Cover not available
Part of
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.08fra
References (55)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory.” Linguistic Inquiry 38(4): 589–644. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felser, Claudia. 2004. “Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity.” Lingua 114: 543–574. DOI logoGoogle 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: [URL].Google Scholar
Frampton, John and Gutmann, Sam. 2000. “Agreement is feature sharing.” Unpublished Ms., Northeastern University. Available at [URL].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 [URL].
. 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2002. Generalized Transformations and Beyond: Reflections on Minimalist Syntax. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, Nunes, Jairo and Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2005. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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 [URL].
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2003. “Linear order and constituency.” Linguistic Inquiry 34: 37–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria and Potsdam, Eric. 2001. “Long distance agreement and topic in Tsez.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 583–646 DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 (2)

Cited by two other publications

Krivochen, Diego Gabriel
2023. Towards a theory of syntactic workspaces: neighbourhoods and distances in a lexicalised grammar. The Linguistic Review 40:2 ► pp. 311 ff. DOI logo
Franks, Steven L.
2016. Clitics are/become Minimal(ist). In Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 236], ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.