Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 349–401 | Cite as

Ordering and linearizing rightward movement

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper offers a novel solution to an old problem concerning Right Node Raising constructions—namely, that Right Node Raising constructions seem to involve an unbounded application of (Across-the-Board) rightward movement that flies in the face of certain locality constraints on movement generally, as well as the locality constraint on (simple) rightward movement in particular. Despite these apparent challenges, I argue in this paper that RNR constructions are in fact movement derived. I propose that the apparent unbounded nature of the movement involved in RNR follows from the simple fact that rightward movement is actually, in principle, an unbounded type of movement. I propose, in addition, to analyze those cases where rightward movement appears to be bounded as the result of a derivational constraint proposed in recent work by Fox and Pesetsky (2004) which demands that certain instances of movement be order preserving.

Keywords

Rightward movement Right node raising ATB-movement Coordination Linearization Cyclic spell-out 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott B. (1976). Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry. 7, 639–642Google Scholar
  2. Abels K. (2005). Right node raising: Ellipsis or across the board movement. In: Moulton K., Wolf M.(eds) Proceedings of NELS 34. Amherst, GLSA, pp. 45–59Google Scholar
  3. Akmajian A. (1975). More evidence for an NP cycle. Linguistic Inquiry. 6, 115–129Google Scholar
  4. Aoun J., Benmamoun E. (1998). Minimality, reconstruction, and PF movement. Linguistic Inquiry. 29, 569–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltin M. (1978). PP as a bounding node. In: Stein M.(eds) Proceedings of the 8th regional meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, GLSA, pp. 12–21Google Scholar
  6. Baltin M. (1987). Do antecedent contained deletions exist?. Linguistic Inquiry. 18, 579–595Google Scholar
  7. Blevins, J. (1990). Syntactic complexity: Evidence for discontinuity and multidomination. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Distributed by GLSA.Google Scholar
  8. Bošković Ž, Franks S. (2000). Across-the-board movement and LF. Syntax. 3, 107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bresnan J. (1971). On sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language. 47, 257–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bresnan J. (1974). The position of certain clause particles in phrase structure. Linguistic Inquiry. 5, 614–619Google Scholar
  11. Carlson G. (1987). Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 531–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chomsky N. (1976). On wh-movement. In: Culicover P., Wasow T., Akmajian A.(eds) Formal syntax. New York, Academic Press, pp. 71–132Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, ForisGoogle Scholar
  14. Chomsky N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Chomsky N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Chomsky N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries. In: Martin R., Michaels D., Uriagereka J.(eds) Step by step: Essays in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–155Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz M.(eds) Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52Google Scholar
  18. Chung S., McCloskey J. (1987). Government, barriers, and small clauses in modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry. 18, 173–237Google Scholar
  19. Cinque G. (1990). Types of A′-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Citko, B. (2000). Parallel merge and the syntax of free relatives, Ph.D. dissertation, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY.Google Scholar
  21. Culicover P., Rochemont M. (1992). Adjunct extraposition from NP and the ECP. Linguistic Inquiry. 23, 496–501Google Scholar
  22. Epstein S., Seely T.D. (2002). Rule application as cycles in a level-free syntax. In: Epstein S., Seely T.D.(eds) Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 65–84Google Scholar
  23. Fitzpatrick J. (2006). Deletion through movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 24, 399–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fox D. (1995). Condition C and ACD. In: Pensalfini R., Ura H.(eds) MIT working papers in linguistics (Vol 27). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, pp. 105–119Google Scholar
  25. Fox D. (1999). Reconstruction, Binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry. 30, 157–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fox D. (2002). ACD and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry. 33, 63–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fox D., Nissenbaum J. (1999). Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. In: Bird S., Carnie A., Haugen J.D., Norquest P.(eds) Proceedings of WCCFL (Vol 18. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 132–144Google Scholar
  28. Fox D,. Pesetsky D. (2004). Cyclic spell-Out, ordering and the typology of movement. Theoretical Linguistics. 31(1–2): 1–46 (Special issue on Object Shift in Scandinavian, Katalin E. Kiss, ed.)Google Scholar
  29. Gazdar G. (1981). Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 155–184Google Scholar
  30. Grosu A. (1976). A note on subject raising to object and right node raising. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 642–645Google Scholar
  31. Hankamer, J. (1971). Constraints on deletion in syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  32. Hartmann K. (2000). Right node raising and gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  33. Hartmann K. (2003). Background matching in right node raising constructions. In: Schwabe K., Winkler S.(eds) The Interfaces: Deriving and interpreting (omitted) structures. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 121–151Google Scholar
  34. Hayes B. (1989). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In: Kiparsky P., Youmans G.(eds) Phonetics and Phonology Vol 1: Rhythm and Meter. Orlando, Academic Press, pp. 201–260Google Scholar
  35. Höhle T.N. (1991). On reconstruction and coordination. In: Haider H., Netter K.(eds) Representation and derivation in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 221–235Google Scholar
  36. Holmberg A. (1999). Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization. Studia Linguistica 53, 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jacobson P. (1999). Towards a variable free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 117–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jackendoff R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Jackendoff R. (1977). X-bar syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Johannessen J.B. (1998). Coordination. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson, K. (1986). An case for movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  42. Johnson K. (1996). In search of the middle field. ms., University of Massachusetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson K. (2002). Towards an etiology of adjunct islands ms., University of Massachusetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  44. Kayne R. (1984). Conectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht, ForisGoogle Scholar
  45. Kayne R. (1985). Principles of participle constructions. In: Guéron J., Obenauer H.-G., Pollock J.-Y.(eds) Grammatical representation. Dordrecht, Foris, pp. 104–140Google Scholar
  46. Kayne R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  47. Langacker R. (1969). On pronominalization and the chain of command. In: Schane S.A., Reibel D.A.(eds) Modern studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 160–186Google Scholar
  48. Larson R. (1985). On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 217–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Larson R. (1988). Light predicate raising. Lexicon project working papers Vol. 27. Center for Cognitive Science, MITGoogle Scholar
  50. Larson R. (1990). Double objects revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 589–632Google Scholar
  51. Larson R., May R. (1990). Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: A reply to Baltin. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 103–122Google Scholar
  52. Lasnik H. (1995). Last resort. In: Haraguchi S., Funaki M.(eds) Minimalism and Linguistic Theory, pp. 1–32 Hituzi Syobo Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Distributed by GLSA.Google Scholar
  54. Levine R.D. (1985). Right node (non-)raising. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 492–497Google Scholar
  55. Levine R.D. (2001). The extraction riddle: Just what are we missing?. Journal of Linguistics 37, 145–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Linebarger, M. (1980). The grammar of negative polarity. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Distributed by MITWPL.Google Scholar
  57. Linebarger M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 325–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. May R. (1985). Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  59. McCawley J.D. (1982). Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 91–106Google Scholar
  60. McCloskey J. (1986). Right node raising and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 183–186Google Scholar
  61. McCloskey J. (1996). On the scope of verb movement in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 47–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McCloskey J. (1999). On the right edge in Irish. Syntax 2, 161–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McCloskey J. (2004). On questions and questioning in a local English. ms., University of California, Santa CruzGoogle Scholar
  64. Merchant J. (2001). The syntax of silence. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  65. Merchant J. (2003). Subject-auxiliary inversion in comparatives and PF output constraints. In: Schwabe K., Winkler S.(eds) The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting (omitted) structures. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 55–77Google Scholar
  66. Munn, A. (1993). Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  67. Munn A. (1999). On the identity requirement of ATB movement. Natural Language Semantics 7, 421–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nissenbaum, J. (2000). Investigations of covert phrasal movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Distributed by MITWPLGoogle Scholar
  69. Pesetsky D., Torrego E. (2001). T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In: Kenstowicz M.(eds) Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 355–426Google Scholar
  70. Phillips, C. (1996). Order and structure, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Distributed by MITWPLGoogle Scholar
  71. Postal P.M. (1974). On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  72. Postal P.M. (1998). Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  73. Postal, P. M. (2000). Strange pronouns. Jorge Hankamer Webfest, http://ling.ucsc.edu/Jorge.Google Scholar
  74. Pullum G. Zwicky A. (1988). The syntax-phonology interface. In: Newmeyer F.(eds) Linguistics: The Cambridge survey Vol. 1. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 255–280Google Scholar
  75. Richards N. (2001). Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  76. van Riemsdijk H.C. (1978). A case study in syntactic markedness. Lisse, The Peter de Ridder PressGoogle Scholar
  77. Rizzi L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  78. Rochemont M. (1992). Bounding rightward A′-dependencies. In: Goodluck H., Rochemont M.(eds) Island constraints. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 373–397Google Scholar
  79. Partee B., Rooth M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., von Stechow A.(eds) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, pp. 361–383Google Scholar
  80. Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Published as Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex, (1986).Google Scholar
  81. Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Distributed by MITWPL.Google Scholar
  82. Sauerland U., Elbourne P. (2002). Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 283–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Steedman M. (1985). Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language 61, 523–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Steedman M. (1987). Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 403–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Steedman M. (1990). Gapping and constituent coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 207–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Steedman M. (1996). Surface structure and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  87. Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  88. Swingle, K. (1993). The role of prosody in right node raising. In G. Pullum & E. Potsdam (Eds.), Syntax at Santa Cruz (Vol. 2, pp. 83–112)Google Scholar
  89. Travis L. (1988). The syntax of adverbs. In: Fekete D., Laubitz Z.(eds) McGill working papers in linguistics: Special issue on comparative Germanic syntax. Montreal, McGill University, pp. 280–310Google Scholar
  90. Uriagereka J. (1999). Multiple spell out. In: Epstein S., Hornstein N.(eds) Working minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 251–282Google Scholar
  91. Wexler K., Culicover P.W. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  92. Wilder C. (1997). Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. In: Alexiadou A., Hall T.A.(eds) Studies on universal grammar and typological variation. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 59–107Google Scholar
  93. Wilder C. (1999). Right node raising and the LCA. In: Bird S.et al. (eds) Proceedings of the eighteenth west coast conferences on formal linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 586–598Google Scholar
  94. Wilder C. (2003). Antecedent containment and deletion. In: Shwabe K., Winkler S.(eds) The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting (omitted) structures. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 79–119Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsMcGill, 1085 Dr. PenfieldMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations