| { | |
| "paper_id": "Y96-1028", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:38:30.455873Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Temporal/Locative WHs and Null-P Incorporation*", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Tien-Hsin", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hsin", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Connecticut", | |
| "location": {} | |
| }, | |
| "email": "tih94001@uconnvm.uconn.edu" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "This paper is an investigation on the categorial status of locative and temporal WHs. We argue, based on empirical data, for the null P hypothesis proposed by Huang (1982), and against the proposal of Murasugi and Saito (1992) that when and where are sentential arguments. We suggest that the problem raised in Murasugi and Saito (1992) for the null P analysis can be solved by the null P incorporation hypothesis. We further address the issues related to the applications of the P incorporation.", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "Y96-1028", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "This paper is an investigation on the categorial status of locative and temporal WHs. We argue, based on empirical data, for the null P hypothesis proposed by Huang (1982), and against the proposal of Murasugi and Saito (1992) that when and where are sentential arguments. We suggest that the problem raised in Murasugi and Saito (1992) for the null P analysis can be solved by the null P incorporation hypothesis. We further address the issues related to the applications of the P incorporation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "The categorial status of locative and temporal WHs has been of some interest in investigations in the literature. In the next section we will review two theories bearing on this issue. Huang (1982) assumes a phonetically null P in order to explain the argument-like pattern of when and where observed in covert movement, while Murasugi and Saito (1992) propose, instead of this null P, that when and where are actually arguments of the sentence. We point out in Section 2.3 that Murasugi and Saito's analysis is inadequate in handling some data related to overt movement, such as relativization. We thus suggest maintaining Huang's null P hypothesis. Nevertheless, the examples given by Murasugi and Saito indeed pose a problem for Huang's null P theory. The goal of this paper is to look for an analysis so that we can preserve the null P on the one hand, and give a plausible account for the relevant examples in question. The answer, we believe, lies in an LF process, the Null-P incorporation, which we discuss in detail in Section 3.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 185, | |
| "end": 197, | |
| "text": "Huang (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 327, | |
| "end": 352, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "2. On the distribution of temporal and locative WHs 2.1 Huang (1982) One of the curious generalizations reported in Huang (1982) is about the categorial status of locative and temporal WH-phrases. Huang observes that in Chinese when nali 'where' and shemeshihou 'when' undergo LF movement, they behave like arguments rather than adjuncts. The following examples involve a WH-phrase insitu within the Complex NP.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 56, | |
| "end": 68, | |
| "text": "Huang (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 116, | |
| "end": 128, | |
| "text": "Huang (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1) a. ni du guo [NP [cp shei xie de The generalization is that argument WHs such as shei 'who' in (la) can occur within an island, whereas adjunct WHs like weisheme 'why' in (1d) cannot. Huang argues that (lb,c) are well-formed because nali 'where' and shemeshihou 'when' appear in the categorial position of [pp P [NP ] , where the prepositions can be phonetically null. Thus, nali and shemeshihou are complements of the Ps and are on a par with shei 'who' in (la) in being arguments (although the PPs containing nali 'where' and shemeshihou 'when' are adjuncts).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 21, | |
| "end": 29, | |
| "text": "[cp shei", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 34, | |
| "end": 36, | |
| "text": "de", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 188, | |
| "end": 212, | |
| "text": "Huang argues that (lb,c)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 316, | |
| "end": 321, | |
| "text": "[NP ]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The same analysis extends to English as well. (2a) and (2b) show the familiar argument/ adjunct asymmetry: while the former can stay in-situ, the latter cannot. As the grammaticality of (2c) shows, when and where pattern with argument (i.e. what) in this respect. This follows naturally under Huang's analysis, since, as shown in 3, when or where is a complement and thus an argument of the null P.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 235, | |
| "end": 246, | |
| "text": "(i.e. what)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) a. Who bought what? b.*Who bought that book why/how? c. Who bought that book when/where? The LF representation in (4a) satisfies the ECP which requires that a nonpronominal empty category must be head governed or antecedent governed. The subject trace is antecedent-governed by the COMP (via Comp Indexing Mechanism see Aoun, Hornstein, and Sportiche (1981) ) and the object trace is head governed by the verb bought. In contrast, (4b) violates the ECP. Although the subject trace is antecedent governed by the COMP, the adjunct trace is neither head nor antecedent governed. As the LF representation in (5) illustrates, the grammaticality of (2c) is attributed to the presence of the null P: the trace of when/where is headgoverned by this P, satisfying the ECP. Since the subject trace is also governed by the COMP, the ECP is satisfied in this example. Murasugi and Saito (1992) More recently, however, Murasugi and Saito (1992) The grammaticality of (6a) and (7a) is expected under Huang's (1982) In these representations, where and when are in complement positions as well, which means that the ECP should be satisfied here in the same manner as in (6a) . and (7a). As shown in (9), the LF representations of (6b) and 7bshow that the ECP is satisfied. Thus, Huang's analysis incorrectly predicts that (6b) and (7b) are grammatical. Murasugi and Saito (1992) claim that Huang's null P analysis is untenable for this reason. Instead they argue that the ungrammaticality of (6b) and (7b) can be explained by assuming that temporal and locative phrases can have argument status in sentences but not in NPs. More precisely, they claim that temporal and locative phrases are arguments of INFL or the event predicate associated with V, and that they are pure adjuncts when they occur within NPs. This provides a simple account of the contrast in (6) and 7, assuming that there is no null P associated with where and when . Now let us reconsider (6), repeated as (10), under their analysis.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 324, | |
| "end": 361, | |
| "text": "Aoun, Hornstein, and Sportiche (1981)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 860, | |
| "end": 885, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 910, | |
| "end": 935, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 990, | |
| "end": 1004, | |
| "text": "Huang's (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1341, | |
| "end": 1366, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(10) a. Who; ti read [the book [pp on which shelf-J]?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "b.*Whoi ti read [the book where]?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In (10a), the WH-phrase which shelf is in the object position of the P on. Thus the ECP would be satisfied via head-government at LF. In contrast, the ungrammaticality of (10b) is due to the lack of the P, according to Murasugi and Saito (1992) . The ECP is violated, since the trace of where is neither head-governed nor antecedent-governed if we assume that antecedent-government is somehow blocked by the presence of the object NP node.' 12 As for the example in (2c), repeated below, its grammaticality also follows straightforwardly under Murasugi and Saito's (1992) analysis. Since when and where are arguments of INFL or the event predicate, the trace left by LF WHmovement of when or where is properly governed by INFL (or the event predicate), thereby satisfying the ECP.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 219, | |
| "end": 244, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 544, | |
| "end": 571, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito's (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(13) Who bought that book when/where?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Although Murasugi and Saito's (1992) analysis is quite simple and attractive, there are some facts which lead us to question their conclusions. First, as discussed in Huang (1982) , when and where pattern not with arguments but with adjuncts as far as overt movement is concerned. 14 Recall that under Huang's (1982) analysis, temporal and locative PPs are adjuncts. Thus, the representations in (15a) and (16a) violate both Subjacency (i.e. WHisland) and the ECP, and those in (15b) and (16b) violate WH-island and the CED (Condition on Extraction Domain), which prohibits an overt extraction out of a nonproperly governed domain: the PP from which extraction takes place is an adjunct and hence is not properly governed, according to Huang (1982) . In either case, some constraint in addition to Subjacency (i.e. WH-island) is violated. Hence, the fact that (14b-c) are worse than (14a) is expected under Huang's (1982) To sum up the review of the two theories, Murasugi and Saito's (1992) claim that when and where are arguments of INFL (or the event predicate) faces some empirical problems. In contrast, Huang's (1982) analysis employing a null P is more adequate in handling cases like (14), which involve overt movement of when and where. We will thus assume that Huang's (1982) analysis is essentially correct, that is, temporal and locative WH-phrases appear with a null P across languages. But if so, how do we account for data such as (6b) and (7b), which pose a problem for Huang's theory?", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 9, | |
| "end": 36, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito's (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 167, | |
| "end": 179, | |
| "text": "Huang (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 302, | |
| "end": 316, | |
| "text": "Huang's (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 736, | |
| "end": 748, | |
| "text": "Huang (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 907, | |
| "end": 921, | |
| "text": "Huang's (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 964, | |
| "end": 991, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito's (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1109, | |
| "end": 1123, | |
| "text": "Huang's (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1271, | |
| "end": 1285, | |
| "text": "Huang's (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Problems", | |
| "sec_num": "2.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "One potential approach which we will pursue here is the following. Notice that all the bad examples (such as (6b) and (7b)) which Murasugi and Saito (1992) provide as evidence against Huang (1982) have one thing in common: when and where appear within NPs. Thus, if it is shown that when and where are excluded from NP-internal positions for independent reasons, then the problem for Huang (1982) ceases to exist. Let us assume that a null P is affixal in some sense. In particular, we propose the following.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 130, | |
| "end": 155, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 184, | |
| "end": 196, | |
| "text": "Huang (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 384, | |
| "end": 396, | |
| "text": "Huang (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(19) a. the null P (which is [-N, -V] in its specification) is affixal in nature and must incorporate into the closest head.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "b. The head to which the P incorporate must be [-N.] (or verbal).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 47, | |
| "end": 52, | |
| "text": "[-N.]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Let us consider the structure for (6b) under Huang's (1982) Given the claims in (19), the above example is ruled out because the null P fails to incorporate into the V due to the presence of a closer head, namely, the N book (or the D, the, under the DP hypothesis). For this purpose, we assume Travis's (1985) Head Movement Constraint (HMC), which has the effect of prohibiting head movement from skipping a potential head position. Thus the example in (20) is ruled out as a violation of the HMC. This in effect prevents when and where from appearing within the projection of N, assuming that there is a null P with when/where. In contrast, examples such as (2c), in which when or where occurs outside the NPs allow the incorporation of the null P into the head, INFL or V, depending on where when and where appear. Let us assume that the null P associated with when/where incorporates into V, although this seems to involve lowering if the locative and temporal WHs are adjoined to VP (we will return to this later).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 45, | |
| "end": 59, | |
| "text": "Huang's (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 295, | |
| "end": 310, | |
| "text": "Travis's (1985)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF20" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(22) Who [vP [v [F. [v bought]] that book [ pp t ] where]", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Since V is [-N], nothing prevents the incorporation of the null P in this case. If this analysis is on the right track, then it eliminates the potential problem for Huang's (1982) null P analysis. Independent support for the conjecture in (19b), namely that the target of the null P-incorporation must be a [-N] (or verbal) head, comes from the discussion of P-incorporation (or reanalysis) in Anderson (1979) . She claims that prepositions can (occasionally) adjoin to the adjacent verbs. But she shows that Ps cannot incorporate into the adjacent nouns. One piece of evidence for her claim comes from the examples which involve Negative Polarity Item (NPI) licensing. Roughly put, an NPI is licensed if it is in the scope of negation. In (23a), the NPI anything is c-commanded by few students and hence licensed. In contrast, (23b) is ungrammatical because the NP few students fails to c-command the NPI anything: the latter is not in the scope of the former. Given this, consider the following examples from Anderson (1979) .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 165, | |
| "end": 179, | |
| "text": "Huang's (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 394, | |
| "end": 409, | |
| "text": "Anderson (1979)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1011, | |
| "end": 1026, | |
| "text": "Anderson (1979)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(24) a. I refer to very few authors with any enthusiasm. b.*My reference to very few authors with any enthusiasm is typical. cf. My reference to very few authors with l's in their names is typical. (25) a. He spoke to very few people about anything important.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "b.*His speeches to very few people about anything important were typical. cf. His speeches to very few people about politics were typical. (Anderson 1979: 48) The (a) examples show that the NPI any is licensed when its licenser occurs within a PP. Yet, this does not mean that the PP node is irrelevant for calculating ccommand, as the ungrammaticality of (b) examples indicates. The crucial difference between (a) and (b) is the categorial status of the head of the projection in which the PP (with few in it) appears: it is V in (a) and is N in (b). On the basis of this contrast, Anderson suggests that the NPI is licensed in the (a) examples because of the reanalysis between V and P. As a result of this process, there is no longer a PP node to block the c-command of the NPI by few (authors/people). In contrast, Anderson argues that the N-P reanalysis is impossible. This means that the NPIs any(thing) in the (b) examples are not licensed since few does not ccommand them, hence the ungrammaticality of (b). Thus, our claim in (19b) is independently motivated in this respect.4 Several questions need to be addressed, however, concerning the proposed null P incorporation analysis.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 139, | |
| "end": 158, | |
| "text": "(Anderson 1979: 48)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(26) a. At which level does the incorporation apply: at S-structure, PF or LF? b. How does the incorporation apply when the PP in question has moved to the specifier of CP (as in the example shown below)? (27) [PP e [NP where]]; did John meet Mary ti?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We will first consider the question in (26b), since its answer bears on (26a). One obvious possibility is that the P-stranding is optional with a null P, so that the question in (26b) does not arise. However, extracting only the NP when/where by stranding the null P would be a violation of the CED, since we are assuming with Huang that the whole PP (i.e. the null P plus when/where) is an adjunct. Now assuming that the P moves along with when/where, we still have two possibilities to consider. First, if the null P can incorporate into the C head, then it satisfies the requirement of the null P, Chomsky 1981 Chomsky , 1993 .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 601, | |
| "end": 613, | |
| "text": "Chomsky 1981", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 614, | |
| "end": 628, | |
| "text": "Chomsky , 1993", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Given this assumption, let us consider the following S-structure representation. (30) [cp [PP e [Np where]] did [rp John meet Mary t]]?", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 81, | |
| "end": 85, | |
| "text": "(30)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Here the null P has been pied-piped along with the NP where, and the null P is not within a projection of V. According to copy & deletion analysis of movement, however, (30) can be analyzed as having the following S-structure representation. Now notice that there are two instances of the null P, one in the specifier of CP and the other one in its original position, i.e. copy. Then, it is possible that this copy can incorporate into V (assuming that the locative PP appears within the projection of V).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A technical problem arises with this account of the null P incorporation, however, given the following statement by Chomsky (1995: 304) . 32Only the head of a chain CH enters into the operation (Attract/Move).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 116, | |
| "end": 135, | |
| "text": "Chomsky (1995: 304)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Chomsky suggests that a copy is not visible for computational operations. Although it is not entirely clear if Chomsky's idea is justifiable, let us suppose for the sake of discussion that it is. Then in (31) the copy of the null P should not be affected by any movement operation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "There is a technical way out of this dilemma. Suppose the following.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(33) Null P incorporation takes place at LF.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Let us now reconsider the example in (31). This is not a legitimate LF representation in that the chain created by the movement of the PP is not an operator-variable construction: this is not a well-formed LF object in Chomsky's (1991) sense. Thus, deletion applies, yielding the following LF representation shown in (34a), which is roughly interpreted as in (34b). deleting the null P in the specifier position of CP and the NP where in the original position under identity. 5 Notice that there is only one instance of the null P in this LF representation, which is within the VP. Thus, by assuming that the incorporation of P into the V takes place at LF, this process does not violate Chomsky's claim in (32) . This also answers the question that we raised in (26a) concerning the level at which the null P incorporation takes place. According to the present proposal, the null P is an LF affix which must incorporate into a [-N] (or verbal) head without violating the HMC.6 Now that we have motivated the LF null P-incorporation, let us go back to (22), which illustrates the derivation for (2c). If temporal and locative PPs are adjoined to VP, as we have been assuming throughout, then the null P incorporation into the V would involve lowering, which should be ruled out as a Proper Binding Condition violation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 219, | |
| "end": 235, | |
| "text": "Chomsky's (1991)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 688, | |
| "end": 711, | |
| "text": "Chomsky's claim in (32)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(35) Who [vP [v [ p [v bought] ] that book [pp [P t where] But this is no longer a problem for us if we follow Chomsky (1991) , who argues that in English, V raises to I at LF. Then P-incorporation does not involve lowering since it is an LF process. More specifically, null P incorporation takes place after V raises to I.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 9, | |
| "end": 30, | |
| "text": "[vP [v [ p [v bought]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 47, | |
| "end": 58, | |
| "text": "[P t where]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 111, | |
| "end": 125, | |
| "text": "Chomsky (1991)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Null P incorporation", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "To summarize, we first reviewed two important works bearing on the grammatical status of locative and temporal WHs: Huang (1982) and Murasugi and Saito (1992) . We concluded that Huang's null P hypothesis is essentially correct. We have argued that the counterexamples against Huang's (1982) analysis, provided by Murasugi and Saito (1992) , can be independently excluded by assuming that the null P must incorporate into a [-N] (or verbal) head without violating the HMC at the level of LF. We also demonstrated that Huang's insight is empirically motivated by crosslinguistic data. * I am grateful to 2,eljko Bo \u00a7kovie for helpful comments. Thanks also due to Kazuko Hiramatsu for proof reading this paper. 1 Murasugi and Saito (1992) are not very clear about this part. It is true, as observed by Culicover and Rochemont (1992) , that overt adjunct extraction from the object NP is prohibited in English, suggesting that the object NP is a kind of barrier for adjunct movement (although it is a complement and hence is L-marked in the sense of Chomsky (1986) ). This is illustrated below. (i) *[On which table]i did you read [the book ti]? (Culicover and Rochemont 1992 : 497 ) See Murasugi and Saito (1992) and the reference cited there for more discussion. 2 This pattern is also observed in Serbo-Croatian and Korean. 3 Also, as Larson (1985) observes, locative phrases in English almost always occur with prepositions, the only exceptions being place and home, as shown below. (i)You have lived some place warm and sunny. (ii) You went home. 4 The following contrast may also be relevant to our discussions of P-incorporation. (i) a. John proved that/0 Mary is honest.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 116, | |
| "end": 128, | |
| "text": "Huang (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 133, | |
| "end": 158, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 277, | |
| "end": 291, | |
| "text": "Huang's (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 314, | |
| "end": 339, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 711, | |
| "end": 736, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 800, | |
| "end": 830, | |
| "text": "Culicover and Rochemont (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1047, | |
| "end": 1061, | |
| "text": "Chomsky (1986)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1143, | |
| "end": 1178, | |
| "text": "(Culicover and Rochemont 1992 : 497", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1185, | |
| "end": 1210, | |
| "text": "Murasugi and Saito (1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1335, | |
| "end": 1348, | |
| "text": "Larson (1985)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion", | |
| "sec_num": "4." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "b. John's proof that/*0 Mary is honest In general, the null C is allowed if the CP which it heads is in the complement position of the V, but not of the N. This is accounted for if we assume that the null C must incorporate into a head with [-N] (cf. Ormazabal 1996) . 5 See Chomsky (1993) for detail. 6 One empirical problem with this analysis is the grammaticality of examples like the following. (i) [N \u25ba the destruction of the city yesterday] Here, if yesterday is accompanied by the null P, as implied by the present analysis, it is not clear how the P-incorporation is possible. Notice, however, that this type of examples contain a deverbal noun (destroy --> destruction). Thus it may be possible that the null P incorporates into this deverbal noun.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 251, | |
| "end": 266, | |
| "text": "Ormazabal 1996)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 275, | |
| "end": 289, | |
| "text": "Chomsky (1993)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion", | |
| "sec_num": "4." | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "Noun Phrase Structure. Doctoral dissertation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Mona", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Anderson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1979, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Anderson, Mona. 1979. Noun Phrase Structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Some aspects of wide scope quantification", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Joseph", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Aoun", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "N", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hornstein", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "D", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sportiche", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1981, | |
| "venue": "Journal of Linguistic Research", | |
| "volume": "1", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "69--95", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Aoun, Joseph, N. Hornstein and D. Sportiche. 1981. Some aspects of wide scope quantification. Journal of Linguistic Research 1.3: 69-95.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "Adjunct extraction from NP and the ECP", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Peter", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Culicover", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rochemont", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "23", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "496--501", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Culicover, Peter and M. Rochemont. 1992. Adjunct extraction from NP and the ECP. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 496-501.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Conditions on transformations", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Noam", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chomsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1973, | |
| "venue": "A Festschrift for Morris Halle", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "232--86", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232-86. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Noam", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chomsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1981, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "Some notes on economy of derivation and representation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Noam", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chomsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "Principles and parameters in comparative grammar", | |
| "authors": [], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "417--54", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "In Robert Freidin, ed., Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 417- 54. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "A minimalist program for linguistic theory", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Noam", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chomsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1993, | |
| "venue": "The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "1--52", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, eds., The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "The Minimalist Program", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Noam", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chomsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1974, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Semantic conditions on surface structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Cheng-Teh", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Huang", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "James", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1982, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "Bare-NP Adverbs", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Richard", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Larson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "16", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "595--621", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Larson, Richard. 1985. Bare-NP Adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 595-621.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "On the nature of proper government", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Howard", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Lasnik", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Saito", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1984, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "15", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "235--255", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Lasnik, Howard and M. Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235-255.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "Move-a", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Howard", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Lasnik", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Saito", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Lasnik, Howard and M. Saito. 1992. Move-a. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A study in Syntax, Learnability and Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Keiko", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Murasugi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Murasugi, Keiko. 1991a. Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A study in Syntax, Learnability and Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF14": { | |
| "ref_id": "b14", | |
| "title": "Locative/Temporal vs. Manner/Reason Phrases", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Keiko", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Murasugi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "Studies in English Language and Literature", | |
| "volume": "33", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "153--170", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Murasugi, Keiko. 1991b. Locative/Temporal vs. Manner/Reason Phrases. Studies in English Language and Literature. 33: 153-170.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF15": { | |
| "ref_id": "b15", | |
| "title": "Locative and Temporal WH-phrase", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Keiko", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Murasugi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Saito", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Murasugi, Keiko and M. Saito. 1991. Locative and Temporal WH-phrase.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF16": { | |
| "ref_id": "b16", | |
| "title": "Quasi-Adjuncts as Sentential Arguments", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Keiko", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Murasugi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Saito", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of Western Conference on Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "5", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "251--264", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Murasugi, Keiko and M. Saito. 1992. Quasi-Adjuncts as Sentential Arguments. Proceedings of Western Conference on Linguistics 5: 251-264.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF17": { | |
| "ref_id": "b17", | |
| "title": "The Syntax of Complementation: On the Connection Between Syntactic Structure and Selection, Doctoral dissertation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Javier", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ormazabal", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1996, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Ormazabal, Javier. 1996. The Syntax of Complementation: On the Connection Between Syntactic Structure and Selection, Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF18": { | |
| "ref_id": "b18", | |
| "title": "Zero Syntax", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "David", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Pesetsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1995, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF19": { | |
| "ref_id": "b19", | |
| "title": "Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Mamoru", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Saito", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF20": { | |
| "ref_id": "b20", | |
| "title": "Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Lisa", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Travis", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Travis, Lisa. 1985. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "text": "11) [which shelfi , whod i ti read [the book [pp on tj]] ?", | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF1": { | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "text": "[where' , whod i ti read [the book tj]?", | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF2": { | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "text": "23) a. Few students said anything about it. b.*[Teachers [who teach few students]] said anything about it.", | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF3": { | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "text": "(i.e. [-N]), if we assume that C is [-N]. Nevertheless, as illustrated in (28), this derivation involves a lowering movement, which is generally ruled out by the Proper Binding Condition of Fiengo (1974). (28) [cp [pp t [Np where]] [c [p [c did]] hp John meet Mary tM? Let us therefore seek an alternative possibility that does not involve lowering operation, which is based on the following.", | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF4": { | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "text": "Movement is a copy & deletion process (cf.", | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF0": { | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td>xie de] shu]</td></tr><tr><td>you read-ASP</td><td>Lisi when</td><td>write DE book</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">'You read the book Lisi wrote when?'</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">d.*ni du guo [NP [cp Lisi weisheme</td><td>xie de] shu]</td></tr><tr><td>you read-ASP</td><td>Lisi why</td><td>write DE book</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">'You read the book that Lisi wrote why?'</td><td/></tr></table>", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "] shu] you read-ASP who write DE book 'You read the book who wrote?' b. ni du guo [NP [cP Lisi zai nali xie de] shu] you read-ASP Lisi at where write DE book 'You read the book Lisi wrote where?' c. ni du guo [NP [cp Lisi shemeshihou" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF6": { | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "content": "<table/>", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "a. ?This is the book which.' I wonder [where] you bought ti td. b. *This is the day when I wondered [what.' you bought ti tj c. *This is the place where.' I wondered [what. ' you bought ti tj d. *This is the reason why.' I wonder [what.' you bought ti tj] (Huang 1982: 537) All the examples are degraded, since Subjacency (WH-island) is violated in each case. Still, (14b-d) are far worse than (14a). This is not expected if when and where are arguments of INFL (or the event predicate). (14a-c) should have the same status and contrast with (14d), according to Murasugi and Saito's analysis. Huang's (1982) analysis, on the other hand, has the potential of accounting for the facts in (14). For example, (14b-c) have two possible structures under his analysis, depending on what category (PP or NP) moves across the WH-island. (15) a. *This is the day [pp [p e] when]] I wonder [what.' you bought ti tj] b. *This is the day [ NI, when]] I wonder [what.' you bought ti [pp [p e] ti]] (16) a. *This is the place [pp. [p el where]' I wonder [what. ' you bought ti tj] b. *This is the place [ NI, where]] I wonder [what; you bought ti [pp [p e] ti]]" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF7": { | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>pre(post)positions.2</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">(17) a. John *(zai) xuexiao yujian Mary</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">John at school meet Mary</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">'John met Mary at school.'</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">b. John *(zai) nali</td><td colspan=\"2\">yujian Mary</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">John at where meet Mary</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">'Where did John meet Mary?'</td></tr><tr><td>(18) a. John-ga</td><td colspan=\"3\">galdcoo*(-de) Mary-ni</td><td>atta</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">John-NOM school-at</td><td>Mary-DAT met</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">'John met Mary at school.'</td></tr><tr><td>b. John-ga</td><td colspan=\"3\">doko*(-de) Mary-ni atta no</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">John-NOM where-at</td><td>Mary-DAT met Q</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">'Where did John meet Mary?'</td></tr></table>", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "account, since (14a) violates only Subjacency (WH-island).In addition, the presence of P is independently motivated cross-linguistically, at least in the case of locative WHs. In Chinese and Japanese, for instance, adjunct locative phrases, including the WH-phrase corresponding to where, always require As the (b) examples indicate, Chinese nali and Japanese doko appear in the" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF10": { | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "content": "<table/>", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "(31) [cp [Pp e [NI) where]] did hp John meet Mary [pp e [NF. where]]]]?" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |