Cover not available
Part of
Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Variation
Edited by Ermenegildo Bidese, Federica Cognola and Manuela Caterina Moroni
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 234] 2016
► pp. 145–176

Deriving idiolectal variation

English wh-raising

ORCID logo | Ghent University | FWO, GIST
| Ghent University | FWO, GIST
| Ghent University | FWO, GIST
The focus of this paper is on apparent cases of subject-to-subject raising out of finite clauses in English, which are accepted as (fully) grammatical by a minority of native speakers. The basic pattern involves a bi-clausal structure in which a displaced subject triggers agreement in both the embedded and the matrix clause. Crucially, this ‘double agreement’ pattern is only acceptable when a subject is wh-moved. Our analysis builds on the criterial approach to subject extraction developed in Rizzi (2006) and Rizzi & Shlonsky (2006, 2007). We propose that the main ingredient of the wh-raising pattern is incorporation of a functional head in the embedded left periphery into the matrix V.
Keywords: criterial freezing, idiolectal variation, incorporation, raising, Subject Criterion, wh-movement
Published online: 1 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.234.06dan
References (67)
References
Asudeh, Ash. 2002. Richard III. Chicago Linguistic Society 38: 31-46.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Massam, Diane. 1999. Multiple case checking. Syntax 2: 65-79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, Roberts, Ian & Sheehan, Michelle. 2014. Complexity in comparative syntax: the view from modern parametric theory. In Measuring Linguistic Complexity, Frederick Newmeyer & Laurel Preston (eds), 103-127. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bok-Bennema, Reineke & Kampers-Manhe, Brigitte. 1994. Transparency effects in the Romance languages. In Issues and Theory in Romance Linguistics, Michael Mazzola (ed.), 199-217. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1961. Syntactic blends and other matters. Language 37: 366-381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boškovic´, Željko & Lasnik, Howard. 2003. On the distribution of null complementizers. Linguist Inquiry 34: 527-546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1992. SpecCP in verb-second languages. Expletives, null subjects, and nominative case-assignment. Geneva Generative Papers 0: 1-9.Google Scholar
. 1997. Subjects and clause structure. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 33-63. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 115-165. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2011. Hyperactivity and Hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121(5): 721-741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstens, Vicki & Michael Diercks. 2013. Parameterizing case and activity: Hyper-raising in Bantu. NELS 40: 99-118.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 232-286. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth. 2010. Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production. Evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 38-49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danckaert, Lieven. 2012. Latin Embedded Clauses. The Left Periphery [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 184]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edelstein, Elspeth. 2012. The Syntax of Adverb Distribution. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Fernández-Salgueiro, Gerardo. 2005. Agree, the EPP-F and further-raising in Spanish. In Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 272], Randall Gess & Edward Rubin (eds), 97-107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki. 1993. A note on improper movement. The Linguistic Review 10: 111-126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1996. Verb second, the split CP and null subjects in early Dutch finite clauses. Geneva Generative Papers 4: 133-175. <[URL]>Google Scholar
. 2008. Extraction du sujet, réallocation de cas et localité. Cycnos 17. <[URL]>Google Scholar
. 2013. The syntax of registers: Diary subject omission and the privilege of the root. Lingua 130: 88-110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, Christopher & Wexler, Kenneth. 2004. Who seems to rescue raising. Poster presented at GALANA , University of Hawai’i at Manoa, December 2004.
Hornstein, Norbert & Lightfoot, David. 1991. On the nature of lexical government. In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, Robert Freidin (ed.), 365-391. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1972. Evidence for ungrammaticality. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 227.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax. The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1980. Extensions of Binding and Case-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 75-96.Google Scholar
. 1981. On certain differences between French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 349-371.Google Scholar
. 1995. Agreement and verb morphology in three varieties of English. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen & Sten Vikner (eds), 159-165. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Parameters and Universals. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kimball, John & Aissen, Judith. 1971. I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 241-246.Google Scholar
Kluck, Marlies. 2011. Sentence Amalgamation. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1974. Syntactic amalgams. Chicago Linguistic Society 10: 321-344.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Sobin, Nicholas. 2000. The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 343-371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martins, Ana Maria & Nunes, Jairo. 2005. Raising issues in Brazilian and European Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4: 53-77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Apparent hyper-raising in Brazilian Portuguese: agreement with topics across a finite CP. In The Complementizer Phase. Subjects and Operators, Phoevos Panagiotidis (ed.), 143-163. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon & Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 461-507.Google Scholar
Otero, Carlos. 1972. Acceptable ungrammatical sentences in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 233-242.Google Scholar
Payne, John & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey Pullum (eds), 323-523. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1991. Zero Syntax, Vol. 2: Infinitives. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 583-646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1974. On Raising. One Rule of English and its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, Heidi. 2005. The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 82]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar. Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. 2006. On the form of chains. Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement. Moving on, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97-133. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2006. Satisfying the Subject Criterion by a non subject. English Locative Inversion and Heavy NP Shift. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 341-361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 115-160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Cilene. 2004. Impoverished Morphology and A-movement out of Case Domains. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Rogers, Andy. 1974a. Physical Perception Verbs in English: A Study in Lexical Relatedness. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
. 1974b. A trans-derivational constraint on Richard? Chicago Linguistic Society 10: 551-558.Google Scholar
Roussou, Anna. 2001. Control and raising in and out of subjunctive complements. In Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages, María Luisa Rivero & Angela Ralli (eds), 74-104. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldo´r. 2012. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 191-227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigley, Robert. 1997. The influence of formality and channel on relative pronoun choice in New Zealand English. English Language and Linguistics 1: 209-232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 2014. Subject positions, subject extraction, EPP, and the Subject Criterion. In Locality, Enoch Aboh, Maria Teresa Guasti & Ian Roberts (eds), 58-85. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staum Casasanto, Laura & Ivan A. Sag. 2008. The advantage of the ungrammatical. 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , July 2008, Washington, D.C. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. < [URL] >
Sobin, Nicholas. 1994. An acceptable ungrammatical construction. In The Reality of Linguistic Rules [Studies in Language Companion Series 26], Susan D. Lima, Robert Corrigan & Gregory K. Iverson (eds), 51-65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taraldsen, Tarald. 2001. Subject extraction, the distribution of expletives, and stylistic inversion. In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 163-182. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1993. On feature checking for wh-traces. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 243-280.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2000. Free relatives inside out. Transparent free relatives as grafts. In PASE Papers in Language Studies. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Polish Association for the Study of English, Bozena Rozwadowska (ed.), 223-233. Wroclaw: Uniwersytet Wroclawski.Google Scholar
. 2001. A far from simple matter. Syntactic reflexes of syntax-pragmatics misalignments. In Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 90], István Kenesei & Robert Harnish (eds), 21-41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Grafts follow from Merge. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 17-44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Grappling with graft. In Structure Preserved. Studies in Syntax for Jan Koster [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 164], Jan-Wouter Zwart & Mark de Vries (eds), 289-298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weir, Andrew. 2012. Left-edge deletion in English and subject omission in diaries. English Language and Linguistics 16: 105-129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth & Culicover, Peter. 1980. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 2006. Raising out of finite CP in Nguni. The case of fanele. South African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 24: 255-275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Haegeman, Liliane & Lieven Danckaert
2024. Subject ellipsis and impersonal pronouns. In Rich Descriptions and Simple Explanations in Morphosyntax and Language Acquisition, ► pp. 396 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.