CPs Move Rightward, Not Leftward

IF 0.7 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research Pub Date : 2018-10-15 DOI:10.1111/SYNT.12164
Benjamin Bruening
{"title":"CPs Move Rightward, Not Leftward","authors":"Benjamin Bruening","doi":"10.1111/SYNT.12164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several recent proposals hold that CP complements appear rightmost in many languages by a two-step leftward movement process: first the CP moves leftward, and then a remnant phrase carries all other material to the left of that moved position. I show here that this analysis faces insurmountable problems. In contrast, a simple rightward movement analysis explains all the facts. Importantly, if binding is computed on the basis of precede-and-command rather than c-command (Bruening 2014), the rightward movement analysis accounts for all binding facts. The remnant movement analysis fails to account for binding, since apparent rightward movement does not pattern with clear cases of remnant movement like partial VP fronting. Furthermore, there is a leftward-rightward asymmetry in syntactic category when CPs undergo movement. I show that it is difficult to capture this in a theory that only has leftward movement. I also address preposition stranding in English, which Moulton (2015) presents as an argument for the leftward movement analysis. The results of a large-scale survey reveal that there is actually significant speaker variability in whether prepositions can be stranded when CPs move to the right. I spell out a non-grammatical account of this variability within the rightward movement analysis. The overall conclusion is that rightward movement is not effected by a two-step leftward movement process, and we need a theory of grammar that allows movement upward and to the right.","PeriodicalId":45823,"journal":{"name":"Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/SYNT.12164","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Syntax-A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/SYNT.12164","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Several recent proposals hold that CP complements appear rightmost in many languages by a two-step leftward movement process: first the CP moves leftward, and then a remnant phrase carries all other material to the left of that moved position. I show here that this analysis faces insurmountable problems. In contrast, a simple rightward movement analysis explains all the facts. Importantly, if binding is computed on the basis of precede-and-command rather than c-command (Bruening 2014), the rightward movement analysis accounts for all binding facts. The remnant movement analysis fails to account for binding, since apparent rightward movement does not pattern with clear cases of remnant movement like partial VP fronting. Furthermore, there is a leftward-rightward asymmetry in syntactic category when CPs undergo movement. I show that it is difficult to capture this in a theory that only has leftward movement. I also address preposition stranding in English, which Moulton (2015) presents as an argument for the leftward movement analysis. The results of a large-scale survey reveal that there is actually significant speaker variability in whether prepositions can be stranded when CPs move to the right. I spell out a non-grammatical account of this variability within the rightward movement analysis. The overall conclusion is that rightward movement is not effected by a two-step leftward movement process, and we need a theory of grammar that allows movement upward and to the right.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
CPs向右移动,而不是向左
最近的一些建议认为,在许多语言中,CP补语是通过两步向左移动的过程出现在最右边的:首先CP向左移动,然后一个残余短语将所有其他材料带到移动位置的左侧。我在这里表明,这种分析面临着无法克服的问题。相反,一个简单的向右运动分析解释了所有的事实。重要的是,如果绑定是基于前置和命令而不是c-命令计算的(Bruening 2014),则向右移动分析解释了所有绑定事实。残余运动分析不能解释结合力,因为明显的向右运动与残余运动的明确情况(如部分VP前锋线)不一致。此外,cp在移动过程中,句法范畴呈现出左向右的不对称性。我指出,在一个只有向左运动的理论中很难捕捉到这一点。我还讨论了英语中的介词滞留,这是莫尔顿(2015)提出的左倾运动分析的论据。一项大规模调查的结果显示,当介词向右移动时,介词是否会被卡住,实际上存在显著的说话者差异。在向右移动分析中,我对这种可变性进行了非语法解释。总的结论是,向右移动不受两步向左移动过程的影响,我们需要一种允许向上和向右移动的语法理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Syntax publishes a wide range of articles on the syntax of natural languages and closely related fields. The journal promotes work on formal syntactic theory and theoretically-oriented descriptive work on particular languages and comparative grammar. Syntax also publishes research on the interfaces between syntax and related fields such as semantics, morphology, and phonology, as well as theoretical and experimental studies in sentence processing, language acquisition, and other areas of psycholinguistics that bear on syntactic theories. In addition to full length research articles, Syntax features short articles which facilitate a fast review process. ''In the few years of its existence, Syntax quickly became one of the most prominent journals in the field, and unique as a source for high-quality studies at the forefront of research, combining theoretical inquiry and often significant innovation with outstanding descriptive and experimental work. It is indispensable for researchers in the areas it covers.'' Noam Chomsky, Massachusets Institute of Technology, USA
期刊最新文献
Adpositions and gapping Nominal ellipsis reveals concord in Moksha Mordvin Agree and the subjects of specificational clauses A tale of two inverses A Command Theoretic approach to prosodic smothering
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1