Selective Opacity

Abstract

This article develops a general theory of selective opacity effects, configurations in which the same constituent is opaque for some operations but transparent for others. Classical observations of selective opacity lie in the realm of movement. Finite clauses, for instance, are opaque for A-movement but transparent for Ā-extraction, a pattern that generalizes beyond the A/Ā distinction. Using novel evidence from movement-agreement interactions in Hindi-Urdu, I argue that selective opacity also encompasses ϕ-agreement and I propose that the underlying constraint applies, not to movement itself, but to Agree. I develop the novel concept of horizons, which delimit search spaces in probe specific ways by terminating search. They thereby prevent particular probes from searching into them, inducing selective opacity. The horizons account derives an otherwise surprising property of selective opacity effects noted previously: the higher the structural position of a probe in the clausal spine, the more structures are transparent to it. The analysis proposed here unifies improper movement and related selective opacity restrictions, mismatches in the locality of movement and agreement, and intricate interactions between movement types and agreement.

Movement and cyclic Agree

“…As (12) shows, LDA remains optional if the object is scrambled. 7 (12) Moreover, again just like in the case of local agreement, empirically LDA does not seem to be parasitic on a designated (covert) movement step of the agreement controller to a position above the matrix subject (Davison 1991;Boeckx 2004;Bhatt 2005;Keine 2019Keine , 2020b. The relevant facts are parallel to those for local agreement presented in Sect.…”

“…We have so far limited our attention to local agreement between a verb and its arguments. Hindi also allows long-distance agreement between a verb and the object of an embedded nonfinite clause (see Mahajan 1989;Davison 1991;Butt 1993Butt , 1995Boeckx 2004;Bhatt 2005;Franks 2006;Chandra 2007;Keine 2016Keine , 2019Keine , 2020bBhatt and Keine 2017;Bjorkman and Zeijlstra 2019). An example of LDA is provided in ( 9), where the matrix verb de 'let' can agree with the embedded object kitaab 'book.'…”

“…In the interest of space, we will not investigate the surface optionality of LDA in detail here. Rather, we will assume, following Boeckx (2004); Bhatt (2005); and Keine (2016Keine ( , 2019Keine ( , 2020b, that this optionality is the result of a structural ambiguity of nonfinite clauses in Hindi. On this line of account, the nonfinite clauses occur in (at least) two varieties, one of which is transparent to φ-agreement, the other of which is opaque.…”

Coalescence: A Unification of Bundling Operations in Syntax

“…This appears to run afoul of the expectation that syntactic operations do not alter the labels of items that they manipulate, the No Tampering Condition (Chomsky 2008). 14 I propose that the problem can be avoided by adopting Category Percolation (Keine 2019), proposed independently to explain key properties of extended projections ( Van Riemsdijk 1988, 1998, Grimshaw 1991.…”

A special case of long distance agreement in Marathi

“…SeeKeine (2019) for more discussion on this construction. 8 A trace instead of a copy of the moved phrase has been shown in accordance with the original example.…”