1. bookAHEAD OF PRINT
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
10 Dec 2009
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Agree, Move and the Scope of the Phase Impenetrability Condition

Published Online: 17 Jun 2021
Page range: -
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
10 Dec 2009
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

This paper addresses a certain contradiction in the application of the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) to domains involving the long-distance Genitive of Negation (GoN) and wh-movement in Polish. It appears that in syntactic domains of the tensed sentence including an infinitive complement, there is a tension between a long-distance dependency (holding between NEG in the main clause and the embedded object in genitive) and a cyclic operation of wh-movement. The operation of wh-movement, a classic example of Chomsky’s Move, observes cyclicity and the PIC, judging by the standard tests based on reconstruction (Chomsky 1995; Heycock 1995; Fox 1999; Safir 1999; Legate 2003; Witkoś 2003; Lebeaux 2009), while the Agree-based case marking requires the PIC to be inoperative in exactly the same context and in the same domain. Both operations place contradictory requirements on the PIC, which implies that this condition does not apply to them in the same manner: it always holds of Move but does not always hold of Agree.

Keywords

Baltin, Mark. 2012. Deletion versus pro-forms: an overly simple dichotomy? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30. 381–423. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-011-9157-xSearch in Google Scholar

Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23. a757. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-004-4136-0Search in Google Scholar

Błaszczak, Joanna. 2001. Covert movement and the Genitive of Negation in Polish. Universitätsbibliothek Potsdam.Search in Google Scholar

Błaszczak, Joanna. 2008. Differential subject marking in Polish: The case of genitive vs. nominative subjects in “X was not at Y”-constructions. In Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking, Springer. 113–149.Search in Google Scholar

Błaszczak, Joanna. 2010. A spurious genitive puzzle in Polish. In Thomas Hanneforth & Gisbert Fanselow (eds.), Language and logos. Studies in theoretical and computational linguistics, Akademie Verlag. 17–47. DOI: 10.1524/9783050062365.17Search in Google Scholar

Bondaruk, Anna. 2004. PRO and control in English, Irish and Polish – a minimalist analysis. Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.Search in Google Scholar

Borschev, Vladimir & Barbara H. Partee. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of Theme-Rheme structure reconsidered. In Eva Hajičová, Petr Sgall, Jirí Hana & Tomáš Hoskovec (eds.), Prague Linguistic Circle Papers 4, John Benjamins. 185–250. DOI: 10.1075/plcp.4.11borSearch in Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4). 589–644. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589Search in Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2011. Rescue by PF-deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the that-trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry 42(1). 1–44. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00027Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Sue. 1999. The syntax of negation in Russian: A Minimalist approach. CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Sue & Adam Przepiórkowski (eds.). 2006. Negation in Slavic. Slavica.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Richard Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, The MIT Press. 89–156.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, The MIT Press. 1–52.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On Phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlo Otero & Maria Luiza Zubizarreta (eds.), Issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, The MIT Press. 133–166.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003Search in Google Scholar

Citko, Barbara. 2014. Phase theory. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139644037Search in Google Scholar

Dikken, Marcel den. 2007. Phase Extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 1–41. DOI: 10.1515/TL.2007.001Search in Google Scholar

Di Sciullo, Anna Maria & Edwin Williams. 1987. On the definition of word. The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fisiak, Jacek. 1978. An introductory English-Polish contrastive grammar. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Search in Google Scholar

Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, Binding Theory and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2). 157–196. DOI: 10.1162/002438999554020Search in Google Scholar

Frampton, John & Sam Gutmann. 2000. Agreement is feature sharing. Unpublished MS., Northeastern University.Search in Google Scholar

Franks, Steven. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12. 597–674. DOI: 10.1007/BF00992929Search in Google Scholar

Franks, Steven. 2017. Syntax and Spell-Out in Slavic. Slavica.Search in Google Scholar

Gallego, Ángel J. 2010. Phase theory. John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/la.152Search in Google Scholar

Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26(4). 547–570.Search in Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert, 2003. On control. In Randall Hendrick (ed.), Minimalist syntax, Blackwell. 6–81. DOI: 10.1002/9780470758342.ch1Search in Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga. 2012. Semantics of genitive objects in Russian: A study of Genitive of Negation and intensional genitive case. Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar

Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26. 877–924. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-008-9054-0Search in Google Scholar

Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where does binding theory apply? The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Legate, Julie A. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3). 506–515. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506Search in Google Scholar

Marušić, Franc L. 2005. On non-simultaneous phases. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook University.Search in Google Scholar

Marušić, Franc L. 2009. Non-simultaneous spell-out in the clausal and nominal domain. In Kleanthes K. Grohmann (ed.), InterPhases: Phase-theoretic investigations of linguistic interfaces, Oxford University Press. 151–181.Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2017. Structure removal: An argument for feature-driven Merge. Glossa: A journal for generative linguistics 2(1). a28. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.193Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2018. Structure removal in complex prefields. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36. 219–264. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-017-9374-zSearch in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time, The MIT Press. 495–537. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/6598.003.0021Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, John Benjamins. 262–294. DOI: 10.1075/la.101.14pesSearch in Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria & Eric Potsdam. 2001. Long-distance agreement and Topic in Tsez. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19. 583–646. DOI: 10.1023/A:1010757806504Search in Google Scholar

Przepiórkowski, Adam 1999. Case assignment and the complement-adjunct dichotomy: A nonconfigurational constraint-based approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Search in Google Scholar

Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2000. Long distance Genitive of Negation in Polish. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 8. 151–189.Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian. A. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar

Ruda, Marta. 2018. Local operations deriving long-distance relations: Object agreement in Hungarian and the Genitive of Negation in Polish. In Huba Bartos, Marcel den Dikken, Zoltán Bánréti & Tamás Váradi (eds.), Boundaries crossed, at the interfaces of morphosyntax, phonology, pragmatics and semantics, Springer. 133–146. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-90710-9_9Search in Google Scholar

Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction in Ā-chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4). 587–620. DOI: 10.1162/002438999554228Search in Google Scholar

Stepanov, Arthur. 2012. Voiding island effects via head movement. Linguistic Inquiry 43(4). 680–693. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00111Search in Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 2004. On the edge. In David Adger, Cécile de Cat & George Tsoulas (eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects, Kluwer. 259–287. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-1910-6_11Search in Google Scholar

Tajsner, Przemysław. 1990. Case marking in English and Polish: A Government and Binding study. Ph.D. dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University Poznań.Search in Google Scholar

Willim, Ewa. 1989. On word order. A Government-Binding study of English and Polish. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Search in Google Scholar

Witkoś, Jacek. 1998. The syntax of clitics: Steps towards a Minimalist account. Motivex.Search in Google Scholar

Witkoś, Jacek. 2003. Movement and reconstruction: Questions and Principle C effects in English and Polish. Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Witkoś, Jacek. 2008. Genitive of Negation in Polish and single-cycle derivations. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 16(2). 247–287.Search in Google Scholar

Witkoś, Jacek. 2010. On lack of case on the subject of infinitives in Polish. Folia Linguistica 44(1). 179–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2010.007Search in Google Scholar

Witkoś, Jacek. 2013. Smuggling the subject across the object in control. Folia Linguistica 47(2). 521–572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2013.019Search in Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Rrestructuring and clause structure. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110908329Search in Google Scholar

Zubkov, Petr. 2018. The grammar of binding. A study with reference to Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo