10. Aspects of multiple wh-movement in Polish and Czech

Toman, Jindřich; May, Robert; Köster, Jan

doi:10.1515/9783110874167-011

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Under both assumptions, extraction in (50) is ruled out since it does not take place in a Uniform Domain. 24 This analysis could also be extended to languages such as Polish that disallow wh-extraction from tensed indicative complements (52), whereas nontensed (and certain subjunctive) complements are transparent for wh-extraction (53) (see Toman 1981, Borsley 1983, Lasnik und Saito 1984, Pesetsky 1987, Willim 1989, and Hornstein und Lightfoot 1991 'What does Jan want to buy?' Witkos (1995: 253) has argued that this extraction asymmetry could be explained if Polish tensed complements are in the same structural position as 24.…”

Section: Additional Island-effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands

Sabel¹

2002

The Linguistic Review

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An account of island effects within the Minimalist Program presents a challenge, since assuming the Minimal Link Condition (MLC) as the only locality constraint on movement, as is done in the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995: Chapter 4 and subsquent work), fails to account for fundamental properties of movement. Firstly, it does not offer an explanation for asymmetries in wh-extraction from wh-islands which were traditionally explained by the ECP and the locality concept of Subjacency, the latter being parameterized in the way it applies in the languages of the world. Additionally, given the MLC, an explanation for the other types of island phenomena, the so-called CED effects (Condition on Extraction Domains) (Huang 1982), is lost. In this article, I will argue that an account of island effects can be given that is compatible with the MLC. It will be shown that cross-linguistic variation with respect to whisland phenomena can be explained if we assume that C 0 may project multiple speciÞers, and that the cross-linguistic variation with respect to CED-island effects is a consequence of the structure-building operation Merge in combination with T-theoretic restrictions.

show abstract

Section: Additional Island-effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands

Sabel¹

2002

The Linguistic Review

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Before concluding, though, I will briefly mention one last, and rather well-known, argument that strong features reside in some moving categories and that the basic premise of the virus theory is therefore incorrect. There is a great deal of literature, going back to Toman 1982and Rudin 1982, 1988, discussing the phenomenon of multiple wh-movement in the Slavic languages. Bošković (1997) presents a treatment of Serbo-Croatian multiple wh-movement in terms directly relevant to the present discussion.…”

Section: (28) C [ Ip John Read What]mentioning

confidence: 99%

On Feature Strength: Three Minimalist Approaches to Overt Movement

Lasnik

1999

Linguistic Inquiry

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Procrastinate (Chomsky 1993) favors covert movement; therefore, when movement is overt, it must have been forced to operate “early” by some special requirement, one that Chomsky codes into “strong features.” I compare Chomsky's three successive theories of strong features and argue that two ellipsis phenomena, pseudogapping and sluicing, provide evidence bearing on the nature of strong features. I argue that movement or ellipsis can rescue a derivation with a strong feature, and I conclude that PF crash is relevant either directly, as in Chomsky 1993, or indirectly, as in the theory presented in Chomsky 1995a augmented by the multiple-chain theory of pied-piping (especially as interpreted by Ochi (1998)).

show abstract

“…Puskas 1991). 9 The obligatory scrambling of negative operators in WF has its parallel in multiple whmovement in Slavic languages (Toman 1982) and in Hungarian (Puskas 1990 Lasnik &Saito 1984 andAoun 1985:74-75). 10 The data in (35) that they talk with no one '... that they don't talk, to no one.…”

Section: The Spec-head Conflguration At S-structurementioning

confidence: 99%