherston,et al.  That-trace in German , 2005 .

[26]  Masaya Yoshida,et al.  Constraints and mechanisms in long -distance dependency formation , 2006 .

[27]  Noam Chomsky.  Reflections on Language. , 1977 .

[28]  Norbert Hornstein,et al.  On Asymmetries Between Parasitic Gap and Across‐the‐board Constructions , 2002 .

[29]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Some empirical issues in the grammar of extraction , 2003, Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar.

[30]  Sam Featherston,et al.  Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: some wh-constraints in German , 2005 .

[31]  D. Fox.  Economy and scope , 1995 .

[32]  C. Phillips.  Should we impeach armchair linguists ? , 2022 .

[33]  Richard S. Kayne.  The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[34]  Thomas Leu.  What for Internally , 2008 .

[35]  Jürgen Lenerz,et al.  Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen , 1977 .

[36]  Ray Cattell,et al.  Constraints on Movement Rules , 1976 .

[37]  Hubert Haider,et al.  Deutsche Syntax : generativ : Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik , 1993 .

[38]  Hans den Besten,et al.  On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules , 1983 .

[39]  G. Hickok,et al.  Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism , 1996, Cognition.

[40]  Philosophische Dissertation,et al.  Studien zu Extraktion und Projektion im Deutschen , 2004 .

[41]  Norbert Corver,et al.  Extraction from subjects : some remarks on Chomsky's On phases , 2005 .

[42]  Peter Svenonius,et al.  Subject Positions and the Placement of Adverbials , 2001 .

[43]  Robert Truswell,et al.  Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events , 2007 .

[44]  Mary A. Kato,et al.  Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement , 2004 .

[45]  Arthur Stepanov.  Cyclic domains in syntactic theory , 2001 .

[46]  G. Grewendorf.  Ergativity in German , 1989 .

[47]  DANIEL BÜRING,et al.  Doing the right thing , 1997 .

[48]  K Abels,et al.  Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding , 2003 .

[49]  G. Müller.  Optimality, markedness, and word order in German , 1999 .

[50]  Gereon Mller,et al.  On Deriving CED Effects from the PIC , 2010, Linguistic Inquiry.

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

[52]  Yuji Takano,et al.  Symmetry in Syntax: Merge and Demerge , 1998 .

[53]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing , 1988 .

[54]  Nathan Salmon,et al.  Reflexivity , 1986, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[55]  K Abels,et al.  Universal 20 without the LCA , 2006 .

[56]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Conditions on transformations , 1971 .

[57]  Molly Diesing,et al.  The syntactic roots of semantic partition , 1990 .

[58]  Monika Bašic,et al.  Nominal subextractions and the structure of NPs in Serbian and English , 2004 .

[59]  J. Bobaljik,et al.  Subject positions and the roles of TP , 1996 .

[60]  E. Gibson.  Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[61]  R. Larson.  On the double object construction , 1988 .

[62]  Bernhard Rohrbacher.  Notes on the Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[63]  Joachim Sabel.  Das Passiv im Deutschen. Derivationale Okonomie vs. optionale Bewegung: 554 , 1999 .

[64]  Juan Uriagereka,et al.  CYCLICITY AND EXTRACTION DOMAINS , 2000 .

[65]  T. Fujii,et al.  Some theoretical issues in Japanese control , 2006 .

[66]  James Mccloskey.  Subjecthood and Subject Positions , 1997 .

[67]  T. Burge.  Reference and Proper Names , 1973 .

[68]  Cheng-Teh James Huang,et al.  Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar , 1998 .

[69]  Jairo Nunes,et al.  Sideward Movement , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[70]  Jean-Yves Pollock.  Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP , 1989 .

[71]  Gereon Müller,et al.  Verb-Second as vP-First , 2004 .

[72]  Hans den Besten,et al.  The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German , 1985 .

[73]  Arthur Stepanov,et al.  The End of CED? Minimalism and Extraction Domains , 2007 .

[74]  H. de Hoop,et al.  Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation , 1996 .

[75]  E. Williams.  Argument Structure and Morphology , 1981 .

[76]  Howard Lasnik,et al.  Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output , 1992 .

[77]  A. Sorace,et al.  MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION OF LINGUISTIC ACCEPTABILITY , 1996 .

[78]  Sam Featherston,et al.  Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot , 2007 .

[79]  Variance and Informativity inDifferent Measures of Linguistic Acceptability , 2008 .

[80]  Judy B. Bernstein,et al.  Data and grammar: Means and individuals , 2007 .

[81]  Josef Bayer,et al.  Morphological underspecification meets oblique case : syntactic and processing effects in German , 2001 .

[82]  John Robert Ross,et al.  Constraints on variables in syntax , 1967 .

[83]  Thomas Boyden Ernst,et al.  Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English , 1983 .