Chapter published in:
Boundaries, Phases and Interfaces: Case studies in honor of Violeta Demonte
Edited by Olga Fernández-Soriano, Elena Castroviejo Miró and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 239] 2017
► pp. 28–46

Syntacticizing blends

The case of English wh-raising

| Ghent University, FWO
| Ghent University, FWO
This paper aims at analysing English structures in which a wh-moved subject triggers agreement both in the clause it is extracted from and in the immediately higher clause. This pattern is only accepted by some native speakers, and it is also attested in corpora. Although the relevant structures could at first sight be analysed as extragrammatical ‘blends’, we propose that they are in fact part of certain speakers’ linguistic competence, and hence generated by the grammar of those speakers. Adopting the approach to subject extraction developed in Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007), we suggest that extracted subjects can exceptionally be ‘hyperactive’ (Carstens 2011), and thus take part in A-relations (case and agreement) in more than one clausal domain.
Keywords: subject raising, A-movement, A’-movement, amalgam, agreement, Subject Criterion, incorporation, relativization
Published online: 14 June 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.239.02dan
References

References

Asudeh, Ash
2002 Richard III. Chicago Linguistic Society 38: 31–46.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1961 Syntactic blends and other matters. Language 37: 366–381. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna
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: 721–741. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, Vicki & Diercks, Michael
2013 Parameterizing case and activity: Hyper-raising in Bantu. NELS 40 Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 99–118. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth
2010 Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production: Evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 38–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danckaert, Lieven; D’Hulster, Tijs & Haegeman, Liliane
2016 Deriving idiolectal variation: English wh-raising. In Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Variation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 234], Ermenegildo Bidese, Federica Cognola & Manuela Caterina Moroni (eds), 145–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
2008 Extraction du sujet, réallocation de cas et localité. Cycnos 17. http://​revel​.unice​.fr​/cycnos​/index​.html​?id​=1694 Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kimball, John & Aissen, Judith
1971 I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 241–246.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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1982 Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1991 Proper head government and the definition of A-positions. GLOW Newsletter 26: 46–47.Google Scholar
1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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
Sigurðsson, Halldór
2012 Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 191–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur
2014 Subject positions, subject extraction, EPP, and the subject criterion. In Locality, Enoch Oladé Aboh, Maria Teresa Guasti & Ian Roberts (eds), 58–85. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

den Dikken, Marcel
2018. Secondary predication and the distribution of raising to object. Acta Linguistica Academica 65:1 ► pp. 87 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 2020. 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.