1932

Abstract

Classical syntactic theory was designed to permit the type of movement called raising to proceed out of infinitival, but not finite, clauses—a positive result for languages such as English. But crosslinguistic investigation reveals that many languages actually allow raising out of finite clauses (hyperraising), challenging certain commonly assumed locality constraints on movement. This article reviews three types of Minimalist analyses of hyperraising and how they address these challenges, noting the strengths and shortcomings of each. Defectiveness/nonphase analyses commendably tie a clause's ability to launch hyperraising to independent observables, but such analyses struggle to derive the former from the latter. Deactivation analyses boast empirical successes but do not straightforwardly rule out hyperraising in English. Phase-edge analyses also boast empirical successes but face empirical and/or conceptual problems (to which a solution is sketched out) and open questions about learnability. These evaluations are intended to spur syntacticians to develop stronger versions of all three types of analyses, bringing us closer to fully understanding the factors regulating movement, a subcase of the fundamental structure-building operation Merge.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-070658
2023-01-17
2024-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/9/1/annurev-linguistics-022421-070658.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-070658&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aelbrecht L. 2010. The Syntactic Licensing of Ellipsis Amsterdam: Benjamins
  2. Alboiu G, Hill V. 2016. Evidentiality and raising to object as A′-movement: a Romanian case study. Syntax 19:256–85
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexiadou A, Anagnostopoulou E 1999. Raising without infinitives and the nature of agreement. Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 18) S Bird, A Carnie, J Haugen, P Norquest 15–25 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker MC. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  5. Bobaljik JD, Wurmbrand S. 2005. The domain of agreement. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 23:809–65
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boeckx C. 2000. EPP eliminated Work. Pap. Univ. Conn. Storrs:
  7. Bondarenko T 2017. ECM in Buryat and the optionality of movement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 83 Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 12) L Zidani-Eroğlu, M Ciscel, E Koulidobrova 31–42 Cambridge, MA: MITWPL
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bošković Ž. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5:167–218
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bošković Ž. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 22:681–742
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bošković Ž. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Stud. Linguist. 59:1–45
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bošković Ž. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: an even more minimal theory. Linguist. Inq. 38:589–644
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bošković Ž. 2014. Now I'm a phase, now I'm not a phase: on the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguist. Inq. 45:27–89
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bošković Ž. 2021. Merge, Move, and contextuality of syntax: the role of labeling, successive-cyclicity, and EPP effects Work. Pap. Univ. Conn. Storrs:
  14. Bošković Ž. Forthcoming. The Comp-trace effect and contextuality of the EPP. Proceedings of the 39th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 39) Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bowers J. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguist. Inq. 24:591–656
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Byron D. 2019. Extraction from conjuncts in Khoekhoe: an argument for cyclic linearization MA Thesis Dep. Linguist., Univ. Chicago
  17. Cable S. 2012. The optionality of movement and EPP in Dholuo. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 30:651–97
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Carstens V. 2001. Multiple agreement and case deletion: against ϕ-(in)completeness. Syntax 4:147–63
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Carstens V, Diercks M 2013. Parameterizing Case and Activity: hyper-raising in Bantu. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 40) S Kan, C Moore-Cantwell, R Staubs 99–118 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chomsky N 1973. Conditions on transformations. A Festschrift for Morris Halle SR Anderson, P Kiparsky 232–86 New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chomsky N. 1995. The Minimalist Program Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  22. Chomsky N 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik R Martin, D Michaels, J Uriagereka 89–155 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Chomsky N 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language M Kenstowicz 1–52 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chomsky N 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3 Structures and Beyond A Belletti 104–31 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Chomsky N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. Interfaces + Recursion = Language? U Sauerland, HM Gärtner 1–30 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Chomsky N 2008. On phases. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud R Freidin, CP Otero, ML Zubizarreta 133–66 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chomsky N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130:33–49
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Chomsky N 2015. Problems of projection: extensions. Structures, Strategies, and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti E Di Domenico, C Hamann, S Matteini 3–16 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Chomsky N 2020. Puzzles about phases. Linguistic Variation: Structure and Interpretation L Franco, P Lorusso 163–68 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Deal AR 2015. Interaction and satisfaction in ϕ-agreement. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 45) T Bui, D Özyıldız 179–92 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Deal AR 2017. Covert hyperraising to object. Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 47) A Lamont, K Tetzloff 257–70 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Embick D. 2010. Localism Versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  33. Ferreira M. 2000. Argumentos nulos em português brasileiro MA Thesis Dep. Linguist., Univ. Estadual Campinas Campinas, Braz:.
  34. Ferreira M. 2004. Hyperraising and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 47 Collected Papers on Romance Syntax57–85 Cambridge, MA: MITWPL
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ferreira M 2009. Null subjects and finite control in Brazilian Portuguese. Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax J Nunes 17–50 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fong S. 2019. Proper movement through Spec-CP: an argument from hyperraising in Mongolian. Glossa 4:130
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Grimshaw J. 1991. Extended projection Work. Pap. Brandeis Univ. Waltham, MA:
  38. Grohmann KK 2009. Exploring interfaces. Explorations of Phase Theory: Interpretation at the Interfaces KK Grohmann 1–21 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Halpert C. 2012. Argument licensing and agreement in Zulu PhD Thesis Dep. Linguist., MIT Cambridge, MA:
  40. Halpert C. 2015. Argument Licensing and Agreement New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  41. Halpert C. 2019. Raising, unphased. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 37:123–65
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Harford Perez C. 1985. Aspects of complementation in three Bantu languages PhD Thesis Dep. Linguist., Univ. Wisconsin-Madison
  43. Harley H. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: on the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125:34–57
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hartman J. 2012. Varieties of clausal complementation PhD Thesis Dep. Linguist., MIT Cambridge, MA:
  45. Harwood W. 2015. Being progressive is just a phase: celebrating the uniqueness of progressive aspect under a phase-based analysis. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 33:523–73
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Heck F, Müller G 2007. Extremely local optimization. Proceedings of the 34th Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 34) E Bainbridge, B Agbayani 170–83 Dep. Linguist., Calif. State Univ. Fresno:
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Henderson B. 2006. Multiple agreement and inversion in Bantu. Syntax 9:275–89
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Hornstein N. 2009. A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  49. Iatridou S 1993. On nominative case assignment and a few related things. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 19 Papers on Case & Agreement II C Phillips 175–96 Cambridge, MA: MITWPL
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Johnson K. 1991. Object positions. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 9:577–636
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kusmer LP. 2015. (Re)labeling and constituency paradoxes: remnant movement in Akan Work. Pap. Univ. Mass Amherst:
  52. Lasnik H. 1995. Case and expletives revisited: on Greed and other human failings. Linguist. Inq. 26:615–33
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lasnik H. 2003. Last resort and Attract F. Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory22–41 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Lebowski Z. 2021. CED effects in ascending and descending structures: evidence from extraction asymmetries Work. Pap. Univ. Chicago
  55. Legate JA. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguist. Inq. 34:506–16
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Martin RA. 1996. A minimalist theory of PRO and control PhD Thesis Dep. Linguist., Univ. Conn. Storrs:
  57. Martins AM, Nunes J. 2005. Raising issues in Brazilian and European Portuguese. J. Port. Linguist. 4:53–77
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Martins AM, Nunes J 2009. Syntactic change as chain reaction: the emergence of hyper-raising in Brazilian Portuguese. Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory P Crisma, G Longobardi 144–57 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Martins AM, Nunes J. 2010. Apparent hyper-raising in Brazilian Portuguese: agreement with topics across a finite CP. The Complementizer Phase: Subjects and Operators EP Panagiotidis 143–63 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. McCloskey J. 1991. There, it, and agreement. Linguist. Inq. 22:563–67
    [Google Scholar]
  61. McCloskey J. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguist. Inq. 31:57–84
    [Google Scholar]
  62. McCloskey J. 2001. The morphosyntax of WH-extraction in Irish. J. Linguist. 37:67–100
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Merchant J. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguist. Inq. 44:77–108
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Nevins A 2005. Derivations without the Activity Condition. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 49 Perspectives on Phases M McGinnis, N Richards 287–310 Cambridge, MA: MITWPL
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Nunes J. 2008. Inherent case as a licensing condition for A-movement: the case of hyper-raising constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. J. Port. Linguist. 7:83–108
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Obata M, Epstein SD. 2011. Feature-splitting Internal Merge: improper movement, intervention, and the A/A′ distinction. Syntax 14:122–47
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Pesetsky D. 2013. Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  68. Pesetsky D. 2021. Exfoliation: towards a derivational theory of clause size Work. Pap. MIT Cambridge, MA:
  69. Postal PM. 2004. A paradox in English syntax. Skeptical Linguistic Essays15–82 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Preminger O. 2014. Agreement and Its Failures Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  71. Preminger O. 2019a. Phases vs. minimality: who ya got??. Omer Preminger Blog Feb. 16. https://omer.lingsite.org/blogpost-phases-vs-minimality-who-ya-got/
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Preminger O. 2019b. What is and isn't evidence for a phase. Omer Preminger Blog Dec. 25. https://omer.lingsite.org/blogpost-what-is-and-isnt-evidence-for-a-phase/
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Preminger O. 2019c. What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality. Glossa 4:113
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Rackowski A, Richards N. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: a Tagalog case study. Linguist. Inq. 36:565–99
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Rizzi L. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris
  76. Rodrigues C. 2004. Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of Case domains PhD Thesis Dep. Linguist., Univ. Md. College Park:
  77. Şener S. 2008. Non-canonical Case licensing is canonical: accusative subjects of CPs in Turkish Work. Pap. Univ. Conn. Storrs:
  78. Takeuchi H. 2010. Exceptional case marking in Japanese and optional feature transmission. Nanzan Linguist. 6:101–28
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Tanaka H. 2002. Raising to object out of CP. Linguist. Inq. 31:375–85
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Uchibori A. 2000. The syntax of subjunctive complements: evidence from Japanese PhD Thesis Dep. Linguist., Univ. Conn. Storrs:
  81. Uchibori A 2001. Raising out of CP and C-T relations. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 41 Proceedings of FAJL 3: Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics MC Cuervo, D Harbour, K Hiraiwa, S Ishihara 145–62 Cambridge, MA: MITWPL
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Ura H. 1994. Varieties of Raising and the Feature-Based Bare Phrase Structure Theory MIT Occas. Pap. Linguist. , Vol. 7 Cambridge, MA: MITWPL
  83. van Riemsdijk HC, Williams E 1986. Introduction to the Theory of Grammar Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  84. van Urk C. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: a Dinka Bor case study PhD Thesis Dep. Linguist., MIT Cambridge, MA:
  85. van Urk C, Richards N. 2015. Two components of long-distance extraction: successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguist. Inq. 46:113–55
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Varlokosta S. 1994. Issues on Modern Greek sentential complementation PhD Thesis Dep. Linguist., Univ. Md. College Park:
  87. Vergnaud J-R. 2008 (1977). Letter to Howard Lasnik and Noam Chomsky on “Filters and control,” April 17, 1977. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud R Freidin, CP Otero, ML Zubizarreta 3–15 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Wurmbrand S 2019. Cross-clausal A-dependencies. Proceedings of the Fifty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 54) E Ronai, L Stigliano, Y Sun 585–604 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc. Univ. Chicago:
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Zeller J. 2006. Raising out of finite CP in Nguni: the case of fanele. South. Afr. Linguist. Appl. Lang. Stud. 24:255–75
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Zyman E. 2017. P'urhepecha hyperraising to object: an argument for purely altruistic movement. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, Vol. 2 P Farrell, Paper 53 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Zyman E. 2018a. On the driving force for syntactic movement PhD Thesis Dep. Linguist., Univ. Calif. Santa Cruz:
  92. Zyman E. 2018b. Quantifier float as stranding: evidence from Janitzio P'urhepecha. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 36:991–1034
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Zyman E. 2021. Antilocality at the phase edge. Syntax 24:510–56
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Zyman E. 2022. Phase-constrained obligatory late adjunction. Syntax 25:84–121
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Zyman E. Forthcoming. On the definition of Merge. Syntax
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-070658
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-070658
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error