In:Hispanic Linguistics at the Crossroads: Theoretical linguistics, language acquisition and language contact
Edited by Rachel Klassen, Juana M. Liceras and Elena Valenzuela
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 4] 2015
► pp. 3–24
No superiority, no intervention effects
The Spanish puzzle
Published online: 30 July 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.4.01reg
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.4.01reg
Recent typological approaches (Cable, 2010; Pesetsky, 2000) explain the independently-noticed crosslinguistic differences between Superiority and Intervention Effects as the result of general lexical differences of wh-phrases. A pattern that seems to be recurrent crosslinguistically is that languages that display Superiority do not exhibit Intervention Effects and vice versa. In other words, Superiority and Intervention Effects appear to be in complementary distribution in natural languages. Surprisingly, Spanish lacks both Superiority and Intervention Effects. This paper accounts for this unexpected behavior in Spanish as the result of a lexical property of Spanish that allows some of its wh-phrases to enter the derivation as two dependent elements: a Q-particle and a dependent wh-variable.
References (25)
Adger, D., & Smith, J. (2005). Variation and the minimalist program. In L. Cornips & K.P. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation. Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 149–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Beck, S. (1996). Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics, 4, 1–56.
. (2006). Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 14, 1–56.
Bošković, Ž. (1997). On certain violations of the Superiority Condition, AgrO, and economy of derivation. Journal of Linguistics, 33, 227–254.
Cable, S. (2010). The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson, & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Fitzpatrick, J. (2002). On Minimalist approaches to the locality of movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 33 (3), 443–463.
Gallego, A. (2007). Phase theory and parametric variation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In G.N. Carlson & F.J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 125–75). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Malhotra, S. (2011). Movement and Intervention Effects: Evidence from Hindi/Urdu. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Maryland.
Munn, A. (1994). A Minimalist account of reconstruction asymmetries. In M. Gonzalez (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 24 (pp. 397–410). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Ormazabal, J. (1991). Asymmetries on wh-movement and some theoretical consequences. Ms., University of Connecticut: Storrs, CT.
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reglero, L., & Ticio, M.E. (2013). A unified analysis of wh-in-situ in Spanish. The Linguistic Review, 30(4), 1–47.
. (in progress). D-linking in Spanish: A movement analysis. Ms. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, and Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
Shields, R. (2008). Intervention and rescue: Arguments for representational constraints on syntactic dependencies. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Torrego, E. (1987). On empty categories in nominals. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (1992). On the nature of Spec/IP and its relevance for scope asymmetries in Spanish and English. In J. Amastae, G. Goodall, M. Montalbetti, & M. Phinney (Eds.), Contemporary research in Romance linguistics (pp. 355–366). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2002). In situ questions and masked movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 2, 259–303.