Disentangling CED effect under MERGE

Toward a Genuine Explanation in Linguistic Theory
Keio Colloquium
08/01/2021

Yushi Sugimoto(yushis@umich.edu)

University of Michigan

1

MERGE framework

1.1

MERGE


MERGE (Chomsky 2019, 2020, 2021)

(1)



1.2



MERGE(P,Q,WS) = WS’ = {{P,Q}, x1 . . .xn }a. MERGE applies to P, Q, and WS.
b. A member of WS is accessible in WS’
c. “MERGE will always add one new element to the workspace.”d. “an element a can be accessible to MERGE even if it’s not part of the workspace”
i. a term of: “a term of some element x is a member of x or a member of a term ofx.”e. Accessibility for MERGE: A term of x might be inaccessible by
1. Phase impenetrability Condition

2. Minimal search

EM and IM(2)

External Merge (EM)a. WS1 = [ a, b ]b. MERGE(a, b, WS1 ) = [ {a,b} ] = WS2

1.3

(3)

Internal Merge (IM)a. WS1 = [ {a,b} ]b. MERGE(b,{a,b}, WS1 ) =[ {b,{a,b}}] = WS2

Search?

(4)

Search Procedure: Find accessible elements for MERGE
a. Find P (a member of WS)
b. Find Q
i. a member of WS (EM), orii. a term of P (IM) via Minimal search• See Ke (2019) for details on search procedure.

Keio Colloquium

2

Yushi Sugimoto

Disentangling CED effectConsequences of MERGE
(5)

2.1

Head movement?
a. pair-MERGE analysis (Chomsky 2019)b. An unformulable operation (Chomsky 2021)

PBC Effect(6)

Proper Binding Condition (Fiengo 1977, Saito 1989)
Traces must be bound.
a. *Downward and sideward movement (RR violation)b. *Head movement (an unformulable operation)c. *Remnant Movement (cf. Müller 1996, Kitahara 1997, Takano 2000, Hiraiwa 2010)(7)

Remnant Movement (cf. Epstein et al. 2018)a. * [which picture of t1 ]2 does wonder who1 Mary likes t2 ?
b.
[C P [P red ti How proud of Bill]j is [T P Johni tj ]]?

2.1.1
(8)

(Saito 1992:80)(Takano 1995:332)

RR + MS + PIC = PBC effect: Epstein et al. (2018, 2021), Kitahara and Seely (2021)
a. [C P [ which [ picture [ of whoi ]]]j [C 0 [ whoi [C 0 CphaseH . . . [ . . . whoi . . . ]j ]]]]
CP
b.

C’
which

C’

whoi

CphaseH . . .

pictureof whoi→ no c-command relation between two copies⇒ RR violation(9)a. [C P [Johni [ how [ proud [of Bill ]j [ CphaseH [C 0 John1 [T P Johni . . . ]j ]]]]]]
CP
b.

AP
. . .Johni . . . CphaseH

C’TP
Johni . . .

→ no c-command relation between two copies, but the lower copy is inaccessible by PIC⇒ no RR violation2

Keio Colloquium(10)

Disentangling CED effectYushi Sugimoto

Raising-to-object + Remnant Movement
a. Max asked [how likely to win ti the race]j John {expected, believed} Oscari to be tj
b. [v∗P [AP Oscari [ how [ likely [ to [ win the race ]]]]]j [v∗ 0 v*phaseH [RP Oscari [R ’ . . .]j ]]]
v*P
c.

AP

v*’
RP

. . .Oscari . . . v∗phaseH

Oscari . . .
d. v* phase: the raised-object is in PIC domain→ no ambiguity for further operation
A generalization• Phase-internal movement (e.g., A-movement) + remnant movement (to the phasal edge) is
grammatical (cf. Hiraiwa 2010)

• How about movement out of remnant phrases?
(11)a.
Max asked [how likely tj to win the race]i Oscarj was ti ?
b. ?? Which racek did [Max ask [ [how likely tj to win tk ]i [Oscarj was ti ]]]?
c. * Oscar was asked how [ [how likely tj to win]i [it was ti ]](Sakai 1996:124, (5))

A note• As long as search domain is restricted and multiple copies do not cause a problem, the coresystem can proceed further derivations.



2.2

Typology of Movement(12)Müller-Takano Generalization
A configuration of the form “[X P . . . tY P ] . . . TP . . . tX P ]” is allowed only if the movements
targeting XP and YP are of different types.
(Müller 1996, Takano 1995)(13)

Freezing Effect (cf. Wexler and Culicover 1980)
A moved constituent is frozen for extraction.

(14)

Ban on Improper Movement
A’-movement of a constituent X cannot be followed by movement of X to an A-position. (Safir
2019:288,(10))• How to capture these generalizations?
→ A/A’-distinction?
3(Haegeman et al. 2015:77, (3))

Keio Colloquium

3

Yushi Sugimoto

Disentangling CED effect

Revisiting the CED effectCondition on Extraction Domain (Huang 1982:505, (118)), (cf. Cattell 1976)

A phrase A may be extracted out of a domain B only if B is properly governed.



(15)

a.
b.




* Whoi did [subj ect stories about ti ] terrify John?
(Chomsky 1977:106)* Which celebrityi did Mary eat an ice cream [adj unct before she saw ti ](Huang 1982:503)• Extraction from non-complements (e.g., subjects and adjuncts) may be impossible.

3.1

Subject Islands(16)

Freezing Effect in English
a. * Which candidatei were [posters of ti ] all over town?
b.
Which candidate were there [posters of ti ] all over town?
c. ?* Whoi was [a friend of ti ] arrested?

(17)(Merchant 2001:87)(Stepanov 2007:85, (11))

The edge position and sub-extraction
a. * Of which cari did [the driver ti ] cause a scandal?
(Chomsky 2008:147, (6b))
b.
Of which cari is [the driver ti ] likely [ ti to [ti cause a scandal]]]]?
(Chomsky 2008:153,(18b))c.
Of which cari did they believe [the driver ti ] to have caused a scandal?
(Chomsky 2008:153, (19))


A generalization (Chomsky 2008, Gallego and Uriagereka 2007)

Syntactic Objects in phasal edges become internally opaque→ How do we capture this generalization?
• Chomsky (2015): no asymmetry between subjects and objects
3.1.1

MERGE

• Under MERGE, freezing effect cannot be derived (Sugimoto 2019).
• The subject in [spec,v*P] is inaccessible; it’s a lower copy (pace Goto and Ishii 2020).

4

Keio Colloquium(18)

Yushi Sugimoto

Disentangling CED effect

CP
C’

wh
C

hφ,φi
T’

DPi
T

NP

D
NP

v*P

PP
P wh

DPi

v*’
v* VP

NP

D
NP

PP
P wh

3.1.2

Exceptions in Subject Islands• (non-restrictive) relativization, of -phrase topicalizaiton, and unaccusative verbs examples are
relatively acceptable (McInnerney and Sugimoto 2021).
(19)

a. (. . .) ran a documenatry featuring a young Auckland family [of which]i [[the father ti ]earned $70,000 a year (. . .)(Chaves and Dery 2019:482,(11c), attributed to NOW corpus)
b. Of the suspectsi , [few ti ] have good alibis.
c. [Of which car]i did [the driver ti ]j collapse tj ?
(Zyman 2019:8,(15))(20)

non-systematic exceptions (Chaves 2021)
a. What cari did some pictures of ti cause a scandal?
(Jimeénez-Fernández 2009:111)
b. Which presidenti would the impeachment of ti cause more outrage? (Chaves 2012:467)

3.1.3

Cross-linguistic variation• Stepanov (2007) points out that the unified approach of the subject islands and adjunct islands
cannot hold considering the cross-linguistic variation.
• Stepanov (2007): Some languages lack the subject island effect, but show the adjunct islandeffect.
1. Subjects are opaque; adjuncts are opaque [e.g., English, French, etc.]
2. Subjects are transparent; adjuncts are opaque [e.g., Japanese, Turkish, Russian, etc.]
3. Subjects are transparent; adjuncts are transparent [doesn’t exist]
4. Subjects are opaque; adjuncts are transparent [doesn’t exist]

5(Stepanov 2007:88,(18))

Keio Colloquium

Yushi Sugimoto

Disentangling CED effect

3.1.4

On non-syntactic approaches(21)

Focus-background conflict (FBC) constraint: Abeillé et al. (2020), cf. Goldberg (2006)
A focused element should not be part of a backgrounded constituent.

Predictions



1. wh-movement from subjects becomes less acceptable

2. relativization becomes relatively acceptable.

However. . .
(22)

a. The familyi , of which [the father ti ] has just been arrested, . . .
b. *The familyi , which [the father of ti ] has just been arrested, . . .

. . . The difference cannot be captured by FBC.
• When PP is fronted, PPs lacks a potential extraction site (Akmajian and Lehrer 1976).
(23)

a. Of the stories about Watergate, only yesterday’s was truly surprising.
b. The stories about Watergate, of which only yesterday’s was truly surprising, were ignored
by Congress.

→ PP wh-phrases are base-generated in [spec,CP] (McInnerney and Sugimoto 2021)

3.2

Adjunct Islands

3.2.1

Syntactic Positions of Adjunct Islands

(24)

a.
b.
c.

(25)

a.
whati did John arrive [whistling ti ]?
b.
Who did John get upset [after talking to ti ]?
c. % Which play did John fall asleep [during ti ]?

* What does John dance [whistling ti ]?
((Truswell 2007:1357, (4a))* Whati did John die [after he kicked ti ]? (Borgonovo and Neeleman 2000:203, (12b))* Whati was John photographed [during ti ]?(Borgonovo and Neeleman 2000:203, (12f))(Truswell 2007:1357, (4b))(Truswell 2011:129, (1b))(Truswell 2011:171, (83))

A generalization



Extraction from adjuncts becomes transparent when adjuncts are in lower positions (L-marked positions/VP adjunction, not vP adjuction) (e.g., borgonovoneeleman2000 2000,Narita 2014, Brown
2015, Brown 2017, Bode 2020).

• However, this point is not so clear.
(26)

a.
b.

John didn’t talk [after any of our meetings]* What meetingsi didn’t John talk [after any of ti ]?

(Boeckx 2012:146, fn14)• Not anti-locality (Truswell 2011)
(27)
(28)

a. ?? Whati did John drive Mary crazy [fixing ti ]?
b.
Whati did John drive Mary crazy [trying [to fix ti ]]?

(Truswell 2011:33, (56))

a.
b.

(Truswell 2011:34, (58))

Whati did John drive Mary crazy [to fix ti ]?
* Whati did John drive Mary crazy [beginning ] to fix ti ]?
6Keio Colloquium
3.2.2

Single Event Condition

(29)

a.
b.

Disentangling CED effectYushi Sugimoto

Whati did John arrive [whistling ti ]?
* Whati did John work [whistling ti ]?

Single Event Condition (Truswell 2011:232, (1), see also pp157-158)

(30)


3.2.3

An instance of wh-movement is legitimate only if the minimal constituent containing thehead and the foot of the chain can be construed as describing a single event.

Form SequenceForm Sequence: Chomsky (2019, 2020, 2021)

(31)







form sequence:a. h(&), x1 ,. . .xn i
b. Matching condition (cf. ATB, CSC, PG, etc.)(32)

a. WSn = { {whi ,{C, {subject, {T, {(&), {vP . . . }, {adj unct . . .whi . . .}}}}}} }b. form sequence:
WSn+1 = { {whi ,{C, {subject, {T, h (&), {vP . . . }, {adj unct . . .whi . . .}i }}}} }c. Matching Condition. . . Single Event Condition?

(33)

Parallelism Condition on ATB movement (Kasai 2004:181, (42))
ATB movement must take place from syntactically parallel positions.

3.2.4

Internal structures of adjuncts

1. Finiteness (Michel and Goodall 2013)(34)

a. ??I wonder who John went home [after kissing ti ]b. * I wonder who John went home [after he kissed ti ]2. PP vs. CP(35)

a. ?Which booki do you think that [C P if John reads ti ], he’ll abandon linguistics?
(Etxepare (1996): 490, cf. Hornstein (2001))
cf. *Which book did you say that Ricardo would abandon linguistics if he ever readti ?
b. *Which booki do you think that [P P after John reads ti ], he’ll abandon linguistics?

3.2.5

Cross-linguistic variation: Exceptions of adjunct islands across languages(36)

a. Italian (e.g. di Ricerca 2020)
b. Norwegian (e.g. Bondevik et al. 2020)
c. Russian (e.g. Tiskin 2017)
d. Swedish (e.g. Müller 2017). . . Adjuncts are strong islands in Dutch (Browning 1987), French (Postal 1998), German (Truswell2011), etc.
7Keio Colloquium

4

Disentangling CED effectYushi Sugimoto

Conclusion(37)

Empirical consequences from MERGE(RR) + MS + PIC (Epstein et al. 2018, 2021, Kitahara
and Seely 2021)
a. No counter-cyclic movement• *head movement→ extension condition (Epstein et al. 2018)b. Proper Binding Condition effect, namely remnant movement cases• Movement of elements that include trace/lower copy
→ RR violation + legitimate derivation is fine in some cases of remnant movement, butdoes not hold for parallel Merge cases.

(38)

CED effect revisiteda. Subject islands: No Freezing Effect under MERGE?
b. Adjunct islands: Form Sequence (matching condition)→ {non-syntactic,non-uniform} analysis of CED effect• How to capture cross-linguistic variation?

References
Abeillé, A., B. Hemforth, E. Winckel, and E. Gibson (2020). Extraction from subjects: Differences in
acceptability depend on the discourse function of the construction. Cognition 204, 104293.
Akmajian, A. and A. Lehrer (1976). NP-like quantifier and the problem of determining the head of an
NP. Linguistic Analysis 2(4), 395–413.
Bode, S. (2020). Casting a Minimalist Eye on Adjuncts. New York: Routledge.
Boeckx, C. (2012). Syntactic Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bondevik, I., D. Kush, and T. Lohndal (2020). Variation in adjunct islands: The case of Norwegian.
Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 1–32.
Borgonovo, C. and A. Neeleman (2000). Transparent adjuncts. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue
canadienne de linguistique 45(3-4), 199–224.
Brown, J. M. (2015). Blackholes and subextraction from adjuncts in english and norwegian. In
Proceedings of CLS51, pp. 67–81.
Brown, J. M. (2017). Heads and adjuncts: An experimental study of subextraction from participials
and coordination in English, German and Norwegian. Ph. D. thesis, University of Cambridge.
Browning, M. (1987). Null operator constructions. Ph. D. thesis, MIT.
Cattell, R. (1976). Constraints on movement rules. Language 52(1).
Chaves, R. (2012). On the grammar of extraction and coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 49(2), 285–327.
Chaves, R. (2021). Island phenomena and related matters. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Chaves, R. and J. E. Dery (2019). Frequency effects in subject islands. Journal of Linguistics 55(3),475–521.
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Formal Syntax, pp. 71–132. Academic Press.
Chomsky, N. (2008). On pheases. In R. Fredin, C. P. Otero, and M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational
issues in Linguistic Theory, Chapter 3, pp. 133–166. The MIT Press.

8

Keio Colloquium

Disentangling CED effectYushi Sugimoto

Chomsky, N. (2015). Problems of projection extensions. In S. M. Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann (Ed.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti,
Chapter 1, pp. 3–16. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chomsky, N. (2019). Lecture at UCLA. ms, transcript available at LingBuzz.
Chomsky, N. (2020). Minimalism where we are now, and where we are going. Invited talk at at the
161st meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan at Tohoku Gakuin University (online).
Chomsky, N. (2021). Genuine explanation. talk at the 39th of West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics, University of Arizona.
di Ricerca, T. (2020). To be or Not to be an island. Ph. D. thesis, Università Ca’ Foscari.
Epstein, S. D., H. Kitahara, and T. D. Seely (2018). Can “Determinacy + PIC” explain descriptionsof remnant movement asymmetries? In Proceedings of the 158th meeting of the Linguistic Societyof Japan, pp. 264–269.
Epstein, S. D., H. Kitahara, and T. D. Seely (2021). Some concepts and consequences of 3rd factorcompliant simplest WS merge. ms, in Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (forthcoming).
Etxepare, R. (1996). On null complementeizer in spanish. International Journal of Basque Linguistics
and Philology 32(2), 469–496.
Fiengo, R. (1977). On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 35–61.
Gallego, Á. and J. Uriagereka (2007). Sub-extraction from subjects: A phase theory account. In J. C.
et al. (Ed.), Romance Linguistics 2006, pp. 146–162. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Goto, N. and T. Ishii (2020). Some consequences of merge and determinacy. ms, available at Lingbuzz.
Haegeman, L., Á. L. Jiménez-Fernández, and A. Radford (2015). Deconstructing the subject conditionin terms of cumulative constraint violation. The Linguistic Review 31(1), 73–150.
Hiraiwa, K. (2010). Scrambling to the edge. Syntax 13(2), 133–164.
Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A minimalist Theory of Construal. Blackwell.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph. D. thesis, MIT.
Jimeénez-Fernández, Á. (2009). On the composite nature of subject island: A phase-based approach.
SKY Journal of Linguistics 22, 91–138.
Kasai, N. (2004). Two notes on atb movement. Language and Linguistics 5(1), 167–188.
Ke, H. (2019). The Syntax, Semantics and Processing of Agreement and Binding Grammatical Illusions. Ph. D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. available at Lingubuzz.
Kitahara, H. (1997). Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations. MIT Press.
Kitahara, H. and T. D. Seely (2021). Structure building under MERGE. Poster presented at WCCFL39.
McInnerney, A. and Y. Sugimoto (2021). Subject island in a simplest Merge system. poster presentation at LSA annual meeting.
Merchant, J. (2001). The Syntax of Silence: Sliucing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Michel, D. and G. Goodall (2013). Finiteness and the nature of island constraints. In N. Goto, K. Otaki,
A. Sato, and K. Takita (Eds.), Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX, pp. 187–197.
Müller, C. (2017). Extraction from adjunct islands in Swedish. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 35(1),67–85.
Müller, G. (1996). A constraint on remnant movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14,
335–407.
Narita, H. (2014). Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax. John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
9

Keio Colloquium

Disentangling CED effectYushi Sugimoto

Postal, P. (1998). Three Investigations of Extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Safir, K. (2019). If all merge is pair-merge. ms, available at Lingbuzz, Rutgers University.
Saito, M. (1989). Scrambling as semantically vacuous a’-movement. In Alternative Concepts of Phrase
Structure, pp. 182–200. University of Chicago Press.
Saito, M. (1992). Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1(1),69–118.
Sakai, H. (1996). Derivational Uniformity: A Study of Syntactic Derivation in Parametric Setting. Ph.
D. thesis, University of California, Irvine.
Stepanov, A. (2007). The end of CED?: Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10(1), 80–126.
Sugimoto, Y. (2019). On minimal search and (in)accessible copies. ms, University of Michigan.
Takano, Y. (1995). Predicate fronting and internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 26(2), 327–340.
Takano, Y. (2000). Illicit remnant movement: An argument for feature-driven movement. Linguistic
Inquiry 31(1), 141–156.
Tiskin, D. (2017). Movement out of adjunct clauses in Russian: Evidence from semantics. Comparative Slavic Syntax and Semantics 9(1), 33–43.
Truswell, R. (2007). Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events. Lingua 117(8), 1355 –1377.
Truswell, R. (2011). Events, Phrases, and Questions. Oxford University Press.
Wexler, K. and P. W. Culicover (1980). Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Zyman, E. (2019). Antilocality at the phase edge. ms, University of Chicago.

10