Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:15:44.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional Architecture and Wh-Movement: Irish as a Case in Point

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Máire B. Noonan
Máire B. Noonan*
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal and Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article sketches a novel approach to the phenomenon traditionally referred to as complementizer variation in Irish, and provides an alternative analysis to the standard one proposed by McCloskey (1990). It is argued that the two variants of the particle surfacing in Ā-constructions are not in fact complementizers per se, but the head of a Focus projection (FP), whose specifier provides an escape hatch for wh-phrases. FP interacts with C in two different ways, and depending on which of the options apply, F surfaces in two variants: (i) F incorporates to C, or (ii) FP raises to [Spec, CP]. The particle traditionally analysed as a resumptive strategy complementizer constitutes a case of (i), and the one traditionally analysed as a movement strategy complementizer is a case of (ii). It is shown how this approach avoids some serious empirical problems posed by the previous analysis of the phenomenon. It is furthermore argued that the process underlying successive cyclic wh-movement in fact involves covert successive pied-piping of CPs, where covert pied-piping is understood as overt pied-piping of the features of CP.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article discute du phénomène de la variation du complémenteur en irlandais et propose une nouvelle approche à ce phénomène, distincte de l’analyse standard de McCloskey (1990). Il est proposé que les deux variantes morphologiques des particules apparaissant dans les constructions-Ā ne sont pas des complémenteurs mais plutôt des réalisations de la tête d’une projection Focus (FP) dont le spécifieur fournit une position par laquelle les syntagmes-qu peuvent transiter. Cette projection FP interagit avec le noeud C de deux façons différentes, ce qui donne lieu aux variantes observées : ou bien (i) F s’incorpore à C, ou bien (ii) FP se déplace vers [Spec, CP]. La particule traditionnellement analysée comme le complémenteur de «stratégie résomptive» correspond à l’option (i). Celle qui est normalement analysée comme le complémenteur « de mouvement » correspond au cas (ii). Cette approche évite de sérieux problèmes empiriques qui affaiblissent l’analyse standard. De plus, il est démontré que le processus qui sous-tend le déplacement de syntagmes-qu par cyclicité successive se réduit en fait à une succession de mouvement cachés de CP (par « pied-piping »), ou, en d’autres termes, à des mouvements visibles des traits de CP sujets au «pied-piping».

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 42 , Special Issue 1-2: Topics in Celtic Syntax , June 1997 , pp. 111 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1997

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

Aoun, Joseph, and Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1993. Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24:199–238.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1994. Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25:195–220.Google Scholar
Awberry, G.W. 1976. The syntax of Welsh: A transformational study of the passive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rakesh, and Yoon, James. 1991. On the composition of Comp and parameters of V2. In The Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Bates, Dawn, 41–52. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 1993. On so-called verb-nouns in Welsh. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 2:35–64.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 1995. On the theory of movement and non-verbal predication. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1982. Unbounded dependencies in Chamorro grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 13:39–77.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1994. Wh-agreement and “referentiality” in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 25:1–44.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, and McCloskey, James. 1987. Government, barriers, and small clauses in Modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 18:173–237.Google Scholar
De Freitas, Leslie. 1993. On the syntactic nature of sentential negation. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
De Freitas, Leslie, and Noonan, Máire. 1991. Head movement, agreement, and the status of negation in Welsh. In CLS 27: Proceedings of the Parasession on Negation, ed. Dobrin, L., 57–72. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida. 1991. Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Doherty, Cathal. 1993. Clauses without ‘that’: The case for bare sentential complementation in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Duffield, Nigel. 1991. Particles and projections. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Duffield, Nigel. 1994. Are you right? On pronoun-postposing and other problems of Irish word order. In The Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Aranovich, R. et al., 221–236. CSLI, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Duffield, Nigel. 1995. Particles and projections in Irish syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1996. The dynamics of focus structure. Ms., Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert, and Mahajan, Anoop K.. 1996. Partial movement and successive cyclicity. In Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereich 340: Papers on wh-scope marking, ed. Lutz, Uli and Miiller, Gereon, 131–161. Stuttgart/Tubingen.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 1986. On the syntactic position of focus in Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1990. On A and A-agreement. Ms., University of Utah.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, Eithne. 1990. Functional categories and phrase-structure parameters. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, Eithne. 1994. VNPs, finiteness and external arguments. In Proceedings of NELS 24, ed. Gonzalez, Mercè, 141–155. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1994. Minimal projection and clause structure. In Heads, projections, and learnability 1, ed. Lust, Barbara, Suñer, Margarita, and Whitman, John, 75–85. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1988. Matching projections. In Constituent Structure, ed. Cardinaletti, A., Cinque, G., and Giusti, G., 101–123. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1987. Incorporation and the Irish synthetic verb forms. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects and clause structure. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1985. FOCUS in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, Julia. To appear. The status of ‘wh-expletives’ and the partial wh-movement construction of Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S., and Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1978. Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity and Move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9:595–621.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1981. Focus and topic: The marked constituents of Hungarian sentence structure. In Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, ed. Belletti, A., Brandi, L., and Rizzi, L.. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore Di Pisa.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1993. The internal and external distribution of pronominal DPs. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1994. Licensing heads. In Verb movement, ed. Lightfoot, David and Hornstein, Norbert, 261–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1991. On the position of subjects. In Lingua 85: The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages, ed. McCloskey, James, 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1979. Transformational syntax and model theoretic semantics: A case study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1983. A VP in a VSO language? In Order, concord, and constituency, ed. Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 9–55.Google Scholar
Dordrecht: Foris. McCloskey, James. 1985. The Modern Irish double relative and syntactic binding. Ériu 36:45–84.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1986. Inflection and conjunction in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, A-bar binding and levels of representation in Irish. In The syntax and semantics of Modern Celtic languages, ed. Hendrick, Randall, 199–248. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1996. On the scope of verb movement in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:47–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1997. Movement, resumption and complementizer choice. Paper read at the International Celtic Conference, University College Dublin.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James, and Hale, Kenneth. 1984. On the syntax of person-number inflection in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1:487–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, Dana. 1989. Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7:565–604.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon, and Wolfgang, Sternefeld. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24:461–507.Google Scholar
Ni Chiosáin, Máire. 1991. Topics in the phonology of Irish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Noonan, Máire. 1992. Case and syntactic geometry. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Noonan, Máire. 1994. VP internal and VP external AgrOP: evidence from Irish. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Aranovich, R. et al., 318–333. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Noonan, Máire. 1995. Person/number marking in Celtic: Agreement or cliticisation? Ms., University College Dublin.Google Scholar
Noonan, Máire. 1997a. Wh-movement, resumptive pronouns, and null operators. Paper read at the Ling-lunch Series, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Noonan, Máire. 1997b. Initial consonant mutation in Irish and Welsh and minimalist and reductionist approaches to syntactic dependencies. Paper read at the International Celtic Conference, University College Dublin.Google Scholar
Ó Siadhail, Michael. 1989. Modern Irish: Grammatical structure and dialectal variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1996. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27:53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1995. The fine structure of the left periphery. Ms., Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1994. Quelques implications d’une analyse des ordres VSO. Handout of paper read at the Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S., and Culicover, Peter W.. 1990. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa. 1988. Welsh syntax: A government and binding approach. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1984. Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachussetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 1995. Economy, agreement and the representation of null arguments. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1994. Subject clitics in French and Romance complex inversion and clitic doubling. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles. To appear in Sportiche (to appear).Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1995a. Clitic constructions. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. Zaring, Laurie and Rooryck, Johan, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1995b. Sketch of a reductionist approach to syntactic variation and dependencies. In Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory, ed. Campos, Héctor and Kempchinsky, Paula, 356–398. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. To appear. Atoms and partitions of syntactic structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stenson, Nancy. 1981. Studies in Irish syntax. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1994. V-movement and the licensing of argumental wh-phrases in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:335–372.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1984. On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry 15:103–129.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1991. Derived objects, inner aspect, and the structure of VP. Paper read at NELS 22, University of Delaware, Newark.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26:79–123.Google Scholar