Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:08:12.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The movement analysis of temporal adverbial clauses1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

LILIANE HAEGEMAN
LILIANE HAEGEMAN*
Affiliation:
University of Ghent, Department of English, Rozier 44, B-9000 Ghent, Belgiumliliane.haegeman@UGent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the literature it has been proposed that temporal adverbial clauses can be derived by wh-movement of an operator (e.g. when) to the left periphery (Geis 1970, 1975; Enç 1987: 655; Larson 1987, 1990; Dubinsky & Williams 1995; Declerck 1997; Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria 2004: 165–70). After reviewing the arguments that have been proposed in favour of such a movement analysis, the article provides additional empirical evidence in support of the analysis. The data concern so-called Main Clause Phenomena (MCP) or Root phenomena, that is, syntactic phenomena such as argument fronting, Locative Inversion, preposing around be, VP preposing and Negative Inversion, which in English are by and large restricted to main clauses. The unavailability of these MCP in temporal adverbial clauses follows directly from the movement account. The movement analysis will be extended to conditional clauses and factive clauses.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , November 2009 , pp. 385 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aboh, Enoch. 2005. Deriving relative and factive constructions in Kwa. In Brugè, Laura, Giusti, Giuliana, Nicolà Munaro, , Schweikert, Walter & Turano, Gina (eds.), Contributions to the thirtieth Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, 265–85. Venice: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner. 2008. Illocutive Force is speaker and information source concern. Ms. University of Vienna/Munich.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, Boban. 2006. The correlative construction as a type of conditional clause. GLIF seminar, University Pompeu Fabra. 19 May 2006.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef. 2007. On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and German. In Wurff, Wim van der (ed.), Imperative clauses in generative grammar, 95–112. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Pancheva, Roumanya. 2002. A cross-constructional analysis of if clauses. Paper presented at the Syntax Seminar: interface in the CP domain, Zentrum fur Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin, 9 March 2002.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Pancheva, Roumanya. 2006. Conditionals. In Everaert & Van Riemsdijk (eds.), vol. 1: 638–87.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2000. On time adverbials. Rivista di Linguistica 12, 77–106.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Squartini, Mario & Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 1995. Perspective point and textual dynamics. In Bertinetti, Pier Marco, Bianchi, Valentina, Higginbotham, James & Squartini, Mario (eds.), Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, vol. 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives, 309–24. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Grimshaw, Jane. 1978. The syntax of free relatives in English. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 331–91.Google Scholar
Carre, Jonathan. 2006. Predicate around be constructions in English (A look at PABs and locative PABs). Student's paper: Master 2: linguistique anglaise. Université Charles de Gaulle, Lille III.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A′ dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2000. On the syntax and semantics of Polish adjunct clauses. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 8, 1–38Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1994. The factive construction in Kwa. Travaux de recherche sur le créeole haitien 23, 31–65. Université du Quebec à Montreal.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter. 1991. Topicalization, inversion and complementizers in English. In Delfitto, Dennis et al. (eds.), Going Romance and beyond (OTS Working Papers), 1–44. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Levine, Robert D.. 2001. Stylistic inversion in English: A reconsideration. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, Cécile. 2004. Dislocation without movement. ZAS papers in Linguistics 35, 1, Proceedings of the dislocated elements workshop, November 2003, 77–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, Cécile. 2007. French dislocation without movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, 485–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1997. When-clauses and temporal structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida & Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam. 2004. The syntax of time adverbs. In Guéron, Jacqueline & Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The syntax of time, 143–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den & Naess, Alma 1993. Case dependencies: The case of predicate inversion. Linguistic Review 10, 303–36.Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den. 2006. Either float and the syntax of co-or-dination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24, 689–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley & Williams, Kemp. 1995. Recategorization of prepositions as complementizers: The case of temporal prepositions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 125–37.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 2004. Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In Adger, David, Cat, Cécile De & Tsoulas, Georges (eds.), Peripheries, 75–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enç, Murvet. 1987. Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 633–57.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk Van (eds.). 2006. The Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford and Boston: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaertner, Hans-Martin. 2001. Are there V2 relative clauses in German? Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3, 97–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geis, Michael. 1970. Adverbial subordinate clauses in English. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Geis, Michael. 1975. English time and place adverbials. Working Papers in Linguistics 18, Ohio State University. 1–11.Google Scholar
Geis, Michael. 1985. The syntax of conditional sentences. In Geis, Michael (ed.). Studies in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, 130–59. Columbus, OH: Department of Linguistics, OSU.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1976. Main Clause Phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language 52, 382–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1996. Distinguishing main and subordinate clauses. MS, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. Negative inversion, the Neg criterion and the structure of CP. In Horn, Laurence & Kato, Yasuhiko (eds.), Negation and polarity, 29–69. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2003a. Conditional clauses: external and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18, 317–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2003b. Notes on long adverbial fronting in English and the left periphery. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 640–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006a. Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD and the left periphery. In Zanuttini, Raffaella, Campos, Hector, Herburger, Elena & Portner, Paul (eds.), Negation, tense and clausal architecture: Cross-linguistic investigations, 27–52. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006b. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116, 1651–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2007. Operator movement and topicalization in adverbial clauses. Folia Linguistica 41, 279–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1991/2009. Parenthetical adverbials: The radical orphanage approach. In Chiba, Shuki, Ogawa, Akira, Fuiwara, Yasuaki, Yamada, Norio, Koma, Osamu & Yagi, Takao (eds.), Aspects of modern English linguistics: Papers presented to Masatomo Ukaji on his 60th birthday, 232–54. Tokyo: Kaitakushi. Reprinted in Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives, 331–47. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. to appear. Speculations on the syntax of adverbial clauses. In Grohmann, Kleanthes & Tsimpli, Ianthi (eds.), Exploring the left periphery. Lingua thematic issue.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane (in preparation) The movement derivation of conditionals. MS, University of Ghent, Dept of English.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, Shaer, Benjamin & Frey, Werner (2009). Postscript: Problems and solutions for orphan analyses. In Cook, Philippa, Frey, Werner & Maienborn, Claudia (eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives, 348–65. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2006. Embedded root phenomena. In Everaert & Van Riemsdijk (eds.), vol. II: 174–209.Google Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2007. Romanian adverbs and the pragmatic field. Linguistic Review 24, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, John & Thompson, Sandra. 1973. On the applicability of Root Transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465–97.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As time goes by. Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2008. Negative co-ordination in Middle English. Paper presented at conference on Continuity and Change in Grammar. University of Cambridge; 18–20 March 2008.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2005. Movement and silence. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komagata, Nobo. 2003. Information structure in subordinate and subordinate-like clauses. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12, 301–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 217–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1987. Missing prepositions and the analysis of English free relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 239–66.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1990. Extraction and multiple selection in PP. The Linguistic Review 7, 169–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipták, Aniko. 2005. Relativization strategies in temporal adjunct clauses. LIVY Yearbook 5, 133–85. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Maki, Hideki, Kaiser, Lizanne, & Ochi, Masao. 1999. Embedded topicalization in English and Japanese. Lingua 109, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 2006. Questions and questioning in a local English. In Zanuttini, Raffaella, Campos, Hector, Herburger, Elena & Portner, Paul (eds.), Negation, tense and clausal architecture: Cross-linguistic investigations, 86–126. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2004. Verb Second in German(ic) and mood selection in Romance. Paper presented at the Workshop on Clause Typing and the Left Periphery. Georgetown University Round Table.Google Scholar
Melvold, J. 1991. Factivity and definiteness. In Cheng, Lisa & Demirdache, Hamida (eds.), More papers on Wh-Movement (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, no. 15), 97–117. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. Reprinted 1966. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van 2006. Free relatives. In Everaert & Van Riemsdijk (eds.), vol. II: 338–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Kluwer: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2006. Satisfying the subject criterion by a nonsubject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 341–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna. 2002. The Extended Projection Principle as a condition on the Tense Dependency. In Svenonius, Peter (ed.), Subjects, expletives and the IPP, 125–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani 1981. On a structural ambiguity in English subordinate clauses of time. English Studies 62, 53–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawada, Miyuki & Larson, Richard. 2004. Presupposition and root transforms in adjunct clauses. NELS 34.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1992. Comments on Bresnan and Kanerva's ‘Locative inversion in Chichewa: a case study of factorization in grammar’. In Stowell, Tim & Wehrli, Eric (eds.), Syntax and semantics 26, 103–10. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sobin, Nicolas. 2003. Negative inversion as nonmovement. Syntax 6: 183–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speas, Margaret & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Sciullo, Anne-Marie di (ed.), Asymmetry in grammar, vol. I: Syntax and semantics, 315–44. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2001. Move dissolves into Merge: a theory of locality. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva. http://theoling.auf.net/papers/starke_michal/Google Scholar
Stephens, Nola M. 2006. Norwegian when-clauses. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG06 conference. Universität Konstanz. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://clsli-publications.stanford.edu/Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 1985. The semantic variability of absolute constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomaszewicz, Barbara. To appear. Subjunctive mood in Polish. Proceedings of the FDSL7-conference. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ürögdi, Barbara. 2008. Temporal adverbial clauses with or without operator movement. MS, Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory L. 1988. The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne & Diagne, Lamine. 2003. Déficience flexionnelle et temps topical en Wolof. In Sauzet, Patrick & Zribi-Hertz, Anne (eds.), Typologie des langues d'Afrique et universaux de la grammaire, vol. 2: Benue-Kwa et Wolof, 205–31. Paris: L'Harmattan.Google Scholar