Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure

TLDR: The cyclic linearization proposal makes predictions that cross-cut the details of particular syntactic configurations, and argues that ‘‘cross-construction’’ consistency of this sort is in fact found.

Abstract: This paper proposes an architecture for the mapping between syntax and phonology — in particular, that aspect of phonology that determines ordering. In Fox and Pesetsky (in prep.), we will argue that this architecture, when combined with a general theory of syntactic domains ("phases"), provides a new understanding of a variety of phenomena that have received diverse accounts in the literature. This shorter paper focuses on two processes, both drawn from Scandinavian: the familiar process of Object Shift and the less well-known process of Quantifier Movement. We will argue that constraints on these operations can be seen as instances of the same property of grammar that explains the fact that movement is local and successive cyclic. We begin by sketching a model in which locality and successive cyclicity are consequences of the architecture that we propose, rather than specific facts about movement itself. We next present our proposal in somewhat greater detail, and show how it can account for a wide range of apparent limitations on movement — in particular, superficially contradictory restrictions on Object Shift and Quantifier Movement. The restrictions on Object Shift include those grouped under the rubric of Holmberg's Generalization, which Quantifier Movement does not seem to obey. We will argue that Quantifier Movement instead obeys a near mirror-image of Holmberg's Generalization (an "Inverse Holmberg Effect"), but that both Holmberg's Generalization and its mirror image are expected if our proposed architecture is correct. Our discussion will be for the most part informal, but we will conclude by offering a more formal implementation of our proposals. This implementation will belong to a family of

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure" ?

This paper proposes an architecture for the mapping between syntax and phonology – in particular, that aspect of phonology that determines the linear ordering of words. The authors propose that linearization is restricted in two key ways. The authors then turn their attention to more specific predictions of the proposal: in particular, the e¤ects of Holmberg ’ s Generalization on Scandinavian Object Shift ; and also the Inverse Holmberg Effects found in Scandinavian ‘ ‘ Quantifier Movement ’ ’ constructions ( Rögnvaldsson ( 1987 ) ; Jónsson ( 1996 ) ; Svenonius ( 2000 ) ) and in Korean scrambling configurations ( Ko ( 2003, 2004 ) ). 

Q2. How do the authors circumvent the order of the interveners in scenario 3?

Ordering contradictions produced by Object Shift over the underlined interveners in (23) should be circumvented whenever the original order is restored – i.e. by movement into the higher Spell-out domain of not only the shifted object, but also the intervener. 

Q3. What is the key property of the proposal that contributes to the account of successive-cyclic?

The key property of their proposal that contributes to an account of successive-cyclic movement is the following claim: information about linearization, once established at the end of a given Spell-out domain, is never deleted in the course of a derivation. 

Q4. What is the blocking eect of an unmoved verb?

The blocking e¤ect of an unmoved verb is attributed by Anagnostopoulou to Relativized Minimality interactions involving the external argument, along the lines of Chomsky (1993) – with verb movement to T creating an ‘‘equidistance’’ exception. 

Q5. What was the main argument for Object Shift?

Holmberg suggested that Object Shift applies in a post-syntactic PF component, thus simultaneously making sense of its apparent countercyclic character and its sensitivity to linear precedence. 

Q6. What is the meaning of the ordering statement of the form ab?

An ordering statement of the form a<b is understood by PF as meaning that the last element dominated7 by a precedes the first element dominated by b. 

Q7. What was the problem for Holmberg’s proposal?

The fact that leftward movement of an intervener may save a derivation in which Object Shift applies both supported Holmberg’s proposal and posed a problem for it at the same time.