Abstract
This paper addresses a certain contradiction in the application of the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) to domains involving the long-distance Genitive of Negation (GoN) and wh-movement in Polish. It appears that in syntactic domains of the tensed sentence including an infinitive complement, there is a tension between a long-distance dependency (holding between NEG in the main clause and the embedded object in genitive) and a cyclic operation of wh-movement. The operation of wh-movement, a classic example of Chomsky’s Move, observes cyclicity and the PIC, judging by the standard tests based on reconstruction (Chomsky 1995; Heycock 1995; Fox 1999; Safir 1999; Legate 2003; Witkoś 2003; Lebeaux 2009), while the Agree-based case marking requires the PIC to be inoperative in exactly the same context and in the same domain. Both operations place contradictory requirements on the PIC, which implies that this condition does not apply to them in the same manner: it always holds of Move but does not always hold of Agree.
References
Baltin, Mark. 2012. Deletion versus pro-forms: an overly simple dichotomy? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30. 381–423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9157-x
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23. a757. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-4136-0
Błaszczak, Joanna. 2001. Covert movement and the Genitive of Negation in Polish. Universitätsbibliothek Potsdam.
Błaszczak, Joanna. 2008. Differential subject marking in Polish: The case of genitive vs. nominative subjects in “X was not at Y”-constructions. In Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking, Springer. 113–149.
Błaszczak, Joanna. 2010. A spurious genitive puzzle in Polish. In Thomas Hanneforth & Gisbert Fanselow (eds.), Language and logos. Studies in theoretical and computational linguistics, Akademie Verlag. 17–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050062365.17
Bondaruk, Anna. 2004. PRO and control in English, Irish and Polish – a minimalist analysis. Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.
Borschev, Vladimir & Barbara H. Partee. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of Theme-Rheme structure reconsidered. In Eva Hajičová, Petr Sgall, Jirí Hana & Tomáš Hoskovec (eds.), Prague Linguistic Circle Papers 4, John Benjamins. 185–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/plcp.4.11bor
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4). 589–644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589
Bošković, Željko. 2011. Rescue by PF-deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the that-trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry 42(1). 1–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00027
Brown, Sue. 1999. The syntax of negation in Russian: A Minimalist approach. CSLI Publications.
Brown, Sue & Adam Przepiórkowski (eds.). 2006. Negation in Slavic. Slavica.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Richard Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, The MIT Press. 89–156.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, The MIT Press. 1–52.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On Phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlo Otero & Maria Luiza Zubizarreta (eds.), Issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, The MIT Press. 133–166.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
Citko, Barbara. 2014. Phase theory. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139644037
Dikken, Marcel den. 2007. Phase Extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 1–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.001
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria & Edwin Williams. 1987. On the definition of word. The MIT Press.
Fisiak, Jacek. 1978. An introductory English-Polish contrastive grammar. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, Binding Theory and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2). 157–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554020
Frampton, John & Sam Gutmann. 2000. Agreement is feature sharing. Unpublished MS., Northeastern University.
Franks, Steven. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12. 597–674. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992929
Franks, Steven. 2017. Syntax and Spell-Out in Slavic. Slavica.
Gallego, Ángel J. 2010. Phase theory. John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.152
Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26(4). 547–570.
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Blackwell.
Hornstein, Norbert, 2003. On control. In Randall Hendrick (ed.), Minimalist syntax, Blackwell. 6–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758342.ch1
Kagan, Olga. 2012. Semantics of genitive objects in Russian: A study of Genitive of Negation and intensional genitive case. Springer.
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Kluwer.
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26. 877–924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9054-0
Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where does binding theory apply? The MIT Press.
Legate, Julie A. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3). 506–515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506
Marušić, Franc L. 2005. On non-simultaneous phases. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook University.
Marušić, Franc L. 2009. Non-simultaneous spell-out in the clausal and nominal domain. In Kleanthes K. Grohmann (ed.), InterPhases: Phase-theoretic investigations of linguistic interfaces, Oxford University Press. 151–181.
Müller, Gereon. 2017. Structure removal: An argument for feature-driven Merge. Glossa: A journal for generative linguistics 2(1). a28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.193
Müller, Gereon. 2018. Structure removal in complex prefields. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36. 219–264. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9374-z
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. The MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. The MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time, The MIT Press. 495–537. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6598.003.0021
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, John Benjamins. 262–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.101.14pes
Polinsky, Maria & Eric Potsdam. 2001. Long-distance agreement and Topic in Tsez. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19. 583–646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010757806504
Przepiórkowski, Adam 1999. Case assignment and the complement-adjunct dichotomy: A nonconfigurational constraint-based approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Tübingen.
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2000. Long distance Genitive of Negation in Polish. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 8. 151–189.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press.
Roberts, Ian. A. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Kluwer.
Ruda, Marta. 2018. Local operations deriving long-distance relations: Object agreement in Hungarian and the Genitive of Negation in Polish. In Huba Bartos, Marcel den Dikken, Zoltán Bánréti & Tamás Váradi (eds.), Boundaries crossed, at the interfaces of morphosyntax, phonology, pragmatics and semantics, Springer. 133–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90710-9_9
Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction in Ā-chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4). 587–620. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554228
Stepanov, Arthur. 2012. Voiding island effects via head movement. Linguistic Inquiry 43(4). 680–693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00111
Svenonius, Peter. 2004. On the edge. In David Adger, Cécile de Cat & George Tsoulas (eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects, Kluwer. 259–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-1910-6_11
Tajsner, Przemysław. 1990. Case marking in English and Polish: A Government and Binding study. Ph.D. dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University Poznań.
Willim, Ewa. 1989. On word order. A Government-Binding study of English and Polish. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Witkoś, Jacek. 1998. The syntax of clitics: Steps towards a Minimalist account. Motivex.
Witkoś, Jacek. 2003. Movement and reconstruction: Questions and Principle C effects in English and Polish. Peter Lang.
Witkoś, Jacek. 2008. Genitive of Negation in Polish and single-cycle derivations. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 16(2). 247–287.
Witkoś, Jacek. 2010. On lack of case on the subject of infinitives in Polish. Folia Linguistica 44(1). 179–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2010.007
Witkoś, Jacek. 2013. Smuggling the subject across the object in control. Folia Linguistica 47(2). 521–572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2013.019
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Rrestructuring and clause structure. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908329
Zubkov, Petr. 2018. The grammar of binding. A study with reference to Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.