Abstract. Classical syntactic theory was designed to ensure that raising would be able to proceed out of infinitival clauses, but not out of finite clauses. However, it has since become clear that a number of languages in fact allow raising out of finite clauses (hyperraising). This paper argues that the Mexican isolate P'urhepecha-more specifically, the variety spoken on the island of Janitzio on Lake Pátzcuaro-allows hyperraising to object (cf. Bruening 2002, Tanaka 2002, Halpert & Zeller 2015, Deal 2016, and develops an analysis of this phenomenon on which it involves two steps of purely altruistic (target-driven) movement-i.e., movement driven exclusively by a featural requirement of an attracting head. Alternative analyses of the phenomenon based on Greed (Chomsky 1995a, Bošković 2007 or Labeling (Chomsky 2013(Chomsky , 2015 are considered and shown to face serious problems. P'urhepecha hyperraising to object, then, sheds light on the driving force for movement: it provides an argument for Enlightened Self-Interest (Lasnik 1995, 2003, the hypothesis that movement may be driven by a feature either of the moving element or (as here) of an attracting head. The phenomenon also narrows down the space of possibilities for understanding the A/Ā-distinction.
Latin verbs appear to both obey and disobey the Mirror Generalization (Baker 1985), albeit in different inflectional forms (Cinque 1999). Given the importance of the Mirror Generalization to morphosyntactic theorizing, this situation deserves scrutiny. We develop an analysis on which all Latin finite verbs, whether mirroring or anti-mirroring, share a single, simple, virtually invariant derivation, involving one step of head movement (Asp to T) and one step of phrasal movement (vP to [Spec,TP]). On this analysis, the Mirror Generalization is valid for Latin, despite appearances, but it is crucially about structures formed by operations on heads: phrasal movement can give rise to apparent violations of it (Myler 2017). The analysis extends readily to nonfinite forms, solving an anti-mirroring paradox arising among the participles. It also makes correct syntactic predictions. When the verb word is a constituent, it is a TP, and the analysis correctly predicts that it should move as a phrase, not as a head. The analysis also makes correct predictions about the positions of vP-adjuncts, and is fully compatible with what is known about leftward argument movement out of vP. Finally, unlike two competing analyses (Embick 2000; Calabrese 2019), it accounts for anti-mirroring in Latin without any stipulations placing passive Voice in an unexpectedly peripheral position within the verb word. The larger picture that emerges is one in which phonological words need not correspond to syntactic constituents, but can instead be reflexes of linearly contiguous series of morphemes suspended across potentially vast regions of syntactic space (Julien 2002).
Since Lebeaux 1991, there has been considerable interest in the hypothesis that syntactic structures are not always built in a completely cyclic, bottom-up fashion but, rather, some syntactic elements-in particular, adjuncts-can be inserted late,
One of the most important results of syntactic inquiry has been a detailed empirical and, to some extent, theoretical understanding of the argument/adjunct distinction, which underlies a wide array of superficially different phenomena. Therefore, any phenomena that appear to challenge the argument/adjunct distinction deserve scrutiny. This squib investigates an almost unremarked-upon phenomenon of just that type: apparent in situ mixed wh-coordination (ISMW: Mary ate what and when to impress Sue?!), in which argument and adjunct wh-phrases are apparently coordinated in situ. Two analyses of ISMW are compared: the Wh-Coordination Analysis, on which the conjuncts are the wh-phrases, and the VP-Coordination Analysis, on which the conjuncts are VPs whose head Vs undergo across-the-board head movement to v. The squib argues for the VP-Coordination Analysis on conceptual and empirical grounds. Conceptually, the VP-but not the Wh-Coordination Analysis is compatible with our understanding of the argument/adjunct distinction, and involves an unremarkable derivation that it would take a stipulation to rule out; hence, the VP-Coordination Analysis is preferable. Empirically, the VP-but not the Wh-Coordination Analysis makes several correct predictions: (a) that ISMW should be impossible with obligatorily transitive verbs; (b) that adverbs should be able to follow the first wh-phrase in ISMW that cannot follow it in the left periphery; and (c) that there should be apparent in situ coordination of argument wh-phrases with different θ-roles. That ISMW involves VP-coordination rather than wh-coordination indicates that it in fact does not threaten the argument/adjunct distinction, contrary to initial appearances, a theoretically welcome result.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.