That-trace effects and resumption - How Improper Movement can be repaired

The ungrammaticality that can be observed in subject extraction from that-clauses in English, known as the that-trace effect, has attracted much attention in generative grammar. Until today, most of the writing takes it for granted that the effect is directly connected to the placement or the role of the subject. In this article we will show that this is likely to be wrong. We will show on the basis of data from German that the that-trace effect emerges as the result of TOPIC EXTRACTION via the specifier of the complementizer that (SpecCP). Since subjects are very likely to serve as topics, and the grammar of English does not allow much variation in using other constituents as topics, it is understandable that the that-trace effect was taken to be a subject effect. The gist of our explanation of the that-trace effect is that constituents which have been moved to the topic position, more precisely to the position of an aboutness-topic, do not have a feature for contrastiveness, and that precisely such a feature is needed in long extraction to value a subfeature of the intermediate complementizer. 1 This requirement allows essentially only constituents from the rhematic part of the clause to move long distance.

[1]  André Meinunger.  Interface restrictions on verb second , 2006 .

[2]  Martin Salzmann,et al.  Resumptive Prolepsis: A study in indirect A'-dependencies , 2006 .

[3]  V. Bianchi.  Resumptive relatives and LF chains , 2004 .

[4]  J. Bresnan,et al.  Topic, Pronoun, and Agreement in Chicheŵa@@@Topic, Pronoun, and Agreement in Chichewa , 1987 .

[5]  Jason Kandybowicz,et al.  Comp-Trace Effects Explained Away , 2006 .

[6]  Rakesh Mohan Bhatt,et al.  Verb Movement and the Syntax of Kashmiri , 2010 .

[7]  Marga Reis.  Extractions from verb-second clauses in German? , 1995 .

[8]  Ad Neeleman,et al.  Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation , 2004 .

[9]  Gregory Norman Carlson,et al.  Reference to kinds in English , 1977 .

[10]  Martin Salzmann.  Resumptive pronouns and Matching effects in Zurich German Relative clauses as distributed deletion , 2011 .

[11]  Günther Grewendorf,et al.  Aspekte der deutschen Syntax : eine Rektions-Bindungs-Analyse , 1991 .

[12]  J. Bayer,et al.  COMP IN BAVARIAN SYNTAX , 1984 .

[13]  Mark Baltin,et al.  A-bar syntax : a study in movement types , 1995 .

[14]  André Meinunger.  Syntactic aspects of topic and comment , 2000 .

[15]  E. Keenan,et al.  Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar , 2008 .

[16]  Tanja Kiziak.  Extraction Asymmetries: Experimental evidence from German , 2010 .

[17]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Filters and Control , 1990 .

[18]  Cornelia Endriss,et al.  Direct and indirect aboutness topics , 2008 .

[19]  O. Behaghel,et al.  Deutsche Syntax : eine geschichtliche Darstellung , 1923 .

[20]  G. Müller.  Movement from Verb-Second Clauses Revisited , 2010 .

[21]  Patrick T. Brandt,et al.  How to get an object-es into the German prefield , 2006 .

[22]  Peter W. Culicover.  Evidence against ECP accounts of the 'that-t' effect , 1993 .

[23]  Josef Bayer,et al.  On the Syntax of Prepositional Phrases , 2007 .

[24]  A. Weber,et al.  Zürichdeutsche Grammatik : ein Wegweiser zur guten Mundart , 1964 .

[25]  Cedric Boeckx,et al.  Islands and chains , 2003 .

[26]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Basic notions of information structure , 2008 .

[27]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

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

[29]  When movement and base-generation compete The definition of the reference set and parameterized preferences for elementary operations * , 2009 .

[30]  Gisbert Fanselow,et al.  Features, -Roles, and Free Constituent Order , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[31]  Jeanette K. Gundel.  Topic, Focus, and the Grammar-Pragmatics Interface , 1999 .

[32]  Jana Häussler,et al.  That-Trace Effects Without Traces : An Experimental Investigation , 2013 .

[33]  Josef Bayer,et al.  Asymmetry in Emphatic Topicalization , 2001 .

[34]  G. Fanselow.  Features, [Theta]-Roles, and Free Constituent Order , 2001 .

[35]  M. Řezáč,et al.  Elements of Cyclic Syntax: Agree and Merge (2004) , 2004 .

[36]  H. V. Riemsdijk.  Identity Avoidance: OCP Effects in Swiss Relatives , 2008 .

[37]  Martin Salzmann.  When movement and base-generation compete : on the definition of the reference set, the typology of resumption, and ranked economy constraints , 2009 .

[38]  Nomi Erteschik-Shir.  Focus Structure and Scope , 1999 .

[39]  Luigi Rizzi,et al.  Strategies of Subject Extraction , 2007 .

[40]  Anna Cardinaletti,et al.  Toward a cartography of subject positions , 2004 .

[41]  Benjamin Bruening.  Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English locative inversion and do-support , 2010 .

[42]  David Pesetsky,et al.  Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation , 1998 .

[43]  Peter Svenonius.  The derivation of VO and OV , 2000 .

[44]  H. C. van Riemsdijk,et al.  All languages are tense second , 2003 .

[45]  T. Alexopoulou.  Resumption in Relative Clauses* , 2006 .

[46]  Silent resumptives in Zurich German possessor relativization , 2011 .

[47]  Wemer Frey,et al.  A medial topic position for German , 2004 .

[48]  Luigi Rizzi,et al.  Satisfying the subject criterion by a non subject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift , 2006 .

[49]  Tanja Kiziak.  Long extraction or parenthetical insertion? Evidence from judgement studies , 2007 .

[50]  N. Hornstein,et al.  Resumption, Movement, and Derivational Economy , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[51]  J. Grimshaw.  Projection, heads, and optimality , 1997 .

[52]  Gisbert Fanselow,et al.  Left peripheral focus: mismatches between syntax and information structure , 2011 .

[53]  Wayne Cowart,et al.  Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments , 1997 .

[54]  Anca-Marina Velicu,et al.  THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES , 2005 .

[55]  Gisbert Fanselow,et al.  Konfigurationalität : Untersuchungen zur Universalgrammatik am Beispiel des Deutschen , 1987 .

[56]  C. Boeckx.  Islands and Chains: Resumption as stranding , 2003 .

[57]  Hubert Haider,et al.  OV is More Basic than VO , 2000 .

[58]  G. Müller.  A Local Reformulation of the Williams Cycle , 2013 .

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

[60]  H. J. Bennis.  Gaps and Dummies , 1987 .

[61]  Pilar Barbosa,et al.  Is the best good enough? : optimality and competition in syntax , 1998 .

[62]  Clemens Mayr.  On the Necessity of Phi‐features: The Case of Bavarian Subject Extraction , 2010 .

[63]  Martin Salzmann,et al.  Variation in resumption requires violable constraints – a case study in Alemannic relativization , 2009 .

[64]  Yvonne Viesel.  'glaubt er', 'glaub ich', 'glaub' : Integrierte V1-Parenthesen, Extraktion aus V2-Komplementen, Grammatikalisierung , 2011 .

[65]  J. Bayer,et al.  From Modal Particle to Interrogative Marker : A Study of German 'denn' , 2012 .

[66]  Annemie Neuckermans,et al.  Negative Indefinites , 2012 .

[67]  Variation as the exception or the rule , 2010 .

[68]  Nicolas Guilliot,et al.  When Resumption determines Reconstruction , 2006 .

[69]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[70]  David Pesetsky,et al.  T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences , 2000 .

[71]  Jeanette K. Gundel.  The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory , 1988 .

[72]  Hamida Demirdache.  Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures , 1991 .

[73]  Knud Lambrecht,et al.  Information structure and sentence form , 1994 .

[74]  E. Boef.  Long-distance relativization in varieties of Dutch , 2008 .

[75]  Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft,et al.  What do Contrastive Topics and Frame Setters have in Common? The Role of Addressing and Delimitation in Information Structure. , 2008 .

[76]  Nomi Erteschik-Shir,et al.  The dynamics of focus structure , 1997 .

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

[78]  Wolfgang Sternefeld,et al.  Improper movement and unambiguous binding , 1993 .

[79]  Martin Salzmann.  On three types of variation in resumption: evidence in favor of violable and ranked constraints , 2013 .

[80]  Joan Bresnan.  Locative Inversion and the Architecture of Universal Grammar. , 1994 .

[81]  J. Bayer.  Was beschränkt die Extraktion? : Subjekt Objekt vs. Topic Fokus , 2005 .

[82]  P. Strawson.  Identifying reference and truth‐values , 2008 .

[83]  M. Steinbach.  Integrated parentheticals and assertional complements , 2007 .

[84]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  Unbounded Dependencies and Coordinate Structure , 1981 .

[85]  Hubert Haider,et al.  The superiority conspiracy: four constraints and a processing effect , 2003 .

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

[87]  T. Reinhart.  Pragmatics and Linguistics: an analysis of Sentence Topics , 1981, Philosophica.

[88]  Gisbert Fanselow,et al.  Quirky “subjects” and other specifiers , 2002 .