Conclusion
I have tried to show that the complementizer še adjoins to or substitutes for an X0 category on its right. This process of syntactic movement vacates the head of the CP node. That is why še fails to trigger complementizer-trace phenomena.
I have assumed in this paper the X-bar schemata proposed in Chomsky (1986). Specifically, I adopted the proposal that the X-bar convention carries over to the non-lexical projections of COMP and INFL. Under this view, S' is a projection of C(OMP), labelled CP and has the structure given in (20), with [SPEC/CP] being the landing-site of Whoperators and the head of CP, the node under which the complementizer is generated. Note, now that in a theory where COMP and S' are taken to be defective categories from the point of view of X-bar theory, the first because it does not project beyond its head, the second because it fails to have either a SPEC or a head, it is hard to motivate movement of a complementizer.13 If Wh-movement involves adjunction to COMP, as a number of theories have held, it is hard to see how movement of COMP itself, that is, the category to which Wh-elements adjoin, could be licensed. In the theory advanced in Chomsky (1986), movement of a complementizer is a sub-case of Head Movement, a perfectly licit and familiar sort of movement. The analysis proposed for the Hebrew complementizer še in this paper may thus be taken as an argument in favor of the structure in (20) above.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aoun, Joseph, Norbert Hornstein and Dominique Sportiche: 1981, ‘Some Aspects of Wide-Scope Quantification’, Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 69–95.
Belletti, A., L. Brandi and L. Rizzi (eds.): 1981, Theory of Makedness in Generative Grammar (Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference), Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.
Borer, Hagit: 1983, Parametric Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.
—: 1984, ‘Restrictive Relatives in Modern Hebrew’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, 219–260.
Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
—: 1986, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik: 1977, ‘Filters and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 425–504.
Doron, Edit: 1983, Verbless Predicates in Hebrew, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Doron, Edit and Anita Mittwoch: 1986, ‘Polarity-Sensitive kol: Universal or Existential’, talk given at Second Annual Conference on Theoretical Linguistics, Jerusalem.
Emonds, Joseph: 1976, A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure-Preserving and Local Transformations, Academic Press, New York.
—: 1978, ‘The Verbal Complex V' — V in French’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 151–175.
—: 1980, ‘Word Order in Generative Grammar’, Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 33–51.
Groos, A. and Henk van Riemsdijk: 1981, ‘Matching Effects in Free Relatives: a Parameter of Core Grammar’, in A. Belletti, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi (eds.), pp. 171–216.
Huang, Cheng-Teh James: 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Kayne, Richard: 1985, Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito: 1984, ‘On the Nature of Proper Government’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 235–290.
Pesetsky, David: 1982, ‘Complementizer-Trace Phenomena and the Nominative Island Constraint’, The Linguistic Review 1, 297–343.
Pollock, Jean-Yves: 1987, ‘On Verb Raising’, talk given at GLOW, Venice.
Rizzi, Luigi: 1982, Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.
Shlonsky, Ur: 1987, Null and Displaced Subjects, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Sproat, Richard: 1985, ‘Welsh Syntax and VSO Structure’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 173–216.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald: 1980, On the Nominative Island Condition, Vacuous Application and the that-trace Effect, distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
For comments leading up to the final version, I am grateful to two anonymous NLLT reviewers. I am indebted to A. Barss, H. Borer, N. Chomsky, Y. Grodzinsky, K. Hale, O. Jaeggli, K. Johnson, H. Lasnik, T. Rappoport, E. Ritter, L. Rizzi, B. Schein, E. Torrego and the Fall 1984 Syntax workshop at MIT for comments. Parts of this paper were presented at the Second Annual Conference on Theoretical Linguistics at the Hebrew University. I am grateful to the participants in that conference for their comments.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shlonsky, U. Complementizer-cliticization in Hebrew and the empty category principle. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 6, 191–205 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134229
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134229