Thursday: 12 July
WH-Islands/Subjacency


Main Points:

  1. exceptional status (Ross 1967, pp. 15-18)
  2. parameterization of subjacency as a red herring, part 1 (Rizzi/Engdahl/Grimshaw)
  3. distance effects (Frazier and Clifton, Alexopolou and Keller, Sprouse)
  4. intervention effects (Kluender/Gibson)
  5. referentiality (Kluender/Hofmeister)
  6. lexical frequency/semantics (Kluender)
  7. finiteness (Ross)

Engdahl, E. 1980: The purported violations of subjacency all involve relativization, topicalization, and D-linked wh-questions out of (a) wh-islands and (b) sentential complement complex NPs. Engdahl notes that extraction out of relative clauses works only when the head noun is indefinite, when the extracted NP is "relevant" (see Kuno and Erteschik Shir proposals), and based on (unspecified) `semantic-pragmatic properties of the main verb.' (p. 106, fn. 4).

Rizzi, L. 1982: The first attempt at the notion of parameterization: S vs. S' as purported bounding node crosslinguistically.

Grimshaw, J. 1986: An important reply to Rizzi.

Kluender, R. 1998: The important thing here is how the acceptability data of complementizer and specifier differences-in terms of lexical semantic content (over and above frequency: if and who/what are equivalent in frequency) - at the clause boundary align with the ERP data.

Reading:

Further Reading:

* top of this page

Back to Course Webpage



Last Updated: June 28, 2007