Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Explaining the locality conditions of QR: Consequences for the theory of phases

  • 341 Accesses

  • 22 Citations

Abstract

In this paper I offer an explanation for the fact that QR tends to be more local than other types of A-bar movement (i.e., in typical cases, QR cannot take place out of a finite clause). My explanation assumes (and offers evidence for) the Phase Impenetrability Condition (cf. Chomsky 2001a, b) and an Economy Condition that requires that each step of (possibly successive cyclic) QR be motivated (cf. Fox 1999). After showing why QR is local in typical cases, I consider new evidence, involving a counterpart of ACD in Italian, which indicates that QR takes place long distance, as other types of A-bar movement do, whenever each step is independently motivated. It follows that it can be maintained that the locality conditions on QR are not construction specific, as expected given the general format of the theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

REFERENCES

  1. Baltin, M.: 1987, 'Do Antecedent-contained Deletions Exist?', Linguistic Inquiry 18, 579–595.

  2. Beghelli, F. and T. Stowell: 1997, 'Distributivity and Negation: The Syntax of Each and Every', in A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, pp. 71–107. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

  3. Brody, M.: 1995, Lexico-Logical Form. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

  4. Cecchetto, C.: 2004, 'Remnant Movement in the Theory of Phases', in L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  5. Cecchetto, C. and G. Chierchia: 1999, 'Reconstruction in Dislocation Constructions and the Syntax/Semantics Interface', in S. Blake, E. Kim and K. Shahin (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 17, pp. 132–146. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

  6. Chierchia, G.: 1993, 'Questions with Quantifiers', Natural Language Semantics 1, 181–234.

  7. Chierchia, G.: 2003, '(In)Definites, Locality, and Intentional Identity, manuscript. University of Milan-Bicocca.

  8. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.

  9. Chomsky, N.: 1995, The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

  10. Chomsky, N.: 2001a, 'Derivation by Phase', in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, pp. 1–52. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

  11. Chomsky, N.: 2001b, 'Beyond Explanatory Adequacy', manuscript. MIT.

  12. Cinque, G.: 2000, “'Restructuring” and Functional Structure', manuscript. University of Venice.

  13. Collins, C.: 1997, Local Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

  14. Farkas, D. and A. Giannakidou: 1996, 'How Clause-Bounded Is the Scope of Universals?', in T. Gallway (ed.), Proceedings of SALT 6, pp. 35–52. CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

  15. Fox, D.: 1999 Economy and Semantic Interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

  16. Fox, D.: 2002, 'Antecedent Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement', Linguistic Inquiry 33, 63–96.

  17. Fox, D. and J. Nissenbaum: 1999, 'Extraposition and Scope: A Case for Overt QR', in S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. D. Haugen and P. Norquest (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 18, pp. 132–144. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, Mass.

  18. Fox, D. and U. Sauerland: 1995, 'Illusive Wide Scope', in J. Canter et al. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 20, pp. 71–85, GLSA publications, Amherst, Mass.

  19. Guasti, M. T.: 1993, Causative and Perception Verbs: A Comparative Study. Rosenberg & Sellier, Turin.

  20. Heim, I. and A. Kratzer: 1998, Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Oxford.

  21. Higginbotham, J.: 1985, 'On Semantics', Linguistic Inquiry 16(4), 547–593.

  22. Hornstein, N.: 1995, Logical Form, Blackwell, Oxford.

  23. Ioup, G.: 1977, 'specificity and the Interpretation of Quantifiers', Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 233–245.

  24. Johnson, K.: 2000, 'How Far will Quantifiers go?', in R. Martin et al. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, pp. 187–210. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

  25. Johnson, K. and S. Tomioka: 1997, 'Lowering and Mid-Size Clauses', in G. Katz, S. Kim and W. Haike (eds.), Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen Workshop on Reconstruction, pp. 185–206. University of Tübingen.

  26. Kayne, R.: 1981, 'On Certain Differences between French and English', Linguistic Inquiry 12(3), 349–371.

  27. Kennedy, C.: 1997, 'Antecedent Contained Deletion and the Syntax of Quantification', Linguistic Inquiry 28(4), 662–688.

  28. Kratzer, A.: 1998, 'scope or Pseudoscope? Are There Wide Scope Indefinites?', in S. Rothstein (ed.), Events in Grammar, pp. 163–196. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

  29. Legate, J. A.: 2003, 'some Interface Properties of the Phase', Linguistic Inquiry 34(3), 506–516.

  30. May, R.: 1985, Logical Form. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

  31. Nissenbaum, J.: 2001. Investigation of Covert Phrase Movement, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  32. Percus, O.: 2000, 'Constraints on Some Other Variable in Syntax', Natural Language Semantics 8(3), 173–229.

  33. Pesetsky, D.: 2000, Phrasal Movement and Its Kin. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

  34. Pollock, J. Y.: 1989, 'Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP', Linquistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.

  35. Prestia, F.: 1997, L'anafora verbale. Tesi di laurea, Universitá degli Studi di Milano.

  36. Rizzi, L.: 1982, Issues in Issues in Italian Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht.

  37. Ruys, E.: 1993, The Scope of Indefinites, PhD dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.

  38. Sauerland, U.: 1998, The Meaning of Chains, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  39. Sauerland, U.: 2000, 'syntactic Economy and Quantifier Raising', manuscript. Tübingen University.

  40. Wilder, C.: 1997, 'Phrasal Movement in LF: De re readings, VP-Ellipsis and Binding', in K. Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 27, pp. 425–439. GLSA Publications, Amherst, Mass.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cecchetto, C. Explaining the locality conditions of QR: Consequences for the theory of phases. Natural Language Semantics 12, 345–397 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-1189-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Locality Condition
  • Economy Condition
  • Typical Case
  • Finite Clause
  • Impenetrability Condition