Colloquium 064: Shoichi Takahashi (Aoyama Gakuin University)
NTHU Linguistics Spring, 2019 Colloquium Series present...
Speaker：Shoichi Takahashi (Aoyama Gakuin University)
Title：Ways of salvation: A study of the A/A’-distinction
Time：12:30 pm, May 1, 2019
Venue：HSS Building, Room B305
Abstract：A-movement is sometimes accompanied by subsequent movement of a remnant constituent, a constituent that contains the launching site of A-movement, as shown in (1).
(1) [How likely t1 to win] is [an Austrian]1? (∃>likely; *likely>∃) (Sauerland and Elbourne 2002:297)
A-movement of this sort displays characteristic behavior that we do not find in ordinary A-movement. First, it does not show a reconstruction effect, as shown by the contrast in the interpretive possibilities between (1) and (2).
(2) An Austrian is likely to win the gold medal. (∃>likely; likely>∃) (Sauerland and Elbourne 2002:284)
Secondly, remnant-inducing A-movement is ungrammatical when its launching site is a position in which a pronoun cannot materialize, as illustrated in (3).
(3) a. [Lots of things]i are wrong with my liver (*but fortunately theyi are not wrong with your liver).
b. Something really grave is likely to be wrong with her liver.
c.*How likely to be wrong with her liver is [something really grave]? (Postal 2004:116, 120)
I argue that a specific procedure must be employed in the formation of remnant-inducing A-movement dependencies in order to circumvent an ordering problem that is caused by remnant movement, and this is what lies behind the traits discussed above. In particular, I propose that a restrictor NP of a determiner must be counter-cyclically merged with the determiner in remnant-inducing A-movement. If this kind of counter-cyclic merger is an essential ingredient for yielding remnant-inducing movement, we predict that A’-movement would not be able to feed remnant movement, given Takahashi and Hulsey’s (2009) claim that it cannot be carried out in A’-movement dependencies. However, this prediction is not fulfilled. Thus elaborating the timing of Spell-Out, I develop an alternative explanation for A’-movement cases that does not rely on counter-cyclic merger. This explanation predicts that remnant-inducing A-movement and A’-movement behave differently, and I argue that this prediction is borne out.
Speaker：Shoichi Takahashi (Aoyama Gakuin University)
Title：Ways of salvation: A study of the A/A’-distinction
Time：12:30 pm, May 1, 2019
Venue：HSS Building, Room B305
Abstract：A-movement is sometimes accompanied by subsequent movement of a remnant constituent, a constituent that contains the launching site of A-movement, as shown in (1).
(1) [How likely t1 to win] is [an Austrian]1? (∃>likely; *likely>∃) (Sauerland and Elbourne 2002:297)
A-movement of this sort displays characteristic behavior that we do not find in ordinary A-movement. First, it does not show a reconstruction effect, as shown by the contrast in the interpretive possibilities between (1) and (2).
(2) An Austrian is likely to win the gold medal. (∃>likely; likely>∃) (Sauerland and Elbourne 2002:284)
Secondly, remnant-inducing A-movement is ungrammatical when its launching site is a position in which a pronoun cannot materialize, as illustrated in (3).
(3) a. [Lots of things]i are wrong with my liver (*but fortunately theyi are not wrong with your liver).
b. Something really grave is likely to be wrong with her liver.
c.*How likely to be wrong with her liver is [something really grave]? (Postal 2004:116, 120)
I argue that a specific procedure must be employed in the formation of remnant-inducing A-movement dependencies in order to circumvent an ordering problem that is caused by remnant movement, and this is what lies behind the traits discussed above. In particular, I propose that a restrictor NP of a determiner must be counter-cyclically merged with the determiner in remnant-inducing A-movement. If this kind of counter-cyclic merger is an essential ingredient for yielding remnant-inducing movement, we predict that A’-movement would not be able to feed remnant movement, given Takahashi and Hulsey’s (2009) claim that it cannot be carried out in A’-movement dependencies. However, this prediction is not fulfilled. Thus elaborating the timing of Spell-Out, I develop an alternative explanation for A’-movement cases that does not rely on counter-cyclic merger. This explanation predicts that remnant-inducing A-movement and A’-movement behave differently, and I argue that this prediction is borne out.