From Prolepsis to Hyperraising

Abstract

Case, agreement, and A-movement dependencies across finite clause boundaries, such as Hyperraising (to subject or object) or Long-Distance Case or Agreement [LDA], are available in many typologically diverse languages. The research on such dependencies typically distinguishes between cross-linguistically restricted true A-dependencies across finite clauses, and generally available binding-like A′-dependencies as found in Prolepsis. In this paper, we investigate both types of configurations in parallel and refer to this as the A-domain. Since the diagnostics to distinguish A-configurations vary across languages and often cannot be compared directly, we define four characteristic properties: (A) whether the construction is restricted by matrix predicate selection, (B) whether movement in the embedded clause is involved, (C) whether the dependency shows locality restrictions (in particular, A-Minimality), and (D) whether there are semantic restrictions on the relevant DP. By combining different values of the characteristic properties, we show, differently from previous approaches, that the A-domain does not simply consist of two types of configurations, but that the empirical landscape represents a continuum of five A-constructions. We suggest a theoretical implementation of our empirical findings, which is built on a predicational relator phrase above the embedded CP and propose that, in some of the constructions, these two projections fuse into one. We employ a minimalist probing approach which relies on differences in the base-generated position of the relevant DP (matrix clause, high in the embedded clause, argument position in the embedded clause), differences in the feature composition of the embedded C (a plain A′-head, or a bundled predicational C head involving composite A/A′ probes), a composite probe hierarchy yielding three types of feature-dependencies of composite probes, and, resulting from that, different probing mechanisms (conjunctive satisfaction, dependent satisfaction, and independent satisfaction). Lastly, this paper also contributes methodological tools for disentangling constructions of the A-domain.

The Size of Clausal Complements

“…The tests include island sensitivity, Amovement restrictions, A-minimality, word order, and various connectivity effects. To illustrate, I give example 36 for finite ECM in Korean and example 37 for Mongolian (for detailed data, evidence, and cross-linguistic distribution, see Lohninger et al 2022). As shown, both languages involve embedded complementizers (hence a CP) and an argument that is associated with the embedded predicate but bears accusative, which can be shown to not be assigned in the embedded clause but to be solely dependent on the matrix predicate (see the works cited for evidence).…”

“…To solve the locality issue of finite ECM-that is, the fact that an A-dependency is established into or across the CP domain, typically a pure A ′ -domain-the A/A ′ -distinction has been reconsidered. Concretely, Wurmbrand (2019) and Lohninger et al (2022), following van Urk (2015), propose that C-heads can have mixed A-and A ′ -properties. The A ′ -properties include the usual operators (e.g., wh) as well as informationstructure properties (e.g., topic).…”

“…There is evidence that finite ECM clauses involve regular structural case and cannot simply be treated as case-deficient clauses (seeWurmbrand 2018, Lohninger et al 2022). …”

Island sensitivity and case matching in Uyghur pseudo-prolepsis

“…While the relationship between proleptic object and resumptive in proleptic constructions is understood to be island insensitive (Salzmann 2017;Lohninger et al 2022), the apparent proleptic construction in Uyghur is ungrammatical when the higher DP and it's correlate pronoun/DP are separated by islands. In (2), the DP Abliz-ni appears to the left of the embedded clause; the relative clause island, denoted in angle brackets, contains a pronoun/DP which can potentially corefer with Abliz-ni.…”

“…believe-npst-3 Intended: 'Reyhan believes about Abliz i that Ghéni likes the girl that saw {him/that man} i/j .' While proleptic objects and resumptives are generally understood as not undergoing any feature sharing with one another (Lohninger et al 2022), 2 the apparent proleptic construction in Uyghur requires that the higher DP matches the case of its correlate pronoun/DP if the correlate pronoun/DP has oblique case. In (3), the higher DP Aygül-ge appears to the left of the embedded clause; the correlate is a dative pronoun uninggha or DP u güzel ayal-gha which mandatorily corefers with the Aygül-ge.…”