< précédent |
|Movement and Concepts of Locality 3/3|
Luigi Rizzi (Univ. di Siena)
23 septembre 2006
Emonds (1970) observed that the core cases of movement preserve structure, in that they create configurations which can be independently generated by the fundamental structure building mechanism. The hypothesis that Move is a subcase of Merge (Internal Merge: Chomsky 2000, etc.) elegantly expresses structure preservation while reducing the computational operations. Still, the structures resulting from movement, the chains, manifest some irreducible peculiarities, first and foremost the fact that they obey certain locality principles.
In this course I would like to address the issue of locality in the broader context of the study of the nature and causes of movement. There are two basic concepts of locality that are referred to in the linguistic literature:
- Intervention: in … X … Z … Y … a local relation cannot hold between X and Y across an intervener Z, an element bearing some structural similarity to the elements involved in the local relation.
- Impenetrability: in … X … [K … Y … ], a local relation cannot hold between X and Y, with Y in impenetrable configuration K.
Relativized minimality (Rizzi 1990) is a principle of the first kind, Phase Impenetrability (Chomsky 2001, 2005) is of the second kind. There seems to be a certain division of labor between the two principles: Intervention deals with Weak Islands, while (Phase) Impenetrability deals with the obligatoriness of successive-cyclic movement in configurations not involving a visible intervener (e.g., extraction from declaratives). I would like to discuss these issues in the course, and explore some possibilities aiming at unifying the two concepts of locality.
Prerequisites: basic knowledge of syntactic theory
||Luigi Rizzi (Univ. di Siena)|
Luigi Rizzi is professor at the Università di Siena.