Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:28:15.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adjunct extraction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Thomas E. Hukari  and
Robert D. Levine
Thomas E. Hukari
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria
Robert D. Levine
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In current linguistic theory, the theoretical status of adjunct extractions, as in for example How often do you think Robin sees Kim? is, somewhat surprisingly, an unresolved issue, with some investigators arguing that only arguments extract syntactically, entailing analyses of adverbial gaps via fundamentally different mechanisms from those posited for argument extraction. We adduce extensive evidence against such positions from a number of languages which exhibit morphological or syntactic phenomena which are sensitive to binding (extraction) domains and where this morphosyntactic flagging is present in instances of adjunct extraction as well as argument extraction. We also present language-internal arguments for the syntactic nature of adjunct extraction in English, including the coextensiveness of adjunct and argument extraction and their parallelism with respect to strong/weak crossover effects. Finally, we discuss the challenge which binding domain effects pose for accounts of adjunct extraction in various frameworks.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , September 1995 , pp. 195 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Ades, Anthony & Steedman, Mark. (1982). On the order of words. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 517–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, Ray. (1978). On the source of interrogative adverbs. Language 54. 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas & Akmajian, Adrian (eds.) Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. (1982). Unbounded dependencies in Chamorro grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 39–77.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. (1993). Extraction of nonarguments in Chamorro. Ms., Linguistics Research Center, Cowell College, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. (1994). Wh-agreement and ‘referentiality’ in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 1–44.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & Georgopoulos, Carol. (1988). Agreement with gaps in Chamorro and Palauan. In Barlow, Michael & Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.) Agreement in natural language: approaches, theories, descriptions. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 251–267.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. (1990). Types of A'-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clements, George N., McCloskey, James, Maling, Joan & Zaenen, Annie. (1983). String-vacuous rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 1–17.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. (1990). Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 41–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dukes, Michael. (1992). On the status of Chamorro wh-agreement. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics II. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Sag, Ivan. (1985). Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. (1985). Variables in Palauan syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 59–94.Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. (1991). Syntactic variables: resumptive pronouns and A'-binding in Palauan. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna. (1988). Object and absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Jeffrey. (1985). Lexical operations and unbounded dependencies. In Eilfort, William H., Kroeber, Paul D. & Peterson, Karen L. (eds.). Papers from the General Session at the Twenty-First Regional Meetings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 122–132.Google Scholar
Hegarty, Michael. (1991). Adjunct extraction without traces. In Bates, Dawn (ed.) Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 209–222.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hukari, Thomas E. (1977). A comparison of attributive constructions in two Coast Salish languages. Glossa II. 48–74.Google Scholar
Hukari, Thomas E. & Levine, Robert D. (1991). On the disunity of unbounded dependency constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 97–144.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. (1977). The syntax of crossing coreference sentences. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. (Published in 1980, New York: Garland).Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard & Pollock, Jean-Yves. (1978). Stylistic-inversion, successive cyclicity, and Move NP. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 595–621.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol. (1970). Fact. In Bierwisch, Manfred & Heidolph, K. (eds.) Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. (1989). Amount relatives, referentiality and long wh-movement. Ms., Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Paul. (1994). Relativization in Thompson Salish. Ms., Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru. (1984). On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 235–289.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru. (1992). Move α: conditions on its application and output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Stowell, Timothy. (1991). Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 687–720.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. (1973). Some observations on semantic scope. M.A. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan & Zaenen, Annie. (1981). Germanic word order and the format of surface filters. In Heny, Frank (ed.) Binding and filtering. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. (1979). Transformational syntax and model-theoretic semantics: a case study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. (1990). Resumptive pronouns, A'-binding and levels of representation in Irish. In Randall, Hendrick (ed.) Syntax and semantics 23: The syntax of the modern Celtic languages. New York: Academic Press. 199–248.Google Scholar
Milner, Jean-Claude. (1978). Cyclicité successive, comparatives, et cross-over en français (première partie). Linguistic Inquiry 9. 673–693.Google Scholar
Van, Noord Geertjan & Bouma, Gosse. (1994). Adjuncts and the processing of lexical rules. Ms., University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. (1987). Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, Eric J. & ter, Meulen, Alice, G. B. (eds.) The representation of (in) definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 98–129.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press and Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. (1971). Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rodman, Robert. (1976). Scope phenomena, ‘movement transformations’, and relative clauses. In Partee, Barbara H. (ed.) Montague Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur & Thráinsson, Höskuldur. (1990). On Icelandic word order once more. In Maling, Joan & Zaenen, Annie (eds.) Syntax and semantics 24: Modern Icelandic syntax. New York: Academic Press. 3–40.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna & Zwarts, Frans. (1992). Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope-taking. Natural Language Semantics I. 235–384.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 103–130.Google Scholar
Valois, Daniel & Dupuis, Fernande. (1992). On the status of (verbal) traces in French: the case of stylistic inversion. In Hirschbühler, Paul & Koerner, Konrad (eds.) Current issues in linguistic theory 91: Romance languages and modern linguistic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 325–338.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. (1972). Anaphoric relations in English. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. (1979). Anaphora in generative grammar. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. (1980). Extraction rules in Icelantic. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. (Published in 1985, New York: Garland Publishing.)Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. (1983). On syntactic binding. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 469–504.Google Scholar