Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorAlec Marantz.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMcGinnis, Marthaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2007-07-17T19:27:43Z
dc.date.available2007-07-17T19:27:43Z
dc.date.copyright1998en_US
dc.date.issued1998en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/9650en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/9650
dc.descriptionThesis (Ph.D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, 1998.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (leaves [219]-229).en_US
dc.description.abstractIn this dissertation, I demonstrate that the feature-based Attract theory of syntactic movement solves several empirical challenges for Relativized Minimality, while incorporating its key insights. Chapter 1 introduces the theory of phrase structure, syntactic movement, and abstract Case to be adopted throughout the dissertation. This chapter also lays out a cross-linguistic typology of possibilities for A-movement to the subject position. Chapter 2 concerns cases of advancing,where the argument generated highest is attracted by the feature (EPP) driving movement to the subject position. Here locality interacts with a condition (Case Identification) preventing an argument from "pied-piping" to check EPP if it checks Case elsewhere. In some instances, advancing is forced jointly by locality and Case Identification. Given two equally local arguments, Case Identification determines which can be attracted to the subject position. However, newly identified "superraising" violations support the view that locality is respected even if the highest argument has already checked Case. In the first part of Chapter 3, I argue for the central empirical proposal of this dissertation, Lethal Ambiguity: an anaphoric dependency cannot be established between two specifiers of the same head. I contend that one argument can A-scramble past another only by entering, or leapfrogging through, a multiple-specifier configuration with it. In either case, no anaphoric dependency can be established between the two arguments. In the second part of Chapter 3, I present cases of leapfrogging in A-movement to the subject position, also subject to Lethal Ambiguity. Chapter 4 extends the empirical coverage of Lethal Ambiguity to answer a long-standing question from the literature-namely, why anaphoric clitics cannot be object clitics, I argue that Lethal Ambiguity rules out the object clitic derivation for anaphors because an anaphoric object checks Case in a multiple-specifier configuration with the would-be antecedent. I adopt a passive-like derivation for the well-formed anaphoric clitic construction, where the clitic is a categorically underspecified external argument. Since this argument cannot be attracted to check Case or EPP, the object can skip over it to the subject position without Lethal Ambiguity arising. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to other potential cases of skipping.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Martha Jo McGinnis.en_US
dc.format.extent229 leavesen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsM.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/9650en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
dc.subjectLinguistics and Philosophyen_US
dc.titleLocality in A-movementen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreePh.D.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophyen_US
dc.identifier.oclc42385204en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record