Case vs. positions in the locality of A-movement

Abstract

This paper contrasts two families of approaches to the ban on A-movement out of a finite clause (hyperraising). One line of approach attributes the constraint to the positions involved in the movement chain (e.g., improper movement), the other derives the constraint from the case properties of the moving element (e.g., Activity Condition). Based on novel evidence from Hindi-Urdu, this paper develops an argument in favor of position-based approaches. In a nutshell, I argue that (i) A-and Ā-movement in Hindi-Urdu exhibit the same locality contrast as in English, that (ii) both apply to already case-marked DPs, and that (iii) they differ in the position they target in the same way as in English. As a result, the locality difference between the two movement types in Hindi-Urdu can be attributed to the positions that these movement types target, but not to their case properties. These results indicate that when case and positions diverge, locality tracks positions, not case. This conclusion supports the view that a comprehensive account of the locality of A-movement requires reference to syntactic positions in some form. The results also raise the possibility that case can be eliminated as a constraint on the locality of A-movement.

Movement and cyclic Agree

“…We have so far limited our attention to local agreement between a verb and its arguments. Hindi also allows long-distance agreement between a verb and the object of an embedded nonfinite clause (see Mahajan 1989;Davison 1991;Butt 1993Butt , 1995Boeckx 2004;Bhatt 2005;Franks 2006;Chandra 2007;Keine 2016Keine , 2019Keine , 2020bBhatt and Keine 2017;Bjorkman and Zeijlstra 2019). An example of LDA is provided in ( 9), where the matrix verb de 'let' can agree with the embedded object kitaab 'book.'…”

“…In the interest of space, we will not investigate the surface optionality of LDA in detail here. Rather, we will assume, following Boeckx (2004); Bhatt (2005); and Keine (2016Keine ( , 2019Keine ( , 2020b, that this optionality is the result of a structural ambiguity of nonfinite clauses in Hindi. On this line of account, the nonfinite clauses occur in (at least) two varieties, one of which is transparent to φ-agreement, the other of which is opaque.…”

“…While it is generally difficult to determine the relative landing sites of scrambling operations in Hindi (given the general word order freedom and the head-final clause structure), Keine (2018Keine ( , 2019Keine ( , 2020b offers arguments that A-scrambling targets a higher position than A-scrambling in Hindi, specifically as stated in ( 24).…”

“…Assuming that these nonfinite clauses are TPs, A-scrambling must be able to target a TP-internal position, in accordance with (24b). See Keine (2018Keine ( , 2019Keine ( , 2020b for additional arguments for this conclusion. To preview, we will propose in Sect.…”

Proper movement through Spec-CP: An argument from hyperraising in Mongolian

“…a type of case at all (Kornfilt & Preminger 2015, who assume a configurational view of case, Marantz 2000;Baker & Vinokurova 2010;Baker 2015;i.a. ), or (iii) disregard the Activity Condition as a factor that restricts the A-movement of nominals (Keine 2018) (Keine also observes that it is not always easy to distinguish between the PIC and the case problem introduced by hyperraising).…”