Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 28, Lisbon
Edited by Ernestina Carrilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo and Sandra Pereira
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10] 2016
► pp. 171–190

In defense of defective intervention

Locality effects in Romance

| CLUNL, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
| University of Maryland
Bruening (2014) has recently challenged the status of defective intervention as a real syntactic phenomenon, arguing that it is actually the effect of linear order. Our first goal is to show that Bruening’s (2014) potential counterexamples to the existence of syntactic defective intervention are only apparent. We will provide an explanation for his data based on adverb placement and the hierarchical architecture of clauses with experiencers. Moreover, we aim to provide a typology of Romance languages that either prohibit defective intervention like Brazilian Portuguese (BP) and Italian or languages of the Romanian/Spanish-type that obviate defective intervention on the basis of the availability of clitic doubling (Anagnostopoulou 2003, 2005).
Keywords: adverbs, clitic doubling, Defective intervention, raising, Romance
Published online: 8 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.10.09mor
References (37)
References
Alboiu, Gabriela. 2006. “Are we in Agreement?” In Agreement Systems, ed. by Cedric Boeckx, 13–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Moving Forward with Romanian Backward Control and Raising.” In New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, ed. by W. Davies and S. Dubinsky, 187–213. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. “Parametrizing Agr: word order, verb movement and EPP-checking.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Gianina Iordăchioaia and Mihaela Marchis. 2012. “In Support of Long Distance Agree.” In Local Modelling of Nonlocal Dependencies in Syntax, ed. by A. Alexiadou, T. Kiss and G. Müller, 55–81. Linguistische Arbeiten. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Cross-linguistic and Cross-categorial Variation of Datives.” In Advances in Greek Generative Syntax, ed. by M. Stavrou et al., 61–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 1994. “A new Look at the Null Subject Parameter.” Paper presented at CONSOLE III , Venice.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Aspects of the Syntax of Agreement. Routledge.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. “Defects of Defective Intervention.” Linguistic Inquiry 45: 707–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries.” In Step by step, ed. by R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press,Google Scholar
Diaconescu, Constanța, Rodica. and Maria Luisa River. 2005. “An Applicative Analysis of Double Object Constructions in Romanian.” In Proceedings of the 2005 annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association . University of Ottawa.
Haider, Hubert. 1992/2000. “Branching and Discharge.” 1992. In Working Papers of the Sonderforschungsbereich 340 (Universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen) 23: 1–31; 2000. In Lexical Specification and Insertion, ed. by Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert and Jane Grimshaw, 135–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 197). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Pre- and postverbal adverbials in OV and VO.” Lingua 114: 779–807 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. “Is There a Little Pro? Evidence from Finnish.” Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2003. “Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions”. Lingua 113: 997–1019. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulk, Aafke and Jean-Yves Pollock. 2001. “Subject Positions in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar.” In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, ed. by Aafke Hulk and Jean Yves Pollock, 3–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1997. Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the double object construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam and Alessandra Lombardi. 2005. “Verb movement, adverbs and clitic positions in Romance”. Probus: 77–111Google Scholar
Marchis, Mihaela and Artemis Alexiadou. 2013. “The syntax of clitics revisited: two types of clitics.” Lingua Volume 127: 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchis Moreno, Mihaela. 2014. “‘Minimal link constraint’ violations: Move vs. Agree.” In Variation within and across Romance Languages: Selected papers from the 41st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ottawa, 5–7 May 2011, ed. by Marie Hélène Côté, Éric Mathieu and Shana Poplack, 213–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martins, Ana Maria and Jairo Nunes. 2005. “Raising issues in European and Brazilian Portuguese.” Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4: 53–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Syntactic change as chain reaction: The emergence of hyper-raising in Brazilian Portuguese.” In Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory, ed. by P. Crisma and G. Longobardi, 144–157. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-Movement. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2008. “Breaking agreements: distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures.” Linguistic Inquiry 40: 619–666. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa. 2004. “Spanish Quirky Subjects, Person Restrictions, and the PCC.” Linguistic Inquiry 35: 53–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dortrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Relavized Minimality. Cambridge Press: MIT.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Relativized Minimality Effects.” In The Handbook of Syntactic Theory, ed. by Mark R. Baltin and Chris Collins, 89–110. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2006. The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance. PhD, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1998. Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure. Subjects, agreement, case and clitics. London/ New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Stroik, Thomas. 1990. “Adverbs as V-sisters.” Linguistic Inquiry 21: 654–661.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1998. The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Arguments for a Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations Based on Clitics.” In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. by S. Epstein and T. Seely, 249–268. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

GLUCKMAN, JOHN
2022. Taking time with thetough-construction. Journal of Linguistics 58:2 ► pp. 233 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.