Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorNorvin W. Richards.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBranan, Kenyon Garretten_US
dc.contributor.otherMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-01T19:56:53Z
dc.date.available2019-03-01T19:56:53Z
dc.date.copyright2018en_US
dc.date.issued2018en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/120671
dc.descriptionThesis: Ph. D. in Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, 2018.en_US
dc.descriptionCataloged from PDF version of thesis.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (pages 329-351).en_US
dc.description.abstractThis thesis deals with a number of puzzles related to word order, in which the co-occurence of two elements in the same clause imposes a restriction on the distribution of these elements. I suggest that elements involved in Agree relationships [Chomsky (2000, 2001)] are subject to a requirement that they be aligned with the left or right edge of a prosodic phrase, following work done in Richards (2016). I argue that there is a restriction on the opaque satisfaction of this requirement, and show that this provides a unified solution to these word order puzzles. Chapters 1 and 2 deal with movement phenomena, primarily in left-headed languages. In chapter 1, I show that some languages allow A-movement of subjects across other DPs, whereas others do not. I note that this appears to be determined by which edge of a prosodic phrase they require phrases in Agree relationships to be aligned with, and show that this is a consequence of the proposed restriction on opaque satisfaction of the alignment requirement. Chapter 2 builds on the results of chapter 1. I show that A-movement of a subject may cross another nominal in all languages, but only if there is a phase boundary between the launch site and landing site, and show how this falls out from the proposed restriction on opacity. I show also that languages that do not allow A-movement of subjects across other DPs display a similar restriction in wh-questions, and argue that this too is a result of the proposed restriction on opacity. Chapters 3 and 4 deal with the distribution of wh-phrases in languages that allow them to remain in-situ. Chapter 3 deals with co-occurance restrictions between foci and wh-phrases. I argue that these restrictions emerge as a result of a conflict between a prosodic strategy that languages might use to satisfy the alignment requirement, called Grouping, and the proposed restriction on opaque satisfaction of this requirement. Chapter 4 deals with Grouping more generally. I show that languages with Grouping have a particular prosodic signature which marks phonological phrases that contain wh-phrases, whereas languages that lack Grouping do not, and explore the consequences of this for the architecture developed in this thesis.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Kenyon Garrett Branan.en_US
dc.format.extent351 pagesen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsMIT theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed, downloaded, or printed from this source but further reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582en_US
dc.subjectLinguistics and Philosophy.en_US
dc.titleRelationship preservationen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreePh. D. in Linguisticsen_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
dc.identifier.oclc1088505309en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record