Q-Float in West Ulster English and labeling

Main Article Content

Andreas Blümel


In this paper I contrast a stranding analysis of Q-float in intermediate A′-positions in West Ulster English with the labeling analysis of successive-cyclic A′-movement and show that the former represents a problem for the latter. If we want to retain the labeling analysis, alternatives to stranding must come forward, some of which I discuss here.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Blümel, A. (2018). Q-Float in West Ulster English and labeling. Yearbook of the Poznań Linguistic Meeting, 4(1), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.2478/yplm-2018-0003


  1. Barss, A. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence: On reconstruction and its implications. (PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.)
  2. Blümel, A. 2012. “Successive cyclic movement as recursive symmetry-breaking”. In: Arnett, N. and R. Bennett (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 87–97.
  3. Blümel, A. 2017. Symmetry, shared labels and movement in syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  4. Bobaljik, J.D. 2003. “Floating quantifiers: handle with care”. In: Cheng, L. and R. Sybesma (eds.), The second Glot International state-of-the-article book: The latest in linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 107–148.
  5. Boeckx, C. 2003. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  6. Boeckx, C. 2008. Understanding minimalist syntax: Lessons from locality in long-distance dependencies. Oxford: Blackwell.
  7. Bošković, Ž. 2007. “On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory”. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4). 589–644.
  8. Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework”. In: Martin, J.U.R. and D. Michaels (eds.), Step by step: Essays in syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 89–155.
  9. Chomsky, N. 2013. “Problems of projection”. Lingua 130. 33–49.
  10. Chomsky, N. 2015. “Problems of projection, extensions”. In: Di Domenico, E. and S. Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today.
  11. Chomsky, N., Á.J. Gallego and D. Ott. 2017. “Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges”. Revised version to appear in Catalan Journal of Linguistics.
  12. Corver, N. 2007. “Subextraction”. In: Everaert, M. and H. van Riemskdijk (eds.), The Blackwell syntax compantion. Oxford: Blackwell.
  13. den Dikken, M. 2009. On the nature and distribution of successive cyclicity. Paper presented at NELS 40, MIT, November 2009.
  14. Du Plessis, H. 1977. Wh-Movement in Afrikaans. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 723–726.
  15. Epstein, S.D., T.D. Seely and H. Kitahara. 2014. Labeling by minimal search: Implications for successive cyclic A-movement and the conception of the postulate ‘phase’. Linguistic Inquiry 45(3). 463–481.
  16. Fanselow, G. and D. Çavar. 2002. Distributed deletion. In: Alexiadou, A. (ed.), Theoretical approaches to universals. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 65–107.
  17. Felser, C. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114. 543–574.
  18. Fitzpatrick, J.M. 2006. The syntactic and semantic roots of floating quantification. (PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.)
  19. Fox, D. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of Movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33(1). 63–96.
  20. Henry, A. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. OUP: Oxford.
  21. Irwin, P. 2012. Unaccusativity at the interfaces. (PhD dissertation, NYU.)
  22. McCloskey, J. 2000a. Quantifier float and Wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 57–84.
  23. McCloskey, J. 2000b. The prosody of quantifier stranding under WH-movement in West Ulster English. (Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.)
  24. McCloskey, J. 2001. The morphosyntax of Wh-extraction in Irish. Journal of Linguistics 37. 67–100.
  25. Moro, A. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  26. Obata, M., S. Epstein and M. Baptista. 2015. Can crosslinguistically variant grammars be formally identical? Third factor underspecification and the possible elimination of parameters of UG. Lingua 156. 1–16.
  27. Ott, D. and V. Struckmeier. 2018. Particles and deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 49: 393–407.
  28. Reis, M. 1992. The category of invariant alles in wh-clauses: On syntactic quantifiers vs. quantifying particles in German. In: Tracy, R. (ed.), Who climbs the grammar tree? Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 465–492.
  29. Rochman, L. 2005. The role of intonation in floating quantifiers. In: Blaho, S., L. Vicente and E. Schoorlemmer (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XIII. 313–330.
  30. Selkirk, E. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In: Goldsmith, J.A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 550–569.
  31. Shlonsky, U. 1991. Quantifiers as functional heads: a study of quantifier float in Hebrew. Lingua 84. 159–180.
  32. Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 425–449.
  33. Takahashi, D. 1994. Minimality of Movement. (PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.)
  34. Urban, E. 1999. Exactly stranding. (Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.)
  35. Wiland, B. 2010. Overt evidence from left-branch extraction in Polish for punctuated paths. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 335–347.