Object shift and subject shift

Abstract

Adopting the hypothesis that both NP-movement of subjects and scrambling of objects are instances of A-movement, this article aims at accounting for the similarities and differences between these movements within the so-called derivation-and-evaluation framework, which combines certain aspects from the minimalist program and optimality theory. KeywordsA-scrambling AE A¢-scrambling AE Derivation-and-evaluation model AE Minimalist program AE NP-movement AE Object shift AE Optimality theory AE Subject shift IntroductionThis article is concerned with comparing scrambling of objects and NP-movement of the subject, and aims at accounting for the similarities and differences between these movement types within the derivation-and-evaluation (D&E) framework developed in Broekhuis and Dekkers (2000) and subsequent work. Before I present this framework in Sect. 2, I will first briefly introduce the topic of discussion, starting with the notion of object scrambling.The existing approaches to object scrambling can be divided into three different groups depending on the question whether it is considered to be A-or A¢-movement or to involve base-generation; a representative sample of these approaches can be found in Corver and Van Riemsdijk (1994). Webelhuth (1989Webelhuth ( , 1992 has shown that Dutch/German object scrambling has properties of both A-and A¢-movement, a fact that is often referred to as Webelhuth's paradox. For example, the fact that scrambling feeds binding is a typical A-movement property (cf. Vanden Wyngaerd 1988, whereas the fact that scrambling licenses parasitic gaps is generally considered an A¢-movement property (cf. Bennis and Hoekstra 1984; see De Hoop andKosmeijer 1991 andBroekhuis 1992, however, for some problems for this claim). The binding facts are illustrated in (1); note that example (1a) slightly improves if the adverbial phrase namens elkaar 'on behalf of each other' is assigned contrastive accent, which might be due to the fact that (1a) might then be derived from (1b) by means of (reconstructable) focus movement (see below example (2)). The parasitic gap facts are illustrated in (2). (1) The, to my mind, most plausible solution to Webelhuth's paradox is to assume that the notion of scrambling is not a unitary phenomenon, but actually refers to (at least) two different phenomena (cf. Vanden Wyngaerd 1988De´prez 1989;Mahajan 1990;Neeleman 1994a), which one might refer to as object shift and focus/negation movement, respectively. The fact that the object in (3) is able to both bind the anaphor and to license the parasitic gap can then be accounted for as follows: binding of the anaphor elkaar 'each other' is made possible by object shift, that is, by the intermediate trace t¢ i , which occupies an A-position; the parasitic gap is licensed by focus movement, that is, by the DP preceding the adjunct clause, which presumably occupies the specifier position of a FocusP.(3) Hij had de gasten i [zonder pg te bekijken] t¢ i aan elkaar he had the guests without to look.at to each.other t i v...

Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates

“…While A'-scrambling must involve movement, there is some controversy about the nature of A-scrambling: it could result from variation in the base component (see Bayer andKornfilt 1994, andNeeleman 1994) or from optional A-movement (see Mahajan 1990 andBroekhuis 2007) or from a combination of obligatory Amovement and freedom in the attachment site of adverbials (see Vanden Wyngaerd 1989 andZwart 1993).…”

Extraction from subjects: some remarks on Chomsky’s On phases

“…However, when we assume that Kayne's (1994) universal base hypothesis, according to which all languages are SVO underlyingly, is correct, there are theory-internal reasons to reject this assumption. According to this proposal, the OV-order of languages like Dutch must be derived by means of leftward movement of the object across V. In Broekhuis (2000Broekhuis ( /2003 I have argued that this movement is triggered by the φ-features of V. If V can only inherit these features from a phase 3 Of course, we still have to find a good minimalist account for the subject-island condition. See Chomsky (1995:328) for an attempt.…”

The Unification of Object Shift and Object Scrambling

“…2 Dutch and German differ from the Scandinavian languages (and English) in that the subject moves into the subject position (SpecTP) only optionally. The restrictions on subject movement are similar to those on object scrambling so that we may conclude that scrambling may also apply to subjects; due to space limitations I have to refer the reader to, e.g., Haider and Rosengren (1998) and Broekhuis (2007Broekhuis ( /2008.…”