Abstract
Using English data, I show that Head Movement Constraint violations cannot be repaired by deletion and compare this result with cases of both salvation and non-salvation by ellipsis from previous literature. I then consider two possible sources for this lack of repair. The first is to take the Head Movement Constraint as a derivational constraint, and the second is to assimilate it into the Empty Category Principle (Chomsky, 1986).
Keywords
Head Movement Constraint; Repair by Ellipsis; Derivational Constraints; Representational Constraints
1. Introduction
Since Ross (1969)Ross, J. R. (1969). Guess who? In R. I. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M. Green, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.). 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. (pp. 252–286). Chicago linguistics society., ellipsis has been used to probe into the nature of locality restrictions on movement (Perlmutter, 1971Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.; Chomsky, 1972Chomsky, N. (1972). Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In P. S. Peters (Ed.), The goals of linguistic theory (pp. 63–130). Prentice-Hall.; Chung et al., 1995Chung, S., Ladusaw, W., & McCloskey, J. (1995). Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics, 3, 1–44.; Merchant, 1999Merchant, J. (1999). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and identity in ellipsis [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California.; Lasnik, 2001Lasnik, H. (2001). When can you save a structure by destroying it? In M. Kim & U. Strauss (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East linguistic society 31 (Vol. 2, pp. 301–320). GLSA.; Nakao, 2009Nakao, C. (2009). Island repair and non-repair by PF strategies [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland.; Boškovic, 2011Boškovi?, Ž. (2011). Rescue by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the \emphThat-Trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(1), 1–44.; among many others). The existence of repair effects implies that the relevant constraints are at least partly representational. Let us consider an example of Ross’s Complex NP Constraint (adapted from Lasnik, 2001Lasnik, H. (2001). When can you save a structure by destroying it? In M. Kim & U. Strauss (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East linguistic society 31 (Vol. 2, pp. 301–320). GLSA.):
In (1a), we have wh-movement across a complex NP and thus an island effect arises. In the sluicing example in (1b) we also have the problematic movement, but the relevant portion of the structure is removed and acceptability improves.
The main idea in the literature on repair is that movement that crosses an island causes a local representation problem, marked below with a *-feature on the island boundary (Chomsky, 1972Chomsky, N. (1972). Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In P. S. Peters (Ed.), The goals of linguistic theory (pp. 63–130). Prentice-Hall.; Lasnik, 2001Lasnik, H. (2001). When can you save a structure by destroying it? In M. Kim & U. Strauss (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East linguistic society 31 (Vol. 2, pp. 301–320). GLSA.; Merchant, 2008Merchant, J. (2008). Variable island repair under ellipsis. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Topics in ellipsis (pp. 132–153). Cambridge University Press.; Boškovic, 2011Boškovi?, Ž. (2011). Rescue by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the \emphThat-Trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(1), 1–44.). Ellipsis removes the portion of the structure that contains the *-feature and thus the problem goes away:
One type of locality constraint that, to my knowledge, has not been investigated in the literature on repair is the Head Movement Constraint (henceforth HMC; Travis, 1984Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.), which requires head movement to be maximally local and upwards. The HMC, for instance, blocks structures like (3):
Here the head W adjoins to the head X jumping over Z. This results in a violation of the HMC.
In this paper, I will show that ellipsis does not repair HMC violations like the one in (3) and explore some reasons why.
In section 2, I introduce some evidence that ellipsis involves unpronounced syntactic structure. In section 3, I present some previous results from the literature on repair. In section 4, I show that HMC violations of the type in (3) do not seem to be repaired by deletion. In section 5, I speculate some reasons for such absence of repair. Finally, in section 6, I conclude.
2. Evidence for unpronounced structure in the ellipsis site
In this section, I review some evidence that ellipsis sites involve unpronounced syntactic structure, which I will implement in terms of PF-deletion. This is not an exhaustive list of arguments, but I believe that the evidence reviewed here suffices to motivate the idea.1 1 For a more complete discussion see van Craenenbroeck and Merchant (2013), which also go over most of the arguments presented here.
Bound pronouns must be c-commanded by their binder at some point of the derivation (Lasnik, 1976Lasnik, H. (1976). Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis, 2, 1–22.). Now, consider the following example from van Craenenbroeck and Merchant (2013)van Craenenbroeck, J., & Merchant, J. (2013). Ellipsis phenomena. In M. den Dikken (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax (pp. 701–745). Cambridge University Press.:
The requirement is satisfied if the fragment answer in B includes unpronounced syntax, i.e. before movement and PF-deletion. A similar point can be made with anaphors, which are required to be A-bound in their local domain (Lasnik, 1976Lasnik, H. (1976). Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis, 2, 1–22., Chomsky, 1981Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris Publications., and subsequent work).
Another argument, given by Ross (1969)Ross, J. R. (1969). Guess who? In R. I. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M. Green, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.). 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. (pp. 252–286). Chicago linguistics society., is based on agreement. If agreement requires a c-command relation between the agreement controller and the element exhibiting agreement morphology, examples like the following imply that the material inside the ellipsis site, containing the agreement controller, is syntactically active before PF-deletion:
Additionally, ellipsis also seems to require some degree of isomorphism with the antecedent, which again suggests the presence of unpronounced syntactic structure. For instance, Chung (2006)Chung, S. (2006). Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. In R. T. Cover & Y. Kim (Eds.), Berkeley Linguistic Society 31 (pp. 73–91). UC, Berkeley. observes that ellipsis sites cannot include new words that are not in the antecedent. Consider the following examples:
The preposition of in these examples is just a meaningless case marker. If ellipsis requires some degree of syntactic identity, the pattern in (7) and (8) is easily explained. In (7) and (8b), all words in the ellipsis site are included in the antecedent. In (8a), on the other hand, the ellipsis site includes an extra word of, not present in the antecedent and therefore deletion is impossible as there is lack of identity between what we are trying to elide and its potential antecedent.
The final argument I will present here is based on Mendes and Nevins (2020)Mendes, G., & Nevins, A. (2020). Salvation and non-salvation of defectiveness under ellipsis. Unpublished manuscript., who point out that the defectiveness of some modal verbs in English is carried over to ellipsis sites. Specifically, modal verbs like must in English lack non-finite forms (e.g., *don’t must, *musted, *is musting, *have musted, *will must, …), in contrast with modals like has (to) (e.g., I don’t have to go, I will have to go, etc …). Consider then the following contrast:
If hidden syntactic structure were not required in VP ellipsis here, it is unclear how to block the example in (9). If there is hidden syntactic structure, (9) is ruled out because the relevant syntactic structure in the ellipsis site cannot be built to begin with, given the defectiveness of must in English.2 2 Mendes and Nevins (2020) also explore cases where lexical gaps can appear in the ellipsis site. In these cases, the source of defectiveness is morphophonological and thus repaired by deletion.
Let us consider now some constraints on movement and how they behave under ellipsis.
3. Representational constraints at PF and LF and derivational constraints
Ross gave several examples of potential repair effects (some examples are slightly modified):
Here are other examples that have appeared in the literature:
Each of these constraints, as well as the corresponding repair examples, deserve careful examination. I refer the reader to Merchant (1999)Merchant, J. (1999). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and identity in ellipsis [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California., Lasnik (2001)Lasnik, H. (2001). When can you save a structure by destroying it? In M. Kim & U. Strauss (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East linguistic society 31 (Vol. 2, pp. 301–320). GLSA., Merchant (2008)Merchant, J. (2008). Variable island repair under ellipsis. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Topics in ellipsis (pp. 132–153). Cambridge University Press., Boškovic (2011), Rottman and Yoshida (2013)Rottman, I., & Yoshida, M. (2013). Sluicing, idioms and island repair. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(4), 651–668., Barros et al. (2014)Barros, M., Elliott, P., & Thoms, G. (2014). There is no island repair. Unpublished manuscript..
Repair effects imply that the grammar can build the relevant deviant structures and that unacceptability arises as an output condition on the PF side. That is, movement is possible, but the structure is filtered out at PF if deletion does not apply. As done in the introduction, I will proceed here by marking the locality violations with a *-feature placed on the relevant portion of the structure.
Let us turn now to cases where repair fails.
Merchant (1999)Merchant, J. (1999). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and identity in ellipsis [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California. argues that PF-representational constraints can be repaired by deletion whereas derivational constraints cannot. If a given constraint is derivational, we should not see repair effects because the grammar would not be able to build the structure to begin with. For example, Merchant observed that Superiority effects cannot be repaired by deletion. To show this, he used data from Bulgarian, a language which allows multiple wh-movement (see Rudin, 1988Rudin, C. (1988). On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 445–501. and Richards, 1997Richards, N. W. (1997). What moves where when in which language? [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. for further discussion):
Superiority violations cannot be repaired by deletion as shown in the following examples:
Finally, Lasnik (2005)Lasnik, H. (2005). What kind of constraint is the EPP? [Class handout]. Cambridge, MA: LSA Summer Institute, MIT. and Nakao (2009)Nakao, C. (2009). Island repair and non-repair by PF strategies [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland. also observed that ellipsis does not seem to rescue ECP violations (Chomsky, 1981Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris Publications.; Lasnik & Saito, 1984Lasnik, H., & Saito, M. (1984). On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 235–290.; Lasnik & Saito, 1992Lasnik, H., & Saito, M. (1992). Move alpha. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.), which require traces to be properly governed. Basically, a trace is properly governed if it is governed by a lexical head or by its antecedent. The examples Lasnik and Nakao discuss are given below:3 3 A reviewer points out that the ECP seems obsolete nowadays. In the minimalist era, notions like government, the heart of the ECP, became suspicious. While I share the idea that the ECP should be derived from more general grammatical notions, I will keep using it as a descriptive tool as many of its achievements have not found a satisfying minimalist account yet.
In the examples in (a), the trace within the island is lexically governed by the preposition with, a lexical head. On the other hand, in the examples in (b) and (c) in both (31) and (32), the traces of the adjuncts are not properly governed. They are not governed by a lexical head, nor by their antecedents since the adjunct structure is a barrier. The lack of repair is predicted if the ECP is an LF representational constraint, whereas ellipsis is PF-deletion.4 4 Boškovic (2011) presents a more radical view on repair phenomenon. His view on the Superiority effect is different from the one we have endorsed here.
With these observations in mind, I now turn to HMC violations.
4. HMC violations are not repaired by ellipsis
Travis’s (1984)Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Head Movement Constraint (HMC) requires head movement (HM) to be upwards and maximally.
It is my understanding that HMC violations have not been tested for repair by deletion. Finding examples of HMC violations that don not have other confounds in English is not an easy task. Most of the examples of HMC violations given in the literature have also other problems as well.
Examples (34) and (35), below, are two candidates of HMC violations, where heads crossed by HM are marked in italics. For the sake of exposition, assume that auxiliaries and copula be project a VP, and their tensed forms are the result of V o movement (for a different approach, see Lasnik, 1995Lasnik, H. (1995). Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the minimalist program. In H. Campos & P. Kempchinsky (Eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory (pp. 251–275). Georgetown University Press., among others):
In (34), be moves to C crossing can; in (35), be moves to T crossing can.
Ellipsis does not seem to make the examples any better:
All the examples above have confounds, though (Lasnik, 2000Lasnik, H. (2000). Syntactic structures revisited: Contemporary lectures on classic transformational theory. MIT Press., sections 3.4.4/3.4.6). If question formation involves T o-C, bare be is not eligible to raise to C in (34)/(36B). Also, can, like some other English modals, lacks untensed forms (*must can, *will can, *is can(ing), *doesn’t can, ...), so (35)/(37) might be independently bad because be ‘steals’ T from can. Finally, in (36B), a head crossed by HM stays outside the ellipsis site rendering the example irrelevant to the discussion since the HMC violations are not properly included in the ellipsis site.
Consider now the following examples, which control for such interfering factors:
The HMC is violated in (38-39) as the heads seem and to are crossed by HM. Likewise, the HMC is also violated in (40-41), where appears and to are crossed by have in its way up to T. We find no amelioration under ellipsis in (39) and (41), though, which indeed suggests that a HMC violation cannot be repaired by deletion
We should also check for other potential interfering factors here.
First, notice that HM from a ‘reduced’ extended projection to another extended projection is what we find in noun incorporation:
So, the fact that be moves to a distinct extended projection should not be a problem in (38-41).5 5 If we are not dealing with different projections in the end, then the potential objection I am trying to address does not arise, and the problem in these examples must be the intervening heads. Second, notice that be can move to T outside a deleted VP whose antecedent clause does not have to be in a parallel position. (43a) shows that English does not have productive AP-ellipsis, which implies that (43b) has a derivation along the lines just described.
The problem with (40), therefore, is unlikely to be a lack of parallelism.
Finally, we should also consider the possibility of seem being introduced by vi(ntransitive) and issues that might arise from it.6 6 A reviewer raises the possibility that other heads in the extended projection of the verb seem and appear and below T might be present in our testing examples (39-41). We could, for instance, conceive the presence of Agr and Asp projections. I will leave further investigations on the presence of such heads in our testing examples and how they might interfere with the HMC there for future research. Regardless of the presence of vi, it is unlikely that a locality issue other than the HMC is at play in (38-41). vi’s that introduce verbs like seem, which do not require an external argument, are weak phase heads (Chomsky, 2001Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in linguistics (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.). Furthermore, T and VP internal material can arguably be syntactically related as shown in the agreement established between Þeir ‘they.NOM’, inside the VP headed by leiðst ‘bored.at’, and the auxiliary höfðu ‘had.3PL’ (44), and there is no other potential phasal domain between T and the base position of be in (38-39) and T and the base position of have in (40-41).
Consider now the following possible parses for (39) and (40) assuming seem and appear are introduced by vi:
In (45a) and (46a), one of the heads crossed by HM stays outside the ellipsis site, which would make the examples irrelevant for our discussion. However, it seems that v’s must stay inside the ellipsis site to prevent overgeneration of verb phrase ellipsis in cases where the v in the ellipsis site and the v in the antecedent do not match, i.e., vi(ntransitive) ≠ vt(ransitive) (Merchant, 2013Merchant, J. (2013). Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(1), 77–108., and references therein):
I therefore take (38-41) to be bona fide examples of HMC violations and (39) and (41) to show that HMC violations cannot be repaired by deletion.
5. What type of constraint is the HMC?
As mentioned before, Merchant (1999)Merchant, J. (1999). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and identity in ellipsis [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California. argued that derivational constraints cannot be repaired by deletion, while representational constraints can. In the first case, the grammar would not be able to generate the relevant structures. In the latter, the grammar must be able to generate the relevant structures and, if the deviance is assigned to a representational PF-constraint, ellipsis should be able to fix the problem. If Merchant’s rationale is right, HMC could be taken as a derivational constraint alongside Superiority.
HMC, superiority, and wh-islands, which we considered here, are often seen as instances of a more general Minimality condition (Rizzi, 1990Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. MIT Press.; Chomsky, 1995Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MIT Press.). The idea is that violations arise when there is an intervening element, which, potentially, could have been the target of movement, between the base position of the moved element and its final position (e.g., α ... βintervenor … tα).
As we saw, however, HMC, superiority, and wh-islands do not have a uniform behavior in terms of repair. While HMC and Superiority effects cannot be repaired by deletion, wh-islands can (relevant examples repeated below):
Boeckx and Lasnik (2006)Boeckx, C., & Lasnik, H. (2006). Intervention and repair. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), 150–155., considering the contrast between wh-islands and Superiority, suggest that the crucial difference relies on the type of intervention. Wh-islands would be a case of defective intervention since the higher wh-movement, the intervenor, cannot itself move to the matrix CP as shown in (52b):
The situation is different with Superiority:
The examples of HMC violation that we found, however, resemble defective intervention as the intervening heads are not competing for T. Consider:
These results complicate a unified view of HMC and Superiority.
Finally, we also saw that ECP effects cannot be repaired by ellipsis (data repeated below). According to Lasnik and Nakao, this is so because ECP is a representational LF constraint, whereas ellipsis is PF-deletion.
Interestingly, Chomsky (1986)Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. MIT Press. tried to reduce the HMC to the ECP. Under the assumption that a head cannot appear as a complement of a lexical head, to satisfy the ECP, a trace of a head thus can only be antecedent-governed.7 7 Another assumption that needs to be made is that a head cannot adjoin to maximal projections. In Chomsky’s (1986)Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. MIT Press. system, all maximal projections are blocking categories and thus potential barriers. Consider again our examples showing that HMC violations cannot be repaired by deletion:
In both examples, there are three barriers between the final position of the moving auxiliary verb and its, namely, VP1, TP (by inheritance), and VP2. As a result, tbe in (58) and thave in (59) are not properly governed.8 8 For sake of comparison, consider an example like “How tall is John [TP t [VP t thow_tall ]]” with cyclic head movement. According to Chomsky, T θ-marks the VP. Since T is not a lexical category, however, it cannot L-mark the VP to void its status as a barrier. Once V moves to T, the situation is different. The resulting complex head V+T has both properties necessary to L-mark the VP. V is a lexical head and T θ-marks the VP. The complex V+T, thus, L-marks the VP, allowing the trace of the copula within the VP to be antecedent-governed. T o-C is possible because T is not an inherent barrier. Again, if the ECP is an LF representational condition and ellipsis is PF-deletion, we do not expect repair effects.
6. Conclusion
I have shown that HMC violations cannot be repaired by deletion, apparently in contrast to some other locality violations. I speculated on two possible ways to accommodate this finding. The first was to say that the HMC is a derivational constraint building on Merchant (1999)Merchant, J. (1999). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and identity in ellipsis [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California.. In this case, there is no repair because the grammar cannot construct the relevant structure. I also showed that wh-islands, HMC and Superiority do not exhibit a uniform behavior in terms of repair. The other possibility was to say that the HMC is reduced to the ECP as proposed by Chomsky (1986)Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. MIT Press.. The ECP, following Lasnik (2005)Lasnik, H. (2005). What kind of constraint is the EPP? [Class handout]. Cambridge, MA: LSA Summer Institute, MIT. and Nakao (2009)Nakao, C. (2009). Island repair and non-repair by PF strategies [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland., would be an LF constraint while ellipsis is PF-deletion. The challenge now is to find a way to distinguish between these analytical options in an insightful way.
Notes
-
1
For a more complete discussion see van Craenenbroeck and Merchant (2013)van Craenenbroeck, J., & Merchant, J. (2013). Ellipsis phenomena. In M. den Dikken (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax (pp. 701–745). Cambridge University Press., which also go over most of the arguments presented here.
-
2
Mendes and Nevins (2020)Mendes, G., & Nevins, A. (2020). Salvation and non-salvation of defectiveness under ellipsis. Unpublished manuscript. also explore cases where lexical gaps can appear in the ellipsis site. In these cases, the source of defectiveness is morphophonological and thus repaired by deletion.
-
3
A reviewer points out that the ECP seems obsolete nowadays. In the minimalist era, notions like government, the heart of the ECP, became suspicious. While I share the idea that the ECP should be derived from more general grammatical notions, I will keep using it as a descriptive tool as many of its achievements have not found a satisfying minimalist account yet.
-
4
Boškovic (2011)Boškovi?, Ž. (2011). Rescue by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the \emphThat-Trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(1), 1–44. presents a more radical view on repair phenomenon. His view on the Superiority effect is different from the one we have endorsed here.
-
5
If we are not dealing with different projections in the end, then the potential objection I am trying to address does not arise, and the problem in these examples must be the intervening heads.
-
6
A reviewer raises the possibility that other heads in the extended projection of the verb seem and appear and below T might be present in our testing examples (39-41). We could, for instance, conceive the presence of Agr and Asp projections. I will leave further investigations on the presence of such heads in our testing examples and how they might interfere with the HMC there for future research.
-
7
Another assumption that needs to be made is that a head cannot adjoin to maximal projections.
-
8
For sake of comparison, consider an example like “How tall is John [TP t [VP t thow_tall ]]” with cyclic head movement. According to Chomsky, T θ-marks the VP. Since T is not a lexical category, however, it cannot L-mark the VP to void its status as a barrier. Once V moves to T, the situation is different. The resulting complex head V+T has both properties necessary to L-mark the VP. V is a lexical head and T θ-marks the VP. The complex V+T, thus, L-marks the VP, allowing the trace of the copula within the VP to be antecedent-governed. T o-C is possible because T is not an inherent barrier.
References
- Baker, M. C., Aranovich, R., & Golluscio, L. A. (2005). Two types of syntactic noun incorporation: Noun incorporation in Mapudungun and its typological implications. Language, 81(1), 138–176.
- Barros, M., Elliott, P., & Thoms, G. (2014). There is no island repair Unpublished manuscript.
- Boeckx, C., & Lasnik, H. (2006). Intervention and repair. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), 150–155.
- Boškovi?, Ž. (2011). Rescue by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the \emphThat-Trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(1), 1–44.
- Chomsky, N. (1972). Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In P. S. Peters (Ed.), The goals of linguistic theory (pp. 63–130). Prentice-Hall.
- Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding Foris Publications.
- Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers MIT Press.
- Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program MIT Press.
- Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in linguistics (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.
- Chung, S. (2006). Sluicing and the lexicon: The point of no return. In R. T. Cover & Y. Kim (Eds.), Berkeley Linguistic Society 31 (pp. 73–91). UC, Berkeley.
- Chung, S., Ladusaw, W., & McCloskey, J. (1995). Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics, 3, 1–44.
- van Craenenbroeck, J., & Merchant, J. (2013). Ellipsis phenomena. In M. den Dikken (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax (pp. 701–745). Cambridge University Press.
- Lasnik, H. (1976). Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis, 2, 1–22.
- Lasnik, H. (1995). Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the minimalist program. In H. Campos & P. Kempchinsky (Eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory (pp. 251–275). Georgetown University Press.
- Lasnik, H. (2000). Syntactic structures revisited: Contemporary lectures on classic transformational theory MIT Press.
- Lasnik, H. (2001). When can you save a structure by destroying it? In M. Kim & U. Strauss (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East linguistic society 31 (Vol. 2, pp. 301–320). GLSA.
- Lasnik, H. (2005). What kind of constraint is the EPP? [Class handout]. Cambridge, MA: LSA Summer Institute, MIT.
- Lasnik, H., & Saito, M. (1984). On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 235–290.
- Lasnik, H., & Saito, M. (1992). Move alpha Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
- Mendes, G., & Nevins, A. (2020). Salvation and non-salvation of defectiveness under ellipsis Unpublished manuscript.
- Merchant, J. (1999). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and identity in ellipsis [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California.
- Merchant, J. (2008). Variable island repair under ellipsis. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Topics in ellipsis (pp. 132–153). Cambridge University Press.
- Merchant, J. (2013). Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(1), 77–108.
- Nakao, C. (2009). Island repair and non-repair by PF strategies [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland.
- Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- Richards, N. W. (1997). What moves where when in which language? [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality MIT Press.
- Ross, J. R. (1969). Guess who? In R. I. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M. Green, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.). 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 252–286). Chicago linguistics society.
- Rottman, I., & Yoshida, M. (2013). Sluicing, idioms and island repair. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(4), 651–668.
- Rudin, C. (1988). On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 445–501.
- Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2002). To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20(4), 691–724.
- Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
13 Nov 2020 -
Date of issue
Sep-Dec 2020
History
-
Received
30 Apr 2020 -
Accepted
23 July 2020
