The syntax and interpretation of movement
Subject movement behaviors
Ā-movement of subjects is cross-linguistically marked, requiring a difference in complementizer or verbal morphology. I put forward the hypothesis that many such quirks of subject extraction result from an anti-locality constraint on Ā-movement which blocks movement which is too short; specifically, subject movement from Spec,TP to Spec,CP is blocked, necessitating the use of an additional strategy for subject extraction.
-
2020.
“Anti-locality and subject extraction.”
Glossa 5:84, pages 1–38. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.1079 -
2017.
“Why the null complementizer is special in complementizer-trace effects.”
A Pesky Set: Papers for David Pesetsky, pages 371–380. -
2016.
“Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus.”
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34:2, pages 429–479. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-015-9310-z -
2014.
“Anti-Locality and Kaqchikel Agent Focus.”
Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 31), pages 150–159. -
2013.
“Dissociating the syntax and morphological realization of Kaqchikel Agent Focus.”
Studies in Kaqchikel Grammar, pages 25–50.
At the same time, in part based on joint work with Kenyon Branan, I show that some movement processes appear to be restricted to subjects because the movement must attract the closest goal.
-
Branan and Erlewine, to appear.
“Locality and (minimal) search.”
Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program. -
Branan and Erlewine, 2024.
“Ā-probing for the closest DP.”
Linguistic Inquiry 55:2, pages 375–401. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00459 -
Erlewine and Lim, 2023.
“Bikol clefts and topics and the Austronesian extraction restriction.”
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41:3, pages 911–960. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-022-09555-0 -
2018.
“Extraction and licensing in Toba Batak.”
Language 94:3, pages 662–697. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0039
In 2017, I hosted a Workshop on Quirks of Subject Extraction and edited a special issue of Glossa on Subject Extraction.
Pied-piping and anti-pied-piping
Many previous theories have proposed covert movement for both syntactic and interpretational purposes. In cases of overt movement, we often observe pied-piping—additional material dislocated together with the logically attracted material. In joint work with Hadas Kotek, I argue that covert pied-piping does exist, based on the behavior of focus intervention effects in English wh-questions and focus association.
-
Kotek and Erlewine, 2016.
“Covert pied-piping in English multiple wh-questions.”
Linguistic Inquiry 47:4, pages 669–693. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00226 -
Erlewine and Kotek, 2014.
“Intervention in focus pied-piping.”
Proceedings of NELS 43, volume 1, pages 117–130.
Kenyon Branan and I have identified a pattern of movement which can be logically described as the opposite of pied-piping: where focus movement (or focus particle placement) targets a subpart of the focus. We call this anti-pied-piping, and have identified instances of it in over 60 different languages from over 40 distinct language groups. We advance a new theory of particle placement — for both focus particles and Cable’s “Q particle” theory — which accounts for this behavior and unifies it with the better-studied pied-piping behavior.
-
Branan and Erlewine, 2023.
“Anti-pied-piping.”
Language 99:3, pages 603–653. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2023.a907013
Movement and linearization
By definition, movement constructions involve a change in word order. It may be unsurprising, then, that some constraints on movement may be best described in terms of their effects on word order.
-
Erlewine and Sommerlot, 2024.
“Voice and extraction in Malayic.”
Manuscript, University of Helsinki and National University of Singapore. -
2023.
“Can parasitic scope-taking movement be pronounced?.”
Snippets 44, pages 1–3. DOI: 10.7358/snip-2023-044-erle -
2020.
“Anti-locality and subject extraction.”
Glossa 5:84, pages 1–38. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.1079 -
2017.
“Why the null complementizer is special in complementizer-trace effects.”
A Pesky Set: Papers for David Pesetsky, pages 371–380. -
Kotek and Erlewine, 2013.
“Blocking effects in English causatives.”
Manuscript, MIT.
The interpretation of movement (copy) chains
Movement also has consequences for interpretation. In particular, following the contemporary Copy Theory of movement, movement may formally result in multiple copies of a phrase within a single structure, which then must be modified for their interpretation. My work has served to strengthen the semantic motivation for the copy theory while also refining exactly how copy-chains must be interpreted at Logical Form.
-
Branan and Erlewine, 2021.
“Binding reconstruction and two modes of copy-chain interpretation.”
Proceedings of LSA 6, pages 734–745. DOI: 10.3765/plsa.v6i1.5008 -
2018.
“Even doesn’t move but associates into traces: A reply to Nakanishi 2012.”
Natural Language Semantics 26:3–4, pages 167–191. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-018-9142-6 -
Erlewine and Gould, 2016.
“Unifying Japanese relative clauses: copy-chains and context-sensitivity.”
Glossa 1:51, pages 1–40. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.174 -
Erlewine and Gould, 2014.
“Interpreting Japanese Head-Internal Relative Clauses.”
Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 31), pages 160–169. -
2014.
Movement Out of Focus.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. -
2014.
“Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only.”
Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, pages 128–145.