UMWPiL Volume 14 (2006)
Welcome to the homepage of the fourteenth volume of the University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics. This is the first internet-based publication of UMWPiL. By publishing online and offering free access, it presents our authors with a greater audience and provides our readers with easier access. Each of the ten papers included in this volume can be found below, with an abstract provided. The papers are all downloadable in Portable Document Format (PDF). You can download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free from Adobe.com.
The editors would like to thank the numerous authors and reviewers who helped to make this volume possible.
Citations: Please cite the papers as they are listed at bottom of the first page of each submission.
Anastasia Conroy "The Semantics of How Come: A Look at How Factivity Does It All" (pp. 1-24)
Lydia Grebenyova "Sluicing and the Nature of Encoding Grammatical Violations" (pp. 25-38)
Norbert Hornstein "A Short Note on Non Obligatory Control" (pp. 39-46)
Norbert Hornstein "Pronouns in a Minimalist Setting" (pp. 47-80)
Norbert Hornstein, Ana Maria Martins and Jairo Nunes "Infinitival Complements of Perception and Causative Verbs: A Case Study on Agreement and Intervention Effects in English and European Portuguese" (pp. 81-110)
Atakan Ince "Pseudo-Sluicing in Turkish" (pp. 111-126)
Hirohisa Kiguchi "Cyclic A-Movement and Agree in Japanese" (pp. 127-142)
Miki Obata "Weakest Islands" (pp. 143-162)
Hajime Ono and Tomohiro Fujii "English Wh-exclamatives and the Role of T-to-C in Wh-clauses" (pp. 163-187)
Ivan Ortega-Santos "On New Information Focus, Sentence Stress Assignment Conditions and the Copy Theory: A Spanish Conspiracy" (pp. 188-212)
Abstract: It has been noted that why and how come have different behavior (Collins 1991; Ochi 2004); and while a factive analysis has been proposed, it has not been exploited to describe all of the relevant facts. I support the claim that how come is factive, while why is not, using an analysis introduced by Fitzpatrick (2005). By introducing only a few modifications to the analysis, I will account for all of the distributional differences between how come and why. Additionally, presuming that how come is factive makes specific predictions concerning the types of complements that are available and these predictions are borne out with native-speaker judgments. Furthermore, the Italian come mai has similar behavior, suggesting the same analysis holds in this case as well. The factivity analysis is able to account for new data concerning how come, and also makes an interesting observation concerning acquisition.
Abstract: This paper explores the interaction of island effects and left-branch extraction (LBE) violations under Sluicing. I point out and explore the generalization that, while Sluicing can repair extraction out of various island combinations, it cannot repair the derivation containing LBE out of an island. This suggests that quite different processes underlie these phenomena. The proposed account is based on examining the nature of encoding grammatical violations. It includes proposals about how locality violations are encoded in the derivation, such as the idea that the lower copy is the default element for violation encoding and that the encoding is sensitive to 'violation uniformity' (i.e. violations of different kinds cannot be marked on the same element). The paper involves data from English, Russian, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian.
Abstract: No abstract available at this time
Abstract: No abstract available at this time
Abstract: This paper discusses perception and causative verbs in English and European Portuguese within Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) Agree framework and provides an answer for the old riddle of why these verbs appear to select for different infinitival complements in their active and passive forms. Assuming that infinitival clauses are Case-bearing projections (Raposo 1987; Nunes 1995), the paper proposes that in active structures, the infinitival head and the embedded subject can both agree with the matrix light verb and so “share” the accusative Case it licenses. In passive structures, on the other hand, the intervening φ-features of the participial head block the agreement between the finite T and the infinitival head, which will then be licensed only if preposition insertion is sanctioned as a last resort repair strategy.
Abstract: In contrast to regular sluicing, pseudo-sluicing in Turkish permits a Tense/Evidential morpheme with the wh-phrase. In these structures, an AspP projection lower than the TP/EvidP complement of CP, is elided. Merchant (2001b) argues that Co has an E feature which triggers phonological deletion of its complement TP. In pseudo-sluicing, a lower head, To/Evido, bears the E feature. An E feature on a To/Evido head is possible because the head is a distinct morpheme independent of the verbal root. Pseudo-sluicing displays island-sensitive properties. A wh-phrase in an island cannot raise to co-occur with a To/Evido head in the matrix clause. The fact that sluiced wh-phrases do not raise out of islands, rather than running counter to, actually supports Merchant’s (2001a) analysis of PF-islands in terms of * marking of island-violating phrases.
Abstract: This paper argues that Agree as well as A-movement is a cyclic operation in the course of the derivation, with “the reversal of agreement” phenomena in Japanese. Hence, it provides an empirical support for Pesetsky & Torrego’s (2001) Earliness Principle, which says that an uninterpretable feature must be deleted as early as possible in the derivation. Furthermore, a (Nominative) Case-feature of the DP is claimed to induce A-movement. This reminiscence of Chomsky’s (1995) Last Resort is also defended by Bobalijk & Wurmbrand (to appear) and Lidz & Williams (2003).
Abstract:This paper focuses on some properties of wh-islands in terms of finiteness. Wh-extraction out of infinitival wh-clauses is much better than the one out of finite wh-clauses, as reported so far. The amelioration of wh-island effects in infinitival clause, which I will call “weakest island” effects in this paper, has been captured as “Tensed-island”. However, a close look at some data seems to show that weakest island effects do not purely depend on finiteness. In this paper, I present supporting evidence for this view, and I argue that weakest island effects are selectively observed in A-to-A’ movement across an island. Meanwhile, A’-to-A’ movement across an island in either finite or infinitival clause equally makes a sentence bad. Also, I will show that at least some existing approaches to locality of movement fail to capture these generalizations and that Pesetsky and Torrego (2001, 2002, 2004) give us a clue to understand them in terms of "T-relatedness".
Abstract:This paper attempts to develop Pesetsky and Torrego’s (2001) idea that the C of wh-interrogatives and the C of wh-exclamatives are syntactically identical. The discussion starts with their assumption that the C of wh-clauses has an uninterpretable Tense feature and an uninterpretable wh-feature. It is argued that English facts suggest that, as Pesetsky and Torrego claim, the C of wh-exclamatives and the C of wh-interrogatives are the same item. We then propose that when the Tense feature of C is checked by a factive operator, the wh-clause must be interpreted as exclamative. It is shown that the present proposal can account for similarities and differences between the two constructions, including those potentially problematic for Pesetsky and Torrego’s original analysis.
Abstract:This paper shows how the Copy Theory (Chomsky, 1995) together with Sentence Stress Assignment conditions (e.g., Zubizarreta, 1998, following Chomsky, 1970, Cinque, 1993 and Jackendoff, 1972) clarify the properties of postverbal subjects and, more generally, the syntax of new information focus in Spanish. Under an approach to ‘copy deletion’ as a PF phenomenon, there is a preference for the retention of the highest copy. Nonetheless, under conflicting PF requirements a lower copy may be pronounced (e.g., Bošković, 1999, Nunes, 2004 or Pesetsky, 1997). Drawing on work by Stjepanović (1999), this research argues that non-presupposed arguments constitute lower copies being pronounced in order to meet Sentence Stress Assignment Conditions. This approach captures both the prosody and syntax of new information focus in Spanish going beyond a mere coding while making use of only independently needed technology. Additionally, this account provides evidence for the overarching Copy Theory of Movement (Chomsky, 1995).