Object Shift and linearization at the PF interface

Abstract

Both target articles, in conformity with minimalist ideals, aim to discover to what extent syntax itself can be relieved of descriptive burden, and just how much of word order can be attributed to mechanisms of linearization at the PF interface. I point out two paradoxes the treatment of V2 gives rise to in Erteshik-Shir's paper, and dispute the status and effectiveness of processing constraints in accounting for (un)grammaticalities in various word order patterns. I discuss the relation of Fox and Pesetsky's cyclic linearization algorithm to 'tucking in' as well as to the 'Attract Closest' property of movement. Qualms are raised regarding several apparently stipulative and/or conceptually unattractive properties of the linearization mechanism, and ostensible violations of order preservation are examined. 1.Introduction What makes the juxtaposition of the two target articles in this volume particularly thought-provoking is that both are directly concerned with issues of linearization at the PF interface of the grammar, aiming to discover to what extent syntax itself can be relieved of descriptive burden, and just how much of word order can be attributed to PF mechanisms. In addition to the shared interest in architectural considerations of division of labor, Scandinavian Object Shift (OS) plays a key role in both argumentations.The role of linear order and PF is central to a number of current theories of OS, most notably Holmberg (1999) (where in fact OS is treated essentially as a PF operation) and Chomsky (2001) 1 , as well as Bobaljik (1995Bobaljik ( , 2002) (where PF-adjacency functions prominently). The two target papers can be considered members of the 'PF' family of accounts of OS. Both studies make assumptions with intriguing consequences for the analysis of OS and far-reaching implications beyond. In what follows, I elucidate my main concerns about each of the two proposals, and also spell out several of their apparently desirable consequences. 2.Linearization and PF operations Erteshik-Shir (ES) argues in favor of a radical position according to which a number of displacements that are commonly viewed as syntactic are to be viewed as resulting from operations at PF. The essential claim about OS defended by ES is that it does not exist: it is the result of the PF operation of Prosodic Incorporation (PI) of prosodically weak elements (pronominal objects and weak adverbs like negation) and adverb linearization (adverbs are assumed to be merged to the phrase they modify in a third dimension, cf. e.g. Åfarli 1997), interacting with independently necessary displacements. Basing herself on these fundamentals, ES provides an engagingly detailed treatment of OS phenomena across Scandinavian.One significant advantage of ES's approach, beyond its impressive coverage of variation across Scandinavian, is that it provides a straightforward explanation of why OS has 'no effect' (it has neither A-nor A-bar properties: it does not affect binding configurations, does not license parasitic gaps, or give rise to w...

Scope freezing and object shift in Ukrainian: Does Superiority matter?

“…Several important general observations need to be made before concluding. First, while the account of Ukrainian OS in terms of Fox & Pesetsky 2005 is fully compatible with our earlier observation that OS (unlike QR) is in fact a Superiority-obeying operation, this characterization becomes redundant, with the "Superiority-obeying" nature of OS now following entirely from the fact that phonologically overt material inside each successive Spellout domain is required to linearize in a way that replicates the ordering statement produced when the initial domain was spelled out (see also Surányi 2005).…”