Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Variation
Vol. 22:1 (2022) ► pp.123–207

Revisiting extraction and subextraction patterns from arguments

ORCID logo | University of Southern California
Extraction and subextraction tend to receive separate attention in syntax, which leads to the assumption that they should be analyzed independently, even though they both illustrate an asymmetry between subjects and objects. By looking at various phenomena in English, German, Spanish and Norwegian I propose that this parallel behavior is not accidental, but that there is a previously unnoticed generalization: subextraction is allowed iff extraction is possible and the target of subextraction is not an indirect object. I propose that a revised version of Spec-to-Spec antilocality (Erlewine 2016) is necessary: movement of and out of an XP must cross a Projection Line (PL) (Brody 1998), i.e. the set of all projections of a head. This version of antilocality can derive Freezing effects, Huang’s (1982) CED, and their exceptions; and Comp-trace effects and their neutralization, extending them to subextraction. However, antilocality on its own cannot derive the extraction-subextraction asymmetry in indirect objects. I propose that the Principle of Minimal Compliance (PMC) (Richards 1998) can suspend antilocality if agree between a probe and a goal has happened. The version adopted here will allow extraction of the whole XP, but disallow extraction of its specifier due to the lack of an agree relation. Antilocality and the PMC combined also make the right predictions in other domains such as the lack of do-support in matrix subject questions and A-movement of the subject in declarative clauses, providing evidence that antilocality is a constraint that should apply to (at least) both A and A′-movement.
Keywords: extraction, subextraction, freezing, CED, antilocality, Principle of Minimal Compliance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Extraction and subextraction data
    • 2.1In-situ direct objects and in-situ subjects
    • 2.2Movement out of moved elements: ECM in English, object shift and scrambling
    • 2.3The TP domain: That-trace effects, lack of do-support and their neutralization
    • 2.4Indirect objects
  • 3.Taking stock: Extraction-subextraction generalization
  • 4.Antilocality + the PMC
    • 4.1Antilocality
      • 4.1.1In-situ subjects and objects
      • 4.1.2Movement of and out of moved XPs: Object shift and scrambling
      • 4.1.3XPs in TP: That-trace effects, their neutralization and do-support
    • 4.2The Principle of Minimal Compliance
      • 4.2.1The PMC and Spec,vP to Spec,TP movement
      • 4.2.2A desirable consequence of this system
      • 4.2.3What about non-that-trace grammars?
    • 4.3Indirect objects: Why the asymmetry?
      • 4.3.1Against the low applicative hypothesis
      • 4.3.2Indirect objects: The hows and whys of extraction but not subextraction
  • 5.The generalizations explained
  • 6.Some previous alternatives
    • 6.1 Wexler and Culicover’s (1980) Freezing and subsequent formulations
    • 6.2 Huang’s (1982) CED and its descendants
    • 6.3Erlewine’s (2016, 2020) antilocality
    • 6.4Bošković’s (2016, 2018) labelling approaches
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.20002.toq
References (162)
References
Abels, Klaus. 2003. “Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement!” In Linguistic Variation Yearbook, edited by Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Johan Rooryck, 71:53–120. 11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. “Parametrizing Agr: word order, V-movement and EPP-checking.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16 (3): 491–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 2001. “A-movement.” In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, edited by Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 226–254. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 2001. “On Inversion in Wh-questions in Romance.” In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, edited by Aafke C. Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock, 20–59. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2012. “From modal particle to interrogative marker: a study of German denn .” In Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, edited by Laura Brugé, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, and Cecilia Poletto, 13–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef, and Martin Salzmann. 2013. “That-trace effects and resumption: How improper movement can be repaired.” In Repairs: The Added Value of Being Wrong, edited by Patrick Brandt and Eric Fuß, 275–334. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 1996. “Wh-Constructions and Transparent Logical Form.” PhD diss., Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Bentzen, Kristine. 2009. “Subject positions and their interactions with verb movement.” Studia Linguistica 63 (3): 261–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Bare syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein. 2005. “A Gap in the ECM Paradigm.” Linguistic Inquiry 36 (3): 437–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulália. 1990. “Subjects in Catalan.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 131:1–26.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1997a. “Coordination, Object Shift, and V-Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 28 (2): 357–365.Google Scholar
. 1997b. The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. 2471. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. “On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP.” Studia Linguistica 59 (1): 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More Minimal Theory.” Linguistic Inquiry 38 (4): 589–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Now I’m a Phase, Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis.” Linguistic Inquiry 45 (1): 27–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “On the timing of labeling: Deducing Comp-trace effects, the Subject Condition, the Adjunct Condition, and tucking in from labeling.” The Linguistic Review 33 (1): 17–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “On Movement out of Moved Elements, Labels, and Phases.” Linguistic Inquiry 49 (2): 247–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branan, Kenyon. 2019. “Locality and anti-locality: the logic of conflicting requirements.” Ms., National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1977. “Variables in the theory of transformations.” In Formal Syntax, edited by Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 157–196. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brillman, Ruth, and Aron Hirsch. 2016. “An anti-locality account of English subject/non-subject asymmetries.” In Proceedings of CLS 501.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1998. “Projection and Phrase Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry 29 (3): 367–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Browning, Marguerite. 1996. “CP Recursion and that-t Effects.” Linguistic Inquiry 27 (2): 237–256.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010a. “Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation.” Linguistic Inquiry 41 (3): 519–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. “Double Object Constructions Disguised as Prepositional Datives.” Linguistic Inquiry 41 (1): 281–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018a. “Depictive Secondary Predicates and Small Clause Approaches to Argument Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry 49 (3): 537–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. “Double Object Constructions and Prepositional Dative Constructions are Distinct: A Reply to Ormazabal and Romero 2012.” Linguistic Inquiry 491:123–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Reidel Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chacón, Dustin Alfonso, Michael Fetters, Margaret Kandel, Eric Pelzl, and Colin Phillips. 2015. “Indirect learning and language variation: Reassessing the that-trace effect.” Ms., University of Maryland & Yale University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. “Conditions on Transformations.” In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, edited by Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286. New York: Holt Rinehart / Winston.Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. 4201. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001a. “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Linguistics, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001b. “Derivation by phase.” In Ken Hale: a life in language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. “On Phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, edited by Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Problems on Projection.” Lingua 1301:33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1977. “Filters and control.” Linguistic Inquiry 8 (3): 425–504.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, and James McCloskey. 1983. “On the interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG.” Linguistic Inquiry 14 (4): 704–713.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2014. Phase Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2002. “Multiple verb movement in Hoan.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Cristina. 2003. “Datives at Large.” PhD diss., Massachusets Institue of Technology.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter. 1993. “Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect.” Linguistic Inquiry 24 (3): 557–561.Google Scholar
Davis, Colin. 2020a. “Crossing and stranding at edges: On intermediate stranding and phase theory.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5 (1): 1–32. ISSN: 2397-1835. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. “Further insights and inquiries into possessor extraction in English.” Colloquim Handout presented at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 10-12-20.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2009. “The Origin and Content of Expletives: Evidence from “Selection”.” Syntax 12 (4): 285–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Syntactic ergativity as case discrimination.” In WCCFL 34, edited by Aaron Kaplan, Abby Kaplan, Miranda McCarvel, and Edward Rubin, 141–150. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1990. “The Syntactic Roots of Semantic Partition.” PhD diss., UMASS-Amherst.Google Scholar
Doherty, Cathal. 1993. “Clauses without that: The case for bare sentential complementation in English.” PhD diss., University of California Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Douglas, Jamie. 2017. “Unifying the that-trace and anti-that-trace effects.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 21:1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1983. “Parasitic Gaps.” Linguistics and Philosophy 6 (1): 5–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2014. “Anti-locality and Kaqchikel Agent Focus.” In 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Robert Santana-LaBarge, 150–159. Arizona State University, Phoenix: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
. 2016. “Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34 (2): 429–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Why the null complementizer is special in complementizertrace effects.” In A pesky set: Papers for David Pesetsky, edited by Claire Halpert, Hadas Kotek, and Coppe van Urk, 371–380. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2020. “Anti-locality and subject extraction.” Glossa 5 (1): 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etxepare, Ricardo, and Ángel Gallego. 2020. “No nominative case in Spanish.” Ms., IKER-CNRS & Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2001. “Features, theta-roles, and free constituent order.” Linguistic Inquiry 32 (3): 405–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005. “Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure.” Theoretical Linguistics 31 (1–2): 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franco, Irene. 2012. “Subject requirement, complementizers and optionality.” Ms., University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Gallego, Ángel. 2007. “Phase Theory and Parametric Variation.” PhD diss., Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Object shift in Romance.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2 (2): 409–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgala, Effi. 2010. “Why German is not an exception to the universal <IO, DO> base order of double object constructions.” In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 281. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Georgala, Effi, Waltraud Paul, and John Whitman. 2008. “Expletive and Thematic Applicatives.” In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 261, 181–189. University of California, Berkley.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. “Successive Cyclicity Under (Anti-)Local Considerations.” Syntax 6 (3): 260–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddican, William. 2010. “Theme-goal ditransitives and Theme passives in British English dialects.” Lingua 1201:2424–2443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Object movement symmetries in British English dialects: Experimental evidence for a mixed case/locality approach.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics1 151:189–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddican, William, and Anders Holmberg. 2018. “Object symmetry effects in Germanic: Evidence for the role of case.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37 (1): 91–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1990. “Topicalization and Other Puzzles of German Syntax.” In Scrambling and Barriers, edited by Günther Grewendorf and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 93–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Mittelfeld Phenomena. Scrambling in Germanic.” In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edi, edited by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. John Wiley Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heck, Fabian, and Malte Zimmermann. 2004. “DPs and Phases.” Ms., University of Leipzig and HU Berlin.Google Scholar
Hegarty, Michael. 1991. “Adjunct extraction and chain configuration.” PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
Hein, Johannes. 2019. “Verb movement and the lack of verb-doubling VPtopicalization in Germanic.” Ms. University of Postdam.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. “Word Order and Syntactic Features.” PhD diss., Stockholm.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: how any category can become an expletive.” Linguistic Inquiry 31 (3): 445–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, Michelle Sheehan, and Jenneke Van der Wal. 2019. “Movement from the double object construction is not fully symmetrical.” Linguistic Inquiry 50 (4): 677–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. “Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. “Object positions.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9 (4): 577–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “How to be Quiet.” In Proceedings from the 40th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, edited by Nikki Adams, Adam Cooper, Fey Parrill, and Thomas Wier, 1–20. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keine, Stefan. 2016. “Probes and their horizons.” PhD diss., Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
. 2019. “Selective opacity.” Linguistic Inquiry 50 (1): 13–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiziak, Tanja. 2007. “Long extraction or parenthetical insertion? Evidence from judgement studies.” In Parentheticals, edited by Nicole Dehé and Yordanka Kavalova, 121–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Extraction Asymmetries: Experimental Evidence from German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1994. “Secondary Predicates.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3 (1): 25–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the double object construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3): 335–392.Google Scholar
. 2010. “On Pykkänen’s Semantics for Low Applicatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 41 (4): 701–704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1995. “Case and Expletives Revisited: On Greed and Other Human Failings.” Linguistic Inquiry 26 (4): 615–634.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Subjects, Objects and the EPP.” In Objects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality, edited by William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky, 103–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1991. “On the Subject of Infinitives.” In Chicago Linguistics Society 271, edited by Lise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodriguez, 271:324–343. Chicago University.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. “Some Interface Properties of the Phase.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (3): 506–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Little, Carol-Rose. 2020a. “Left branch extraction, object shift, and freezing effects in Tumbalá Ch’ol.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 51:1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. “Mutual dependencies of nominal and clausal syntax in Ch’ol.” PhD diss., Cornell University.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2007. “That-t in Scandinavian and Elsewhere: Variation in the Position of C.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 791:47–73.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Comp-t effects: Variation in the position and features of C.” Studia Linguistica 631:204–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Freezing effects and objects.” Journal of Linguistics 471:163–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan. 2001. “Dative: The Heterogeneity of the Mapping among Morphological Case, Grammatical Functions, and Thematic Roles.” Lingua 1111:419–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. “Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions.” In Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1, edited by Sam A. Mchombo, 113–151. Stanford University: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2005. “Going through a phase.” In Perspectives on phases, edited by Martha McGinnis and Norvin Richards, 151–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguisitcs.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2006. “German inherent datives and argument structure.” In Datives and Other Cases: Between argument structure and event structure, edited by Daniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham, 49–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2017. “Applicatives.” In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd, edited by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 1–32. Amsterdam: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2006. “The interpretation of German datives and English “have”.” In Datives and Other Cases, edited by Daniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham, 185–211. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Voice and Ellipsis.” Linguistic Inquiry 44 (1): 77–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Messick, Troy. 2020. “The derivation of highest subject questions and the nature of the EPP.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 51:1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1998. Incomplete Category Fronting: A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German. Dordrecht ; Boston ; London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “On Deriving CED Effects from the PIC.” Linguistic Inquiry 41 (1): 35–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nissenbaum, Jon. 2000. “Covert movement and parasitic gaps.” In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, edited by Masako Hirotani, Andries Coetzee, Nancy Hall, and Ji-yung Kim, 541–556. Rutgers University: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Nylsen, Øystein. 1997. “Adverbs and A-shift.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 591:1–39.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1968. “Deep and surface constraints in syntax.” PhD diss., Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. 3511. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Complementizer-Trace effects.” In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edi, edited by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. “T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences.” In Ken Hale: A life in language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 355–426. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2012. “Cross Germanic variation in the realm of support verbs.” In Comparative Germanic Syntax: The state of the art, edited by Peter Ackema, Rhona Alcorn, Caroline Heycock, Dany Jaspers, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, and Guido Vanden Wyngærd, 279–310. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria, Carlos Gómez Gallo, Peter Graff, Ekaterina Kravtchenko, Adam Milton Morgan, and Sturgeon Anne. 2015. “Subject islands are different.” In Experimental syntax and island effects, edited by Jon Sprouse, 286–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. “Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP.” Linguistic Inquiry 20 (3): 365–424.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2019. “What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality.” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4 (1): 1–42. ISSN: 2397-1835. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. “Introducing Arguments.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. “Phase Edge and Extraction: A Tagalog Case Study.” Linguistic Inquiry 36 (4): 565–599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1995. “Extractions from Verb-Second Clauses in German?” In On Extraction and Extraposition in German, edited by Uli Lutz and Jürgen Pafel, 45–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2007. “On feature inheritance.” Linguistic Inquiry 381:563–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc, and Theresa Biberauer. 2006. “True Optionality: When the grammar doesn’t mind.” In Minimalist Essays, edited by Cedric Boeckx, 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 1997. “Competition and disjoint reference.” Linguistic Inquiry 28 (1): 178–187.Google Scholar
. 1998. “The principle of minimal compliance.” Linguistic Inquiry 29 (4): 599–629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritchart, Amanda, Grant Goodall, and Mark Garellek. 2016. “Prosody and the That-Trace Effect: An Experimental Study.” In 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Kim Kyeong-min, Pocholo Umbal, Trevor Block, Queenie Chan, Tanie Cheng, Kelli Finney, Mara Katz, Shopie Nickel-Thompson, and Lisa Shorten, 320–328. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery.” In Elements of grammar, edited by Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects.” In On Wh movement, edited by Norbert Corver and Lisa Cheng, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John. 1967. “Constraints on variables in syntax.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 1996. “Guess how?” In Proceedings of ConSoLE, 297–311.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna, and Willem Hollman. 2007. “Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect.” In Structural-functional studies in English grammar, edited by Mike Hannay and Gerard Steen, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas. 1987. “The variable status of Comp-trace phenomena.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5 (1): 33–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “The Comp-trace effect, the adverb effect, and minimal CP.” Journal of Linguistics 381:527–560. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1994. “V-Movement and the licensing of argumental whphrases in Spanish.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 121:335–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 1994. “Dependent Nexus: Subordinate Predication Structures in English and the Scandinavian Languages.” PhD diss., University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
. 2001. “On Object Shift, Scrambling, and the PIC.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 391:267–289.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Subject Positions and the Placement of Adverbials.” In Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP, edited by Peter Svenonius, 199–240. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. “Minimality in movement.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1984. “On Inversion in Spanish and some of its effects.” Linguistic Inquiry 15 (1): 103–129.Google Scholar
Truswell, Robert. 2007. “Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events.” Lingua 1171:1355–1377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. “Multiple spell-out.” In Working minimalism, edited by Samuel Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 251–282. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Urk, Coppe. 2015. “A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor.” PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
Van Urk, Coppe, and Norvin Richards. 2015. “Two Components of Long-Distance Extraction: Successive Cyclicity in Dinka.” Linguistic Inquiry 461:113–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vázquez Álvarez, Juan Jesús. 2011. “A grammar of Chol, a Mayan language.” PhD diss., Austin, TX: University of Texas Austin.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. 2941. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Object Shift.” In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, edited by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 392–436. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 1993. “Larsonian CP Recursion, Factive Complements, and Selection.” In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23, edited by Amy J. Schafer, 523–537. University of Ottawa: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Westergaard, Marit. 2009. “Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12 (1): 49–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, Marit, Terje Lohndal, and Artemis Alexiadou. 2019. “The asymmetric nature of V2: Evidence from learner languages.” In The Sign of the V – Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner, edited by Ken Ramshøj Christensen, Henrik Jørensen, and Johanna Wood, 709–733. Aarhus: AU-TRYK: Aarhus University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Ken, and Peter Culicover. 1980. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Kristine Bentzen, and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2007. “Rethinking Scandinavian verb movement.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10 (3): 203–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 1997. “Superiority in German.” In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Emily Curtis, James Lyle, and Gabriel Webster, 431–445. University of Washington: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. “The Merge Condition: A syntactic approach to selection.” In Minimalism and Beyond. Radicalizing the interfaces, edited by Peter Kosta, Steven Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork, and Lilia Schürcks, 130–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1997. Word order, Prosody and Focus. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Lee, Tommy Tsz-Ming & Ka-Fai Yip
2024. Hyperraising, evidentiality, and phase deactivation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Toquero-Pérez, Luis Miguel
2024. There is only one más: Spanish que/de comparative alternation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 42:2 ► pp. 701 ff. DOI logo
Zyman, Erik
2022. Proleptic PPs are arguments: consequences for the argument/adjunct distinction and for selectional switch. The Linguistic Review 39:1 ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.