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. 236–266

Flavors of movement

Revisiting the A/A′ distinction

 | Universität Potsdam, Germany
 | Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina
In this paper we revisit a distinction that has been core to GB and Minimalist approaches to the property of displacement in natural languages: the opposition between A(rgumental) and A′ (non-argumental) positions, as sources and targets of the general operation Move-α. Minimalism brought an additional requirement for the establishment of chains generated via movement, the Chain Uniformity Principle, requiring that all members of a chain be in uniform positions with respect to a certain property. We will argue that such chains, even if possible in principle, are not desirable for both theoretical and empirical reasons, with Radical Minimalism as our theoretical framework. The rejection of the Chain Uniformity Principle will ultimately lead us to revisit the A/A′ distinction as a real and relevant theoretical concept.
Published online: 24 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.09kos
References (85)
References
Abels, Klaus. 2003. “Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality and Adposition Stranding.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
. 2012. Phases: An Essay on Cyclicity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abels, Klaus and Bentzen, Kristine. 2009. “A note on the punctuated nature of movement paths.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 19–40.Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan. 2003. “Working memory and language: An overview.” Journal of Communication Disorders 36: 189–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef and Kornflit, Jaklin. 1994. “Against scrambling as an instance of move-alpha.” In Studies on Scrambling. Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word Order Phenomena, Norbert Corver and Henk van Reimdisjk (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. “Free word order in minimalist syntax.” Folia Linguistica 37(1–2): 77–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Treelets, not trees”. Talk presented at BCGL 3 – Trees and Beyond, May 21–23.
. 2010. Defeating Lexicocentrism. lingBuzz/001130
Bresnan, Joan. 1971. “Sentence stress and syntactic transformations”. Language 47(2): 257–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement and Pied-Piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. “Derivation by phase.” MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. On Phases. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Approaching UG from below.” In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gaetrner (eds), 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Problems of projection”. Lingua. Special Issue in Syntax and Cognition: Core Ideas and Results in Syntax. 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard. 1977. “On filters and control”. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
. 1993. “The theory of principles and parameters.” In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Volume 1, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim vos Stechow, Wolfgang Sternfeld, Theo Vennemann (eds), 506–569. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert and van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds). 1994. Studies on Scrambling: Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word Order Phenomena. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William and Cruse, Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter. 1991. “Topicalization, inversion and complementizers in English.” In Going Romance and Beyond, OTS Working Papers, Denis Delfitto, Martin Everaert, Arnold Evers and Frits Stuurman (eds), 1–45. Research Institute for Language and Speech, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Christopher. 2013. “The role of focus particles in Wh-Interrogatives: Evidence from a southern Ryukyuan language.” Presented in West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 31 , Arizona State University, February 8, 2013.
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria and Isac, Daniela. 2008. “The asymmetry of merge.” Biolinguistics 2(4): 260–290.Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas (ed.). 2011. Space, Time and Number in the Brain: Searching for the Foundations of Mathematical Thought. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel and Seely, T. Daniel. 2002. “Rule applications as cycles in a level free syntax.” In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Sanuel D. Epstein and T. Daniel Seely (eds), 65–89. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2003. “Free constituent order: A minimalist interface account.” Folia Linguistica. 37(1–2): 191–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Cyclic phonology-syntax-interaction: Movement to first position in German.” In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure Vol. 1 (Working Papers of the SFB 632), 1–42. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Gallego, Angel. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia. 2011. “Elementary principles of HPSG.” In Non-Transformational Syntax. Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar, Borsley, Robert and Kresti Börjars (eds), 9–53. London:Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth and Kayser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Macr D., Chomsky, Noam and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. “The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how does it evolve?” Science 298: 1569–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heck, Fabian and Müller, Gereon. 2007. Extremely local optimization.” In Proceedings of the 26th WECOL , Erin Brainbridge and Brian Agbayani (eds), 170–183. California State University, Fresno.Google Scholar
Horn, Lawrence. 1988. “Pragmatic theory.” In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Volume I, Linguistic Theory: Foundations, Frederick Newmayer (ed.), 113–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Junghanns, Uwe and Zybatow, Gerhild. 2009. “Grammatik und Informationsstruktur.” In The Slavic Languages. An International Handbook on their Structure, History and Investigation, Kempgen, Sebastian, Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger and Karl Gutschmidt (eds), 684–706. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (HSK 32.1).Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1997. Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 31. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kosta, Peter. 2006. “On free word order phenomena in Czech as compared to German: Is clause internal scrambling A-movement, A-bar-movement or is it base generated?” Zeitschrift für Slawistik 51(3): 306–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kosta, Peter and Schürcks, Lilia. 2007. “The focus feature revisited.” In Linguistic Investigations into Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Contributions of the Sixth European Conference held at Potsdam University, November 30-December 3 2005, Peter Kosta, Lilia Schürcks (eds), 245–267. Peter Lang Verlag. (Potsdam Linguistic Investigations; 1)Google Scholar
. 2009. “Word order in slavic.” In The Slavic Languages. An International Handbook on their Structure, History and Investigation, Sebastian Kempgen, Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger and Karl Gutschmidt (eds), 654–683.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (HSK 32.1).Google Scholar
Kosta, Peter and Krivochen, Diego. 2012. “Some thoughts on language diversity, UG and the importance of language typology: Scrambling and non-monotonic merge of adjuncts and specifiers in Czech and German.” Zeitschrift für Slawistik. 57(4): 377–407 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krivochen, Diego. 2011. “An introduction to radical minimalism I: On merge and agree.” IBERIA 3(2): 20–62.Google Scholar
. 2012a. Towards a Geometrical Syntax: A Formalization of Radical Minimalism. Ms., Universität Potsdam. Under Review. [URL]Google Scholar
. 2012b. The Syntax and Semantics of the Nominal Construction. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishers. (Potsdam Linguistic Investigations; 8).Google Scholar
. 2013a. A Frustrated Mind. Ms., Under Review. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2013b. Tokens vs. Copies: Displacement Revisited. Ms., Under Review. [URL].Google Scholar
Krivochen, Diego and Kosta, Peter. 2013. Eliminating Empty Categories: A Radically Minimalist View on their Ontology and Justification. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishers. (Potsdam Linguistic Investigations; 11).Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Bradley and Hornstein, Norbert. 2012. Copies and Occurrences. Ms., lingbuzz/001484Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the double object construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3). 335–391.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, Uriagereka, Juan and Boeckx, Cedric. 2005. A Course in Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mateu Fontanals, Jaume. 2002. “Argument Structure. Relational Construal at the Syntax-Semantics Interface.” Ph.D. dissertation, Bellaterra: UAB. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2005. “Impossible primitives.” In The Compositionality of Meaning and Content: Foundational Issues, Markus Werning, Edouard Machery, Gerhard Schurz (eds), 213–229. Frankfurt: Ontos.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger and Uriagereka, Juan. this volume. “On the nature of chains in minimalism.”
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse-Configurational Languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Molnárfi, Lazlo. 2003. “On optional movement and feature checking in West Germanic.” Folia Linguistica 37(1–2): 129–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2011. Constraints on Displacement: A Phase-Based Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, LFAB Series volume 7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sidewards Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ouali, Hamid. 2008. “On C-to-T Phi-feature transfer: The nature of agreement and anti-agreement in Berber.” In Agreement Restrictions, Roberta D’Alessandro, Gunar Hrafnjargarson and Susann Fischer (eds), 151–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther. 2007. “The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features.” In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation, Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. “Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP.” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Putnam, Michael (ed.). 2010. Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars. LFAB Series volume 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The Thing that Should not Be: Rethinking the A-A’ distinction. Universitet i Tromso CASTL Linguistics Colloquium, October 7, 2010.Google Scholar
Putnam, Michael and Stroik, Thomas. 2011. “Syntax at ground zero.” Linguistic Analysis 37(3–4): 389–404.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery.” In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Kluwer, Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Locality and left periphery.” In Structures and Beyond – The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 223–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. “On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects.” In Wh-Movement: Moving on, Lisa Cheng, Norbert Corver (eds). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2004. “Elements of Cyclic Syntax: Agree and Merge.” PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan and Wasow, Tom. 2011. “Performance-compatible competence grammar.” In Non Transformational Syntax, Robert Borsley and Kresti Börjars (eds), 359–377. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shieber, Stuart. 1986. An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2001. “Move dissolves into Merge.” PhD thesis, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Stroik, Thomas. 2009. Locality in Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stroik, Thomas and Putnam, Michael. 2013. The Structural Design of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Kristen, Devereux, Barry and Tyler, Lorraine. 2011. “Conceptual structure: Towards an integrated neurocognitive account.” Language and Cognitive Processes 26(9): 1368–1401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Multiple Spell-Out.” In Derivations: Exploring the Dynamics of Syntax, Juan Uriagereka (ed.), 45–65. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2008. Syntactic Anchors: On Semantic Restructuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Spell-Out and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 2003. “Relevance theory.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, Lawrence Horn and Gregory Ward (eds), 607–628. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kosta, Peter & Petr Karlík
2020. Die Nominalisierung von Nebensätzen im Tschechischen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 65:4 ► pp. 479 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.