Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 1–46 | Cite as

Canonical government and the specifier parameter: An ECP account of weak crossover

  • Carol Georgopoulos
Article

Current analyses of weak crossover (WCO) focus on properties of the antecedent-variable binding relation (bijection) or of the variables themselves (homogeneity), or on the structural relation between the trace and pronoun involved (c-command). All of these theories fail in a significant case, that in which both bound positions are canonically governed. Here, there is frequently no WCO effect. This paper pursues a government-theoretic account, analyzing the presence or absence of the WCO effect in terms of an ECP which incorporates canonical government. The grammar in focus is that of Palauan, whose basic order is VOS. A principled distinction among SVO, VOS, and other grammars is provided by a specifier parameter, which sets the specifier position in relation to that of other constituents of the phrase and determines how specifiers are governed. The distribution of WCO effects follows from the interaction of the specifier parameter and canonical government.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Current Analysis Structural Relation Specifier Parameter Specifier Position 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aoun, A., N. Hornstein, D. Lightfoot, and A. Weinberg: 1987, ‘Two Types of Locality’, Linguistic Inquiry 18, 537–577.Google Scholar
  2. Barss, A. and H. Lasnik: 1986, ‘A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347–354.Google Scholar
  3. Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi: 1988, ‘Psych Verbs and Theta Theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 3, 291–352.Google Scholar
  4. Borer, H.: 1983, Parametric Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N.: 1975, ‘Conditions on Rules of Grammar’, pp. 3–50 in Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, R. Cole (ed.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N.: 1982, Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N.: 1986, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  9. Chung, S.: 1982, ‘Unbounded Dependencies in Chamorro Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 13: 1, 39–77.Google Scholar
  10. Chung, S.: 1990, ‘VPs and Verb Movement in Chamorro’, in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 559–619.Google Scholar
  11. Chung, S. and J. McCloskey: 1987, ‘Government, Barriers, and Small Clauses in Modern Irish’, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 2, 173–237.Google Scholar
  12. Derbyshire, D. and G. Pullum, eds.: 1986, Handbook of Amazonian Languages: Volume 1, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Engdahl, E.: 1983, ‘Parasitic Gaps, Subject Extractions, and the ECP’, ms., Lund University.Google Scholar
  14. Farmer, A., K. Hale, and N. Tsujimura: 1986, ‘A Note on Weak Crossover in Japanese’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 1, 33–41.Google Scholar
  15. Gazdar, G. et al.: 1985, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Georgopoulos, C.: 1985a, ‘Variables in Palauan Syntax’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 59–94.Google Scholar
  17. Georgopoulos, C.: 1985b, The Syntax of Variable Binding in Palauan, Doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
  18. Georgopoulos, C.: 1987; to appear, ‘Psych Nouns’, Proceedings of NELS 17, Cambridge, MIT. 1991 (revised) as ‘On Psych Predicates’, in Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, C. Georgopoulos and R. Ishihara (eds), Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 217–238.Google Scholar
  19. Georgopoulos, C.: forthcoming, Syntactic Variables: Resumptive Pronouns and A' Binding in Palauan, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  20. Haider, H.: 1985, ‘The Case of German’, pp. 65–101 in J. Toman (ed.), Issues in German Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  21. Haïk, I.: 1984, ‘Indirect Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 185–223.Google Scholar
  22. Haïk, I.: 1990, ‘Anaphoric, Pronominal, and Referential INFL’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 3, 347–374.Google Scholar
  23. Higginbotham, J.: 1980, ‘Pronouns and Bound Variables’, Linguistic Inquiry 11: 4, 679–708.Google Scholar
  24. Hoji, H.: 1985, Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese, Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  25. Horvath, J.: 1981, Aspects of Hungarian Syntax and the Theory of Grammar, Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  26. Horvath, J.: 1987, ‘On Models with a VP-less Phrase Structure and Two (A)Symmetry Phenomena’, in Approaches to Hungarian, Volume Two: Theories and Analyses, I. Kenesei (ed.), Jate Szeged, pp. 133–165.Google Scholar
  27. Huang, J.: 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  28. Hurtado, A.: 1984, ‘On the Properties of LF’, Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 5.Google Scholar
  29. Hyams, N.: 1986, Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  30. Jaeggli, O.: 1982, Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  31. Jaeggli, O.: 1985, ‘Subject Extraction and the Null Subject Parameter’, in Proceedings of NELS 14, Amherst, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  32. Jaeggli, O.: 1986, ‘Three Issues in the Theory of Clitics’, in Syntax and Semantics 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, H. Borer (ed.), Academic Press, Orlando, Fla.Google Scholar
  33. Josephs, L.: 1975, Palauan Reference Grammar, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
  34. Kayne, R.: 1981, ‘ECP Extensions’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93–133.Google Scholar
  35. Kayne, R.: 1983, ‘Connectedness’ Linguistic Inquiry 14, 223–249.Google Scholar
  36. Kiss, K.: 1987, Configurationality in Hungarian, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  37. Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche: 1983, ‘Variables and the Bijection Principle’, The Linguistic Review 2, 139–160.Google Scholar
  38. Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche: 1988, ‘Subjects’, ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
  39. Kuno, S.: 1991, ‘Against Pied Piping in LF’, in Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, C. Georgopoulos and R. Ishihara (eds.), Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 373–396.Google Scholar
  40. Kuroda, S.-Y.: 1969, ‘English Relativization and Certain Related Problems’, in D. A. Reibel and S. Schane (eds.), Modern Studies in English, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  41. Kuroda, S.-Y.: 1986, ‘Whether We Agree or Not’, Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 1, 1–47.Google Scholar
  42. Langacker, R.: 1969, ‘On Pronominalization and the Chain of Command’, in D. A. Reibel and S. Schane (eds.), Modern Studies in English, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  43. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito: 1984, ‘On the Nature of Proper Government’, Linguistic Inquiry 15: 2, 235–289.Google Scholar
  44. May, R.: 1985, Logical Form, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  45. Mohammed, M.: 1988, ‘Conditions on Pronominal Coreference in Arabic’, paper presented at the 2nd Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, U of Utah.Google Scholar
  46. Pandit, I.: 1985, ‘Exceptions to Weak and Strong Crossover in Hindi’ Linguistic Inquiry 16: 4, 678–681.Google Scholar
  47. Pesetsky, D.: 1982, Paths and Categories, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  48. Reinhart, T.: 1976, The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  49. Reinhart, T.: 1983, Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. U Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rizzi, L.: 1986, ‘Null Objects In Italian and the Theory of pro’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–557.Google Scholar
  51. Rizzi, L.: 1987, ‘Relativized Minimality’, ms., University de Genève.Google Scholar
  52. Rizzi, L.: 1990, Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  53. Safir, K.: 1984, ‘Multiple Variable Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 603–638.Google Scholar
  54. Saito, M. and H. Hoji: 1983, ‘Weak Crossover and Move α in Japanese’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 2, 245–260.Google Scholar
  55. Sportiche, D.: 1985, ‘Remarks on Crossover’, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 460–469.Google Scholar
  56. Sproat, R.: 1985, ‘Welsh Syntax and VSO Structure’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 2, 173–216.Google Scholar
  57. Stowell, T.: 1985, ‘Null Antecedents and Proper Government’, Proceedings of NELS 16, Montreal, McGill University.Google Scholar
  58. Stowell, T.: 1987, ‘Adjuncts, Arguments, and Crossover’, ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
  59. Stowell, T. and H. Lasnik: 1987, ‘Weakest Crossover’, ms., UCLA and UConnecticut.Google Scholar
  60. Suñer, M.: 1988, ‘The Role of Agreement in Clitic-Doubled Constructions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 3, 391–434.Google Scholar
  61. Van Valin, R. D.: 1987, ‘The Role of Government in the Grammar of Head-Marking Languages’, IJAL 53: 4, 371–397.Google Scholar
  62. Wasow, T.: 1972, Anaphoric Relations in English, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  63. Wasow, T.: 1979, Anaphora in Generative Grammar, Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.Google Scholar
  64. Williamson, Janis: 1984, Topics in Lakhota Grammar, Doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol Georgopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Linguistics ProgramUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations