Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Linguistic Review

Editor-in-Chief: van der Hulst, Harry


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.558
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.813

CiteScore 2017: 0.56

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.403
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.876

Online
ISSN
1613-3676
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 35, Issue 3

Issues

Equidistance returns

Nicholas Longenbaugh / Maria Polinsky
Published Online: 2018-05-31 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2018-0002

Abstract

Modern generative linguistic theory furnishes a variety of general principles that appear to be at work in the grammar of all the world’s languages. One of the most basic and uncontroversial of these principles is that Agree/Move operates according to the constraint Attract Closest, which dictates that the closest suitable goal must be the target for the relevant operation (Rizzi 1990; Chomsky 1995, 2000; Richards 1998).

The Polynesian language Niuean (Tongic subgroup, predicate initial word order, ergative-absolutive case system) presents a well known challenge to the universality of {Attract Closest}. The challenge manifests in a variety of distinct constructions in Niuean, but the best known case involves an operation first documented by Seiter (1980), which he terms “raising.” Specifically, Niuean raising appears to license an A-type dependency between the subject position of the matrix clause and the object position of an immediately embedded clause. This is illustrated in (1), where the semantic object of the embedded subjunctive clause, Sione, appears as the syntactic subject of the matrix predicate maeke.

(1)
TomaekeaSione1[kelagomataiheekekafot1].
futpossibleabsSionesbjhelpergdoctor

‘It’s possible the doctor can help Sione.’ (lit.: Sione is possible that the doctor help [him])

Granting that the filler-gap dependency in (1) is A-type, this is both a clear violation of {Attract closest} (Rizzi 1992; Chomsky 1995; Richards 1998) and a typological anomaly.

Our aim in this paper is to argue that such apparent violations of {Attract Closest} are only that. Specifically, we show first that the challenge inherent in Seiter’s raising construction is pervasive throughout the language: in general, objects are accessible to syntactic operations even if the intervening clause-mate subject is also a licit target. In other words, Niuean clause-mate subjects and objects are equally accessible to syntactic operations. Then, we argue that this typologically uncommon equal-accessibility follows from the convergence of several otherwise independently attested operations: (i) a configurational system of case licensing, with a vP as the case computation domain; (ii) obligatory object shift to Spec(vP); (iii) an EPP on T triggering V/VP-raising rather than DP externalization. The resulting basic clause structure is then as below, so that Niuean adheres to standard locality constraints.

(2)

Keywords: equidistance; subject/object asymmetry; raising; copy raising; ergative; genitive; Niuean; Polynesian; configurational case

References

  • Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou, G. Iordăchioaia & M. Marchis. 2010. No objections to backward control. Movement theory of Control 154. 89.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Arad, M. 2006. The Spray-Load Alternation. The Blackwell companion to syntax 1. 466–478.

  • Baker, M. C. & N. Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(3). 593–642.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bobaljik, J. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In D. Harbour, D. Adger, & S. Bejar (ed.), Phi-Theory: Phi Features Across Interfaces and Modules, 44–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Browning, M. A. 1989. Null operator constructions. Garland: New York.Google Scholar

  • Bruening, B. 2014. Defects of Defective Intervention. Linguistic Inquiry 45(4). 707–719.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dodrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program, vol. 28. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ Press.

  • Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Clemens, L. & J. Coon. 2016. {Deriving Mayan V1: A Fresh Look at Chol}. Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA), Portland, Oregon.

  • Clemens, L. E. 2014. Prosodic Noun-incoporation and verb-initial syntax. PhD thesis, Harvard.Google Scholar

  • Collins, J. N. 2016. Samoan predicate initial word order and object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35.1. 1–59.Google Scholar

  • Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites, volume 20 of Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Gould, I., D. Massam & P. Patchin. 2009. Faka-niue: Understanding cause in niuean. In Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 31. Toronto: University of Toronto. http://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6087.

  • Heim, I. & A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar, vol. 13. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Hicks, G. 2009. Tough-constructions and their derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4). 535–566.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Holmberg, A. & T. Hróarsdóttir. 2004. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 114(5). 651–673.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jacobsen, T. 2000. Characteristics of processing morphological structural and inherent case in language comprehension. PhD thesis, Max Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience Leipzig.Google Scholar

  • Kaplan, R. M. & J. Bresnan. 1982. {Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation}. In M. Dalrymple, R. M. Kaplan, J. T. Maxwell, III, A. E. Zaenen (ed.), Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 29–130. Stanford, CA: CSLI publications.Google Scholar

  • Kayne, R. S. 1989. {Null subjects and clitic climbing}. In M. Jaeggli, K. Safir (ed.), The null subject parameter, 239–261. {Springer}.Google Scholar

  • Lasnik, H. & Stowell, T. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 687–720.Google Scholar

  • Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar

  • Levin, T. 2015. Licensing without Case. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

  • Levin, T. & O. Preminger. 2015. {Case in Sakha: are two modalities really necessary?} Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(1). 231–250.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Longenbaugh, N. & M. Polinsky. 2016. {Experimental approaches to ergative languages}. In J. Coon & D. Massam (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford: {Oxford University Press}.Google Scholar

  • Marantz, A. 1991. {Case and licensing}. In Proceedings of ESCOL 1991, 234–253.Google Scholar

  • Massam, D. 2001. On predication and the status of subjects in {Niuean}. In W. D. Davies, S. Dubinsky (ed.), Objects and other subjects, 225–246. Springer.Google Scholar

  • Massam, D. 2015. Applicatives and secondary predicates. WCCFL talk.Google Scholar

  • Müller, G. 2010. {On deriving CED effects from the PIC}. Linguistic Inquiry 41(1). 35–82.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Otsuka, Y. 2000. Ergativity in Tongan. PhD thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Picallo, M. C. 2002. Abstract agreement and clausal arguments. Syntax 5(2). 116–147.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Polinsky, M. 2016. Deconstructing ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Polinsky, M. 2017. Antipassive. In D. Coon, D. Massam & L. Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 308–331. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Potsdam, E. & M. Polinsky. 2011. {Questions and word order in Polynesian}. In C. Moyse-Faurie & J. Sabel (eds.), Topics in {Oceanic} morphosyntax, 107–134. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Preminger, O. 2014. Agreement and its failures, vol. 68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Rackowski, A. and N. Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4). 565–599.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rezac, M. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree and Merge. PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar

  • Rezac, M. 2006. On tough-movement. In C. Boeckx (ed.), Minimalist essays, 288–325. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Rezac, M. 2008. Phi-Agree and theta-related Case. In Daniel Harbour, D. Adger. & S. Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across interfaces and modules, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Richards, N. 1998. The principle of minimal compliance. Linguistic Inquiry 29(4). 599–629.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Ruys, E. 2004. A note on weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1). 124–140.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ruys, E. G. 2000. Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 31(3). 513–539.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sauerland, U. 1998. The meaning of chains. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

  • Seiter, W. J. 1978. {Subject/direct object raising in Niuean}. In J. J. Jaeger, A. C. Woodbury, F.Ackerman, C. Chiarello, O. Gensler, J. Kingston, E. Sweetser, H. Thompson, K. Whistler (eds.), Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 4, 211–222. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

  • Seiter, W. J. 1980. Issues in Niuean Syntax. PhD thesis, San Diego: University of California.Google Scholar

  • Seiter, W. J. 1983. {Subject-Direct Object Raising in Niuean}. Studies in Relational Grammar 2. 317.Google Scholar

  • Sichel, I. 2010. Event Structure Constraints in Nominalization. In The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks, 151–190. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Sperlich, W. B. 1997. Niue language dictionary. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

  • Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic inquiry. 19.3. 425–449.Google Scholar

  • Thráinsson, H. 2001. Object Shift and Scrambling. In M. Baltin, C. Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, chapter 6, page 148. Malden, MA: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

  • Vikner, S. Object Shift. In The Syntactic Companion (SynCom). http://www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/syncom074/case\_074.htm.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-05-31

Published in Print: 2018-09-25


Citation Information: The Linguistic Review, Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 413–461, ISSN (Online) 1613-3676, ISSN (Print) 0167-6318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2018-0002.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in