Untitled

On Deriving CED Effects from the PIC

“…An approach that I assume to be essentially on the right track centers around the notion of "abstract incorporation" and can be traced back to Baker (1988); versions of this general approach have been developed in Müller (1995), Sauerland (1995), Davies & Dubinsky (2003), and Schmellentin (2006) This analysis arguably works well as such; however, there is a severe problem with the approach: The analysis is incompatible with DP-over-NP structures (see Abney (1987), Szabolcsi Of course, this analysis implies that Agree operations can find a way to avoid PIC violations that does not exist for movement (from non-edge domains of a phase). More specifically, it seems that either the PIC is relaxed for Agree operations (as has been proposed by Bošković (2007), among others), or that Agree can be successive-cyclic, proceeding from one head to the next one higher up (see Legate (2005) Chomsky (2000;) for cases of long-distance agreement, at least for those cases of long-distance agreement that can be shown not to be parasitic on XP movement (as proposed by Polinsky & Potsdam (2001) for Tsez), and that cannot be reanalyzed in terms of extremely local domains after all (see Boeckx (2004)). Given that cases of long-distance movement should not be taken to motivate a less restrictive concept of phase as such (as argued by Chomsky (2001) for Agree applying to T and a nominative object in Icelandic, and by Bhatt (2005) for longdistance agreement in Hindi), exempting Agree from the PIC and assuming cyclic Agree look like the most plausible options.…”

Constraints on Displacement

“…proceeding from one head to the next one higher up (see Legate (2005), among others). A relaxation of Agree relations along these lines is required independently, and under standard (i.e., somewhat less local) conceptions of what a phase is (see Chomsky (2000;) for cases of long-distance agreement, at least for those cases of long-distance agreement that can be shown not to be parasitic on XP movement (as proposed by Polinsky & Potsdam (2001) for Tsez), and that cannot be reanalyzed in terms of extremely local domains after all (see Boeckx (2004)). Given that cases of long-distance agreement should not be taken to motivate a less restrictive concept of phase as such (as argued by Chomsky (2001b) for Agree applying to T and a nominative object in Icelandic, and by Bhatt (2005) for long-distance agreement in Hindi), exempting Agree from the PIC and assuming cyclic Agree look initially like the most plausible options.…”

“…local (phase-mates) after all (see Boeckx (2004), Bhatt (2005), Richards (2011b)); however, this may require a somewhat broader concept of what a phase is. Third, it has been proposed that long-distance agreement involves (possibly covert) movement into the higher local domain (phase) (see Polinsky & Potsdam (2001), Polinsky (2003), and Chandra (2005)). Finally, Butt (1995), Chomsky (2001b), Legate (2005) and Keine (2008) argue that long-distance agreement involves cyclic Agree.…”

Locality, control, and non-adjoined islands

“…One well-known example is to split up non-local movement relations into smaller steps by means of successive-cyclic movement, and there are many more examples in the literature where it has been proposed that apparent non-local relations should be analyzed in terms of local dependencies. For instance, with respect to long distance agreement, Legate (2005) argues that it involves cyclic agreement, and Polinsky & Potsdam's (2001) analysis of long distance agreement also aims to achieve an underlying local agreement configuration by means of covert movement to the edge of the embedded clause. Furthermore, Camacho's (2010) analysis of switch reference is also based on cyclic agreement operations, and early examples from binding theory (which do not yet involve the phase model, of course) include Pica's (1987) or Cole, Hermon & Sung's (1990) treatment of simple reflexives in terms of LF head-movement to derive long distance binding in a local way.…”