2026-09-19T14:41:32Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/request

oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/288372022-01-13T07:54:31Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131022

David Pesetsky. Doggett, Teal Bissell, 1975- Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy 2005-09-27T18:37:01Z 2005-09-27T18:37:01Z 2004 2004 http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/28837 60363719 Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, 2004. Includes bibliographical references (p. 155-158). In this thesis I demonstrate that a simplified theory of locality \ has greater success in accounting for locality in movement than more complicated alternatives that have been suggested. In particular, I argue that closeness should not be relativized to minimal domains, and that locality in movement follows from restrictions on Agree, but not on Move itself. Data is drawn from Locative Inversion in English, passivization in ditransitive verb phrases and constructions which involve movement to multiple specifiers of a single head. I show that the constructions that have previously been claimed to necessitate the notion of equidistance do not in fact provide motivation for this concept. Instead, further investigation of these constructions actually provides evidence for the elimination of equidistance from the grammar. I further argue that movement past a existing specifier to a higher specifier of the same head is grammatical, and that data which has been argued to show that this movement is prohibited can be given another analysis. This follows if Move, in contrast to Agree, is not subject to locality constraints. The streamlined theory of locality proposed here therefore ultimately accounts for a wider body of data than any of the more complicated alternatives. by Teal Bissell Doggett. Ph.D. 158 p. 8726601 bytes 8748299 bytes application/pdf application/pdf en_US Massachusetts Institute of Technology M.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. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582 Linguistics and Philosophy. All things being unequal : locality in movement Thesis application/pdf Publication unknown unknown <Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="68a2cdee-c554-4132-9f8e-873518d09f36"> <Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type> <Language>en_US</Language> <Title>All things being unequal : locality in movement</Title> <PublishedIn> <Publication> </Publication> </PublishedIn> <PublicationDate>2004</PublicationDate> <Authors> <Author> <DisplayName>Doggett, Teal Bissell, 1975-</DisplayName> <Affiliation> <OrgUnit> </OrgUnit> </Affiliation> </Author> </Authors> <Editors> </Editors> <Publishers> <Publisher> <DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName> <OrgUnit /> </Publisher> </Publishers> <License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License> <Keyword>Linguistics and Philosophy.</Keyword> <Abstract>In this thesis I demonstrate that a simplified theory of locality \ has greater success in accounting for locality in movement than more complicated alternatives that have been suggested. In particular, I argue that closeness should not be relativized to minimal domains, and that locality in movement follows from restrictions on Agree, but not on Move itself. Data is drawn from Locative Inversion in English, passivization in ditransitive verb phrases and constructions which involve movement to multiple specifiers of a single head. I show that the constructions that have previously been claimed to necessitate the notion of equidistance do not in fact provide motivation for this concept. Instead, further investigation of these constructions actually provides evidence for the elimination of equidistance from the grammar. I further argue that movement past a existing specifier to a higher specifier of the same head is grammatical, and that data which has been argued to show that this movement is prohibited can be given another analysis. This follows if Move, in contrast to Agree, is not subject to locality constraints. The streamlined theory of locality proposed here therefore ultimately accounts for a wider body of data than any of the more complicated alternatives.</Abstract> <Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right" > </Access> </Publication>