LINGUIST List 16.3604|
Mon Dec 19 2005
Diss: Syntax: Kotzoglou: 'Wh-extraction and Locality...'
Editor for this issue: Meredith Valant
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Wh-extraction and Locality in Greek
Message 1: Wh-extraction and Locality in Greek
From: George Kotzoglou <kotzoglougmail.com>
Subject: Wh-extraction and Locality in Greek
Institution: University of Reading
Program: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Linguistic Science Division
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2005
Author: George Kotzoglou
Dissertation Title: Wh-extraction and Locality in Greek
Subject Language(s): Greek (ell)
This study revisits the correlation between the null subject parameter and
the lack of certain locality effects and reformulates within the minimalist
framework some leading intuitions of syntactic research of the early GB-period.
With the main focus on Greek, it is observed that the lack of
Complementizer-trace effects and the amnestying of Subject Condition
violations in some (mostly, null subject) languages cannot be attributed to
T-to-C movement alone, as Greek and a number of other null subject
languages lack both T-to-C and the Complementizer-trace effect or the
Subject Condition. It is also observed that free subject inversion
cannot fully capture these phenomena, either, as extraction of and from
subjects in the preverbal position is evidenced too.
The proposed analysis can be summarized as follows: First, it is claimed
that the null subject parameter in Greek and elsewhere is due to the
complete lack of an uEPPT-feature (a feature that triggers obligatory
movement of the subject to [Spec,TP]). Then, it is argued that the lack of
Comp-trace and Subject Condition effects in Greek can be attributed to the
lack of this EPPT-feature. Subjects are not attracted to [Spec, TP] in null
subject languages, but they are base generated either in [Spec,vP] or in a
It is proposed that a PF condition, termed Restriction on Copy Reduction
(RCR), prohibits the phonological deletion of more than one movement copies
of an element per syntactic phase. In languages which require movement of
the subject to a non-edge peripheral position (such as [Spec, TP]) any
further movement from the EPP-position will result in a violation of the
Restriction on Copy Reduction. Hence the impossibility of extraction of and
from subjects raised to [Spec, TP]. This account reflects the familiar idea
that no movement can take place out of already displaced domains.
Finally, it is shown that the Restriction on Copy Reduction makes the
correct predictions for a number of -superficially distinct- phenomena and
that it is compatible with ongoing research on locality.
Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.