Deriving Dependent Right Adjuncts in English

Abstract

In this this paper we will be concerned with the properties of right adjuncts in English that are in some sense dependent for their interpretation on a position elsewhere in the sentence, e.g., relative and result clause extraposition and rightmost heavy NPs. Such constructions seem to be the strongest cases in English for rightward movement. We have argued in previous work that this is not the correct account of extraposition constructions. On the basis of contrasts between these constructions and rightmost heavy NP constructions, we have argued that only the latter are derived by rightward movement.We will review the arguments in favor of these conclusions. Comparing several alternative leftward movement analyses in each of these cases, we reconfirm our conclusion that the extraposed constituents undergo no movement in the course of the derivation. The facts about extraposition can be fully accommodated on a leftward movement account in which the extraposed constituent achieves its rightmost position through the leftward movement of other elements in the sentence. We will show that it is also possible to provide a leftward movement analysis of the rightmost heavy NPs that is fully compatible with the data that we consider. In both cases we will show that a successful leftward movement account must have certain characteristics that hold also of successful accounts that are compatible with rightward movement or adjunction.

Heavy NP shift is the parser’s last resort: Evidence from eye movements☆

“…According to the classic syntactic account (Ross, 1967; but cf. Kayne, 1998;Rochemont & Culicover, 1997), heavy NP shift involves a movement operation that displaces the verb's direct object from its underlying position adjacent to the verb, where it receives both accusative case and a thematic role, to an adjoined position to the right of other verbal arguments and/or adjuncts. As in other movement operations, a trace of the moved constituent remains in the pre-movement position.…”

The faculty of language: what's special about it?

“…Most of the work has consisted of reformulations to meet theory-internal desiderata rather than empirical tests of competing hypotheses, and such simplifications as have been achieved have been at the expense of relegating an increasing number of phenomena to unknown "interface phenomena." The numerous critical analyses of Minimalism which have appeared in the literature (Johnson & Lappin, 1997Lappin et al, 2000;Newmeyer, 2003;Postal, 2004;Pullum, 1996;Rochemont & Culicover, 1997;Seuren, 2004) differ considerably in politeness but are remarkably similar in substance.…”

“HNPS” as a Combination of Focalization and Topicalization to the Left Periphery

“…(Whitney 1981: 299) On the other hand, Rochemont and Culicover (1997), Kayne (2000), and Jayaseelan (2001), among others, propose a leftward movement analysis for the HNPS construction in (3a). Under the leftward movement analyses, as the first step, the heavy NP moves to the specifier position of a functional projection HP above VP as in (3b).…”

“…On the other hand, Rochemont and Culicover (1997), among others, propose that HNPS involves the leftward movement of a heavy NP to the specifier position of a functional projection lower than TP and the subsequent leftward movement of a remnant category which contains the trace of the heavy NP to a higher position.Though partially adopting the idea of the previous leftward movement analyses, we argue against the analyses and propose a different kind of leftward A A-movement analysis of HNPS. More specifically, pointing out some similarities between HNPS and Focus-Topicalization, we claim that HNPS involves the combination of two types of leftward A A-movement operations to the functional projections in the left periphery, namely FocusTopicalization of the heavy NP and Topic-Topicalization of the remnant TP.…”

“…On the other hand, Rochemont and Culicover (1997), among others, propose that HNPS involves the leftward movement of a heavy NP to the specifier position of a functional projection lower than TP and the subsequent leftward movement of a remnant category which contains the trace of the heavy NP to a higher position.…”