OPTIMALITY
IN SYNTACTIC DERIVATIONS
by
Mika Takahashi
Submitted to the Faculty
of the
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor
of Philosophy
Abstract
This dissertation attempts
to provide an answer to the questions of “what is an optimal derivation?” in
the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1998, 1999, 2001), focusing on the role of
locality conditions. Specifically, I argue that optimality involves Barriers-type
locality, but does not involve Relativized Minimality (RM)-type locality.
The
main arguments for the claim above are divided into the following three sets:
(i) purported RM effects in head movement, raising and wh-islands can be deduced from Barriers-type locality conditions or
some independently motivated principles. This type of argument receives support
from superraising in English, Niuean and Georgian and superpassive in Japanese
(chapter 3). (ii) In phase theory put
forth by Chomsky (1998, 1999, 2001), I address a new problem concerning the
assignment of P- and EPP- features to a phase head. My solution to this problem
will make it possible to deduce the so-called Superiority effects from the
latest version of Barriers-type locality conditions. This
analysis can give a principled account to some multiple wh questions which are problematic for RM-type locality conditions
(chapter 4). (iii) A certain property of
ECM constructions with infinitival complements in Japanese, which cannot be predicted
by RM-type locality conditions, can be correctly predicted by a Barriers-type
locality condition (chapter 5).
|
Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements List
of Abbreviations Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1.
The Goal of This Thesis 1.2.
Some Background Assumptions and Their
Developments 1.2.1. Locality
Conditions 1.2.1.1. Pre GB Theory 1.2.1.2. CED and Barriers 1.2.1.3. Relativized Minimality 1.2.1.4. The Minimalist Program 1.2.2. Procrastinate
or Earliness 1.2.2.1. Procrastinate 1.2.2.2. Earliness 1.2.3. Cyclicity 1.3. Outline of this Thesis Notes to Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Toward a Theory of Optimal Derivations: CHL without Relativized Minimality 2.1. Introduction 2.2. The Phase Impenetrability Condition 2.3. The Earliness Principle 2.4. Maximal Matching Condition 2.5. Summary Notes to Chapter 2 |
|
Chapter 3 On “Relativized
Minimality Effects” 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Shortest Movement 3.3. Attract Closest 3.3.1. Raising 3.3.2. Head Movement 3.3.3. Wh-island 3.4. Arguments for the MMC 3.4.1. Strike in English 3.4.2. Superraising in Niuean 3.4.3. Unaccusatives in Georgian 3.4.4. Superpassives in Japanese 3.5. Further Consequences 3.5.1. Ga-No Conversion 3.5.2. Double Object Constructions in
English 3.6. Conclusion Notes to Chapter 3 Appendix
to Chapter 3: Experiencer Movement Notes to the
Appendix to Chapter 3 Chapter
4 The
Interpretation of Multiple Questions and the Phase Impenetrability Condition 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Previous Analyses on Superiority
Effects and New Issues 4.3. Empirical Overview 4.4.
The Interpretation of Wh Phrases
and the PIC 4.4.1. Universality of Wh Phrases 4.4.2. Successive Cyclicity and the PIC 4.4.3.
Proposals |
|
4.5.
Deducing Superiority Effects from the PIC 4.6. Absence of RM Effects 4.6.1. D-linking 4.6.2. Nonbinary Wh Questions 4.7. Remaining Issues 4.8. Conclusion Notes to
Chapter 4 Appendix to
Chapter 4: “Superiority” Effects in Multiple Wh-fronting Languages Notes to the
Appendix to Chapter 4 Chapter 5 ECM Constructions with
Infinitival Complements in Japanese 5.1. Introduction 5.2. ECM Constructions with Infinitival
Complements: The Facts 5.3. Problems with the DIC 5.4. The Proposed Analysis 5.4.1. Raising to Edge 5.4.2. Finite Complements 5.4.3. Infinitival Complements 5.5. Multiple Accusative Object
Constructions 5.5.1. Previous Analyses of Double-o Constructions 5.5.2. Proposed Analysis 5.6. Summary Notes to Chapter 5 References |
|
|