Article published in:
Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces
Edited by Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork and Lilia Schürcks
[Language Faculty and Beyond 11] 2014
► pp. 195–235

Multiattachment syntax, “Movement” effects, and Spell-Out

| Indiana University — Bloomington
This paper addresses a set of puzzles associated with Spell-Out. Of primary concern is the pronunciation and interpretation of hypothetical intermediate copies of moved constituents. I show that LF wh-movement never exhibits any intermediate effects and argue that intermediate effects are best accommodated by rejecting successive cyclic movement in favor of a “one fell swoop” feature-driven approach. I regard “movement” as feature-driven multiattachment, rather than re-merge of actual copies. This relation is unbounded in the syntax; wh-movement intermediate effects arise through the attempt to form a chain for Spell-Out purposes. Since these can only involve C (there being no intermediate SpecCPs), all such effects are head effects.
Published online: 24 September 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.08fra
References

References

Barss, Andy
1986 “Chains and Anaphoric Dependence.” Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh
2005 “Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23 (4): 757–807. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Billings, Loren and Rudin, Catherine
1996 “Optimality and superiority: A new approach to multiple-wh ordering.” In FASL: The College Park Meeting, 1994, Jindřich Toman (ed.), 35–60. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric
2003 Islands and Chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Understanding Minimalist Syntax: Lessons from Locality in Long-Distance Dependencies. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia
1995 “Feature structure of Romance clitics.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 607–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko
1997 The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 On the Nature of the Syntax–Phonology Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2002 “On multiple wh-fronting.” Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 351–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory.” Linguistic Inquiry 38(4): 589–644. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, Vicki
2010 “Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features.” In Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars, Michael Putnam (ed.), 31–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1977 “On wh movement.” In Formal Syntax, Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow and Adrian Akmajian (eds), 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 “Minimalist inquiries.” In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008 “On phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara
2011 Symmetry in Syntax: Merge, Move, and Labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Plessis, Hans
1977 “Wh movement in Afrikaans.” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 723–726.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert and Ćavar, Damir
2001 “Remarks on the economy of pronunciation.” In Competition in Syntax, Gereon Muller and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 107–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert and Mahajan, Anoop
2000 “Towards a minimalist theory of wh-expletives, wh-copying, and successive cyclicity.” In Wh-Scope Marking, Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller and von Stechow, Arnim (eds), 195–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Felser, Claudia
2004 “Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity.” Lingua 114: 543–574. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny
2008 Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frampton, John
2004 “Copies, traces, occurrences, and all that: Evidence from Bulgarian multiple wh-phenomena.” Unpublished Ms., Northeastern University. Available at: http://​www​.math​.neu​.edu​/ling​/lingindex​.html.Google Scholar
Frampton, John and Gutmann, Sam
2000 “Agreement is feature sharing.” Unpublished Ms., Northeastern University. Available at http://​www​.math​.neu​.edu​/ling​/lingindex​.html.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven
1998/2010 “Clitics in Slavic.” Paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop , Spencer, Indiana, June 1998. Updated version published on-line at http://​www​.seelrc​.org​/glossos​/issues​/10/.
2006 “Agnostic movement.” In Proceedings of NELS XXXVI, Volume 1, Christopher Davis, Amy Rose Deal and Youri Zabbai (eds), 267–278. North Charleston, SC: Booksurge Publishing.Google Scholar
2009 “On the mechanics of Spell–Out.” In The Sound Patterns of Syntax, Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Lisa Rochman (eds), 110–139. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven and Bošković, Željko
2001 “An argument for multiple Spell-Out.” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 174–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven and Herring, Joshua
2011 “Against copies: A computational model of chain formation and Spell–Out.” Poster presented at LSA Annual Meeting , Pittsburgh, PA.
Franks, Steven and Lavine, James
2006 “Case and word order in Lithuanian.” Journal of Linguistics 42: 239–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin
2002 Generalized Transformations and Beyond: Reflections on Minimalist Syntax. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman
2000 “The w…w construction: appositive or scope indicating?” In Wh-Scope Marking, Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller and Arnim von Stechow (eds), 249–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, Nunes, Jairo and Grohmann, Kleanthes
2005 Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, Lasnik, Howard and Uriagereka, Juan
2003 “The dynamics of islands: Speculations on the locality of movement.” Linguistic Analysis 33: 149–175.Google Scholar
Huang, James C.-T.
1982 “Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.” Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle
2010 “Multidominance and movement.” Lectures presented at the Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, Konkuk University.Google Scholar
Kang, Jungmin
2013 “On the unavailability of successive-cyclic movement via SpecCP in Korean.” In Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX, Nobu Goto, Koichi Otaki, Atsushi Sato and Kensuke Takita (eds). On-line at http://​faculty​.human​.mie​-u​.ac​.jp​/~glow​_mie​/glow​_IX​_index​.html.
Kayne, Richard
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kinyayolo, Kasangati Kikuni Wabongambilu
1991 “Syntactic Dependencies and the SPEC-Head Agreement Hypothesis in KiLega.” Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Larson, Bradley and Hornstein, Norbert
under review. “Copies and occurrences.”
Lochbiler, Bethany and Eric Mathieu
2011 “Wh-agreement in Ojibwe relative clauses: evidence for CP structure.” Ms., McGill University and University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana
1986 “Conditions on Wh-chains.” Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James
2001 “The morphosyntax of WH-extraction in Irish.” Journal of Linguistics 37: 67–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
2010 Why Agree? Why Move? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo
2004 Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ochi, Masao
1999 “Some consequences of Attract F.” Lingua 109 (2): 81–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Colin
2003 “Linear order and constituency.” Linguistic Inquiry 34: 37–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria and Potsdam, Eric
2001 “Long distance agreement and topic in Tsez.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 583–646 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rett, Jessica
2006 “Pronominal vs. determiner wh-words: evidence from the copy construction.” In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6, Olivier Bonami and P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 355–374. CNRS.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin
2001 Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1990 Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R.
1967 “Constraints on Variables in Syntax.” Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko
1994 “Minimality of Movement.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther
1984 “On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects.” Linguistic Inquiry 15: 103–129.Google Scholar
Vries, Mark de
2012 “Unconventional mergers.” In Ways of Structure Building, Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Vidal Valmala (eds), 143–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zanon, Ksenia
2014. “Hybrid wh-coordination in Russian.” In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The McMaster Meeting, 2013, Cassandra Chapman, Olena Kit and Ivona Kučerová (eds) 444 465 Ann Arbor, MI Michigan Slavic Publications
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Franks, Steven L.
2016.  In Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 236], ► pp. 91 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 02 may 2021. 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.