Possessor Extraction in Colloquial English: Evidence for Successive Cyclicity and Cyclic Linearization

This article describes and analyzes possessor extraction (PE) in English, a restricted possibility in the colloquial language of some speakers. I argue that the complexities of this phenomenon reveal evidence for the Cyclic Linearization theory of Spell-Out (e.g., Fox and Pesetsky 2005), which constrains English PE by interacting with a (phase-level) requirement to keep the possessor and the possessive D adjacent at PF (e.g., Gavruseva and Thornton 2001). These factors prevent such PE from succeeding unless the possessum is stranded in a clause edge, among other restrictions. This analysis entails the nonphasehood of DP, clarifies the derivation of that’s-relatives, reveals some linearization constraints on stranding, and suggests that expletive there originates in vP.

Agreement and unlocking at the edge

A growing body of work argues that Agree has the effect of “unlocking” certain domains, phases, such that otherwise illicit extraction from them becomes permitted (Rackowski & Richards 2005, van Urk and Richards 2015, Halpert 2016, 2018, Branan 2018). First, we address when such unlocking is required. While some works argue that unlocking is only needed for extraction from deep within a phase, others argue that all extraction requires it. We argue in support of the former view, based on Chichewa facts reported in Mchombo (2004, 2006). Second, we consider the relationship between unlocking effects and phase theory more generally. We argue that the possibility of unlocking indicates that material deep within a phase must not be rendered inaccessible by spellout, or else unlocking effects should be impossible. We explore how unlocking might be handled in the cyclic linearization theory of phases (Fox & Pesetsky 2005, a.o.) which leaves syntactic elements accessible post-spellout.

Microvariation in object positions: Negative Shift in Scandinavian

In the Scandinavian languages, sentential negation must be licensed in Spec–head relation in the IP-domain, necessitating leftward movement of negative objects, Negative Shift (NegS). While string-vacuous NegS is possible in all Scandinavian varieties, there is a fair amount of cross-linguistic variation in non-string-vacuous NegS. In particular, the varieties contrast in which constituents can be crossed by NegS and whether or not crossing of a certain constituent requires the presence of an intervening verb. The paper presents the complex variation as to the distribution of negative objects in Scandinavian, using data from different sources, and outlines an analysis within Fox & Pesetsky's (2003, 2005a, b) cyclic linearization model, which accounts for this variation by differences in the availability of the intermediate positions non-string-vacuous movement is forced to proceed through.