Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:55:05.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negative and factive islands revisited1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Johan Rooryck
Johan Rooryck
Affiliation:
: Department of French and Italian, 642 Ballantine Hall, Indiana UniversityBloomington IN47405, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Several restrictions on successive cyclic wh-movement appear not to be exclusively linked to general principles of the grammar, but seem to be in some sense lexically determined. It has been pointed out repeatedly that wh-movement of subjects and adjuncts out of complement CPs of factive verbs strongly contrasts with wh-movement of internal arguments out of these CPs (Rouveret, 1980; Kayne, 1981; Zubizarreta, 1982; Adams, 1985): (1) (a) *Who do you regret/understand/forget likes this book? (= Adams, 1985: (4b)) (b) *How did he deeply regret that his son had fixed the car? (c) ?Which article did you regret/understand/forget that I had selected?

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , September 1992 , pp. 343 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

REFERENCES

Adams, Marianne (1985). Government of empty subjects in factive clausal complements. LIn 16. 305–313.Google Scholar
Baker, Carl Lee (1970). Notes on the description of English questions. The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6. 197–219.Google Scholar
Berman, Stephen (1989). An analysis of quantifier variability in indirect questions. In Phil Branigan, Jill Gaulding, Miori Kubo and Kumiko Murasugi (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 1–16.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit (1989). Anaphoric AGR. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Kenneth (eds), The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 69–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis (1985). PRO pronominal or anaphor? LIn 16. 471–477.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (1972). Theory of complementation in English syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. (1989). Impersonal constructions and sentential arguments in German. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory (1984). On the role of thematic roles in linguistic theory. Linguistics 22. 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1988). Some notes on the economy of derivation and representation. Ms. MIT.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo (1991). Types of A′-dependencies. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cornulier, Benoît de (1974). Sur une règle de déplacement de négation. Le Français Moderne 41. 43–57.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane (1983). Die en dat in West-Flemish relative clauses. In Bennis, Hans & van Lessen Kloeke, W. U. S. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands. Dordrecht: Foris. 83–92.Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne (1983). On the nature of the matching parameter. The Linguistic Review 2. 237–284.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite NPs. Ph.D. dissertation, GLSA, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, Paul (1976). Two analyses of free relatives in French. Papers from the sixth meeting of the NELS (Montréal Papers in Linguistics III), 137–152.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, Paul (1978). The syntax and semantics of wh-constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Horn, Lawrence (1978). Remarks on Neg-raising. In Peter, Cole (ed.) Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics 9). New York: Academic Press. 129–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Lawrence (1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, Jeroen, Janssen, Theo and Stokhof, Martin (eds.), Truth, interpretation and information (GRASS 2). Dordrecht: Foris. 1–42.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard (1981). ECP extensions. LIn 12. 93–133.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard & Pollock, Jean-Yves (1978). Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and move- NP in French. LIn 9. 595–621.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard (1986). Connexité et inversion du sujet. Ronat, Mitsou & Couquaux, Daniel (eds), La Grammaire modulaire. Paris: Editions de Minuit. 127–147.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard (1989). Null subjects and clitic climbing. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Kenneth (eds), The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 239–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard (1990). Romance clitics and PRO. Proceedings of NELS 20. Amherst: GLSA, 255–303.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol (1970). Fact. In Bierwisch, Manfred & Heidolph, Karl (eds), Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 143–173.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan (1984). On binding and control. LIn 15. 417–459.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony (1989). Amount quantification, referentiality, and long wh-movement. Ms. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Utpal (1991). Questions, answers and selection. In Tim, Scherer (ed.) Proceedings of NELS 21. Amherst: GLSA. 233–246.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George (1970). Pronominalization, negation and the analysis of adverbs. In Jacobs, Roderick & Rosenbaum, Peter (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn. 145–165.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita (1983). On control and control theory. LIn 14. 421–467.Google Scholar
May, Robert (1985). Logical Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Melis, Ludo (1988). Les propositions enchevêtrées, des complétives ou des relatives interrogatives? Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 67. 189–196.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana (1988). A binding approach to polarity sensitivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana (1991). Polarity in Serbo-Croatian: anaphoric NPIs and pronominal PPIs. LIn 22. 567–572.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James (1988). The geometry of events. Tenny, Carol (ed.) Studies in generative approaches to syntax. Lexicon Project Working Papers 24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 19–40.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew (1988). Transformational grammar: a first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi (1990a). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi (1990b). Speculations on verb second. In Mascaró, Joan & Nespor, Marina (eds), Grammar in progress: GLOW essays for Henk Van Riemsdijk, Dordrecht: Foris. 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John (1984). Inner islands. In Brugman, Claudia & Macaulay, Monica (eds), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 258–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooryck, Johan (1991a). On free relatives without empty heads and indirect interrogatives with nominal heads. Ms. Indiana University.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan (1991b). Out of Control: deriving the reference of unexpressed infinitival subjects. Ms. Indiana University.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain (1980). Sur la notion de proposition finie: gouvernement et inversion. Langages 60. 61–88.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim (1982). The tense of infinitives. LIn 13. 561–570.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Weerman, Frits (1989). The V2 conspiracy: a synchronic and diachronic analysis of verbal positions in Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin (1980). Predication. LIn 11. 203–238.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María-Luisa (1982). Theoretical implications of subject extraction in Portuguese. The Linguistic Review 2. 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar