Cover not available

In:Boundaries, Phases and Interfaces: Case studies in honor of Violeta Demonte
Edited by Olga Fernández-Soriano, Elena Castroviejo Miró and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 239] 2017
► pp. 27–46

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Syntacticizing blends

The case of English wh-raising

 | Ghent University, FWO
 | Ghent University, FWO
Published online: 14 June 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.239.02dan
This paper aims at analysing English structures in which a wh-moved subject triggers agreement both in the clause it is extracted from and in the immediately higher clause. This pattern is only accepted by some native speakers, and it is also attested in corpora. Although the relevant structures could at first sight be analysed as extragrammatical ‘blends’, we propose that they are in fact part of certain speakers’ linguistic competence, and hence generated by the grammar of those speakers. Adopting the approach to subject extraction developed in Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007), we suggest that extracted subjects can exceptionally be ‘hyperactive’ (Carstens 2011), and thus take part in A-relations (case and agreement) in more than one clausal domain.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The empirical data
    • 2.1The core properties
      • 2.1.1Double agreement
      • 2.1.2The selecting predicate
      • 2.1.3Only wh-movement
      • 2.1.4Subject restriction
      • 2.1.5That-trace effect
      • 2.1.6The biclausal restriction
  • 2.2Some similar patterns in English
    • 2.2.1Accusative long wh-moved subjects
    • 2.2.2Wh-agreement with long moved subjects in American English
    • 2.2.3DP/wh-asymmetries and ECM
  • 3.Cartography and the Subject Criterion
    • 3.1SubjP, the Subject Criterion and subject extraction
    • 3.2Subject extraction from English finite clauses
      • 3.2.1Licit extraction
      • 3.2.2The unavailability of wh-raising
  • 4.The grammar of wh -raising
    • 4.1Hyperactivity and T2-agreement
    • 4.2The matrix SCrit
    • 4.3Deriving wh-raising: Taking stock
    • 4.4The subject restriction
    • 4.5The biclausal restriction
  • 5.Summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (24)
References
Asudeh, Ash. 2002. Richard III. Chicago Linguistic Society 38: 31–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1961. Syntactic blends and other matters. Language 37: 366–381. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1997. Subjects and clause structure. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 33–63. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 115–165. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121: 721–741. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki & Diercks, Michael. 2013. Parameterizing case and activity: Hyper-raising in Bantu. NELS 40 Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 99–118. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth. 2010. Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production: Evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 38–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danckaert, Lieven; D’Hulster, Tijs & Haegeman, Liliane. 2016. Deriving idiolectal variation: English wh-raising. In Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Variation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 234], Ermenegildo Bidese, Federica Cognola & Manuela Caterina Moroni (eds), 145–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2008. Extraction du sujet, réallocation de cas et localité. Cycnos 17. <[URL]> Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1980. Extensions of binding and Case-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 75–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. On certain differences between French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 349–371.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Agreement and verb morphology in three varieties of English. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen & Sten Vikner (eds), 159–165. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimball, John & Aissen, Judith. 1971. I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 241–246.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Sobin, Nicholas. 2000. The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 343–371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Proper head government and the definition of A-positions. GLOW Newsletter 26: 46–47.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-Movement: Moving On, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97–133. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2006. Satisfying the Subject Criterion by a non subject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 341–361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór. 2012. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 191–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 2014. Subject positions, subject extraction, EPP, and the subject criterion. In Locality, Enoch Oladé Aboh, Maria Teresa Guasti & Ian Roberts (eds), 58–85. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Christina Sevdali, Dionysios Mertyris & Elena Anagnostopoulou
2024. The Place of Case in Grammar, DOI logo
den Dikken, Marcel
2018. Secondary predication and the distribution of raising to object. Acta Linguistica Academica 65:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue