Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:39:09.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The T-Extension Condition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Ivona Kucerová
Ivona Kucerová*
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a case study of Czech that opens the possibility of unifying various second-position phenomena as instances of an interface condition on head extension. The condition requires a head to undergo at least two instances of merge within its phase. The core of the article explores properties of T0. It is shown that any merge (external or internal, merge of a head or a phrase) yields a well-formed structure. Since it does not matter to the requirement what category merges to T0, the condition must be stated as a general requirement on what category may be the root.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article présente une étude de cas du tchèque qui rend possible une analyse unifiée de divers phénomènes de deuxième position selon laquelle ils sont tous le résultat d’une condition d’interface sur l’extension d’une tête. La condition exige qu’une tête doit subir au moins deux occurrences de fusion à l’intérieur de sa phase. La partie centrale de l’article étudie les propriétés de T0. Il est démontré que n’importe quelle occurrence de fusion (externe ou interne, fusion d’une tête ou d’un syntagme) crée une structure bien formée. Puisque la catégorie de l’élément qui fusionne à T0 n’est pas importante, la condition doit être formulée comme une exigence générale sur la catégorie de la racine.

Keywords

EPPsecond-position cliticstree extensionCzechinterface filtersEPPclitiques de deuxième positionextension d’arbretchèquefiltres d’interface
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 387 - 426
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackema, Peter and Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 2002. Middles. Ms., University of Nijmegen and University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:491–539.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16:373–416.Google Scholar
Biskup, Petr. 2009. The phase model and adverbials. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn Moore, Alma. 2011. BE-ing default: The morphosyntax of auxiliaries. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).Google Scholar
Boškovic, Željko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Boškovic, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPR Syntax 5:167–218.Google Scholar
Boškovic, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of move and agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38:589–644.Google Scholar
Bury, Dick. 2003. Phrase structure and derived heads. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1995. Subjects position. GenGen, University of Geneva Working Papers.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna and Starke, Michal. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in languages of Europe, ed. van Riemsdijk, Henk C., Bosong, George, and Comrie, Bernard, 145–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ceplová, Markéta. 2003. What’s the problem with VSO/VOS sentences in Czech? Presented at the North American Syntax Conference (NASC), Montréal.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed. Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Urigereka, J.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond, ed. Belletti, A.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger, Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos Peregrin, and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Leo. 1989. The middle: Where semantics and morphology meet. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11:18–30.Google Scholar
Dotlacil, Jakub. 2004. The syntax of infinitives in Czech. Master’s thesis, University of Tromso.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D. and Steely, T. Daniel. 2006. Derivations in minimalism. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David, Pires, Acrisio, and Seely, T. Daniel. 2005. EPP in T: More controversial subjects. Syntax 8:65–80.Google Scholar
Fiengo, R. and May, R.. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Justin M. 2006. Deletion through movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24:399–431.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny and Pesetsky, David. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31:1–45.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert, Hagstrom, Paul, and Shanker, Vijay K.. 2002. Roots, constituents and c-command. In Theoretical approaches to universals, ed. Alexiadou, Artemis, 109–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert and Shanker, Vijay K.. 2001. Primitive c-command. Syntax 4:164–204.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1998. Clitics in Slavic. Position paper for Comparative Slavic Morphosyntactic workshop, McMormick’s Creek State Park, Spencer, Indiana, June 5–7.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven and Holloway King, Tracy. 2000. A handbook of Slavic clitics. New York: University Press.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 1994. Second-position clitics in Czech: Syntactic or phonological? Lingua 94:155–175.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki and Speas, Margaret. 1986. Specifiers and projection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8:128–172.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki and Takano, Yuji. 1998. Symmetry in syntax: Merge and demerge. Journal of East Asian linguistics 7:27–86.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projections. Ms., University of Brandeis.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes K., Drury, John, and Castillo, Juan Carlos. 2000. No more EPP. In Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFLj 19, ed. Billerey, Roger and Lillehaugen, Brook Danielle, 139–152. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributive morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31:445–483.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2006. Stylistic fronting. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. IV, ed. Everaert, Martin and Riemsdijk, Henk van, with editorial assistance from Goedemans, Rob and Hollebrandse, Bart, 532–565. Maiden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania. 2001. The one girl who was kissed by every boy: Scope, scrambling and discourse function in Russian. In Proceedings of Conference of the Student Organisation of Linguistics in Europe (ConSOLE) X, ed. Koppen, Marjo van, Sio, Joanna, Vos, Mark de, 79–94. Leiden: Leiden University.Google Scholar
Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2007. The Brythonic reconciliation. In Linguistic variation yearbook, vol. 7, ed. Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van and Rooryck, Johan, 163–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Junghanns, Uwe. 1999. Generative Beschreiburig periphrasticher Konstruktionen des Tschechischen. In Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik aus Deutschland und Osterreich, vol. VII: Jungslavistlnnen-Treffen, Tübingen/Blaubeuren 1998, ed. Anstatt, T., Meyer, R., and Seitz, E., 133–165. Munich: Saguer.Google Scholar
Junghanns, Uwe and Zybatow, Gerhild. 1997. Syntax and information structure of Russian clauses. In Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Cornell meeting 1995 (= Michigan Slavic Materials 39), ed. Browne, Wayles, Dornsich, Ewa, Kondrashova, Natasha, and Zee, Draga, 289–319. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2002. Comparative deletion and optimality in syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20:553–621.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith L. 1982. Configuration in non-configurational languages. In Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Flickinger, Daniel P., Macken, Marlys, and Wiegand, Nancy, 292–306. Stanford: Linguistics Dept., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith L. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61:95–120.Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2007. Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 38:49–83.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2007. EPP Extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 38:485–523.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move a: Conditions on its application and output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lekakou, Marika. 2005. In the middle, somewhat elevated. The semantics of middles and its crosslinguistic realization. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Lenertová, Denisa. 2001. On clitic placement, topicalization and CP-structure in Czech. In Current issues in Slavic linguistics, ed. Junghanns, Uwe, Zybatow, Gerhild, Mehlhorn, Grit, and Szucisch, Luca, 294–305. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lenertová, Denisa. 2004. Czech pronominal clitics. Journal of Slavic linguistics 12:135–171.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger. 1999. Case, the Extended Projection Principle, and minimalism. In Working minimalism, ed. Epstein, Samuel David and Hornstein, Norbert, 1–25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37:69–109.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Jim. 1997. Subjecthood and subject positions. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, ed. Haegeman, Liliane, 197–236. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Medová, Lucie. 2009. Reflexive clitics in Slavic and Romance. A comparative view from an antipassive perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, Roland. 2003. On multiple wh-fronting and wh-clustering in Czech. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, vol. 2: The Amherst meeting, ed. Browne, W., Kim, E., and Partee, B., 393–412. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Meyer, Roland. 2004. Syntax der Erganzungsfrage. Empirische Untersuchungen am Russischen, Polnischen und Tschechischen [Syntax of wh-questions: Empirical studies in Russian, Polish and Czech]. Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mohr, Sabine. 2005. Clausal architecture and subject positions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1992. Complementizer agreement and argument clitics. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 50:25–54.Google Scholar
Progovac, Liljana. 1996. Clitics in Serbian/Croatian: Comp as the second position. In Approaching second: Second position clitics and related phenomena, ed. Halpern, A. and Zwicky, A., 411–428. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2004. The EPP in Breton: An unvalued categorial feature. In Triggers, ed. Breitbarth, A. and Riemdijk, H. van, 451–492. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2003. Why there is an EPP. Genko Kenkyu. Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan 123:221–256.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1999. Clitics: A state-of-the-art report. In Clitics in languages of Europe, ed. Riemsdijk, Henk C. van, Bosong, George, and Comrie, Bernard, 1–32. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1987. The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1994. Second position effects and agreement in Comp. Paper presented at Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 3, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Schiitze, Carson T. 1994. Serbo-Croatian second position clitic placement and the phonology- syntax interface. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 21: Papers on phonology and morphology, ed. Carnie, Andrew and Harley, Heidi 374–473. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (MITWPL).Google Scholar
Šípková, Milena. 1993. Stavba věty v mluvených projevech: Syntax hanáckých nářečí [The structure of sentence in spoken dialogues: The syntax ofHanak dialects]. Prague: H&H.Google Scholar
Stjepanović, Sandra. 1999. What do second position cliticization, scrambling and multiple wh-fronting have in common? Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Introduction. In Subjects, expletives, and the EPP, ed. Svenonius, Peter, 1–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 2001. Scrambling and empty categories. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (MITWPL), vol. 41: Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics 3, ed. Cuervo, María Cristina, Harbour, Daniel, Hiraiwa, Ken, and Ishihara, Shinichiro, 47–58. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut T. 1996. How to keep linguists happy: Review of The minimalist program, Chomsky, Noam. GLOTInternational 2:12–15.Google Scholar
Toman, Jindřich. 1980. Weak and strong: Notes on be in Czech. In Wege zur Universalien Forschung. Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hanjakob Seller, ed. Brettschneider, Gunter and Lehmann, Christian, 305–310. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Toman, Jindřich. 1996. A note on clitics and prosody. In Approaching second: Second position clitics and related phenomena, ed. Halpern, A. and Zwicky, A.M., 505–510. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.Google Scholar
Toman, Jindrich. 1999. On clitic displacement. In Topics in South Slavic syntax and semantics, ed. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila and Hellan, Lars, 205–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Toyoshima, Takahashi. 2001. Head-to-Spec movement. In The minimalist parameter: Selected papers from the Open Linguistics Forum, Ottawa, 12-23 March 1997, ed. Alexandrova, Galina M. and Arnaudova, Olga. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vanëk, A.L. 1977. Aspects of subject-verb agreement. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Veselovská, Ludmila. 1995. Phrasal Movement and X-morphology. Word order parallels in Czech and English nominal and verbal projections. Doctoral dissertation, Palacky University, Olomouc.Google Scholar
Veselovská, Ludmila. 2004. The extended verbal projection in Czech: Three variants of the verb ‘be’. Presented at Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL) 5, University of Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
Veselovská, Ludmila and Karlík, Petr. 2004. Analytic passives in Czech. Zeitschrift für Slavistik 2:163–243.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1994. Speculations on negative imperatives. Rivista di Linguistica 6:67–89.Google Scholar