Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:31:28.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wh-movement and unbounded deletion in Polish equatives1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Robert D. Borsley
Robert D. Borsley
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, University College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Chomsky (1977) argues that all constructions that apparently involve unbounded deletion rules obeying island constraints in fact involve successive cyclic wh-movement followed by deletion in COMP. Among the relevant constructions are English equatives. There is no direct evidence that they involve wh-movement. Polish equatives, however, often show quite clear evidence of the operation of wh-movement. It might be thought, then, that they provide some evidence for Chomsky's position. In this paper, I will argue that this is not in fact the case. I will argue that Polish equatives often involve not only wh-movement but deletion in S as well. I will then argue that they sometimes involve just deletion. Finally, I will argue that this deletion is unbounded and subject to island constraints. Clearly, if this is correct, Polish equatives, far from providing support for Chomsky' position, in fact provide important evidence against it.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , September 1981 , pp. 271 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

Bresnan, J. W. (1973). Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English LIn 4, 275–343.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W. (1975). Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Analysis 1. 25–74.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W. (1976a). Evidence for a theory of unbounded transformations. Linguistic Analysis 2. 353–393.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W. (1976b). On the form and functioning of transformations. LIn 7. 3–40.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. A. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A. (eds), Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. A. (1980). On binding. LIn 11. 1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. A. and Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. LIn 8. 425–504.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. (1977). Multiple analyses. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Horn, G. M. (forthcoming). Constraints on transformations: evidence from contrastive analysis. To appear in Fisiak, J. (ed.), Contrastive linguistics: prospects and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1977). ̄ syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1978). Conditions, empty nodes, and markedness. LIn 9. 551–593.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT (Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1968).Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. (1972). Constraints on transformations. JL 8. 35–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szober, S. (1962). Gramatyka języka polskiego. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar