Joachim Sabel

Fijian and Kiribati seem to represent “rich pronominal languages” (cf. Jelinek 1984, Baker 1995, 2001, 2003) with typical properties of non-configurational headmarking languages, such as free word order and pro-drop. I will argue, however, that these languages are configurational and that pre- and post-verbal pronominal-like subject and object morphemes are best analyzed as agreement markers. Evidence is provided from extraction and agreement asymmetries with arguments and from restrictions on the linear order of adjuncts. In addition, object markers that show up in long dependencies are best analyzed as agreement reflexes of successive cyclic A'-movement. These morphological reflexes can be interpreted as evidence of feature splitting in the sense of Chomsky (2008) and of the fact that successive-cyclic movement targets phase-edges. For the most part, the discussion is based on examples from Kiribati but similar phenomena are illustrated for Fijian. mehr

In this paper I discuss the remnant movement construction in German with respect to two properties i) the nature of the unbound trace that is located inside the remnant i.e. either as an “adjunct-type” or as an “argument-type” trace (but see below for a refinement of this distinction) and ii) the landing site of its antecedent either in a low νP-internal position or in a higher position in or above TP. The data show that unbound traces are always licensed when the antecedent is in a low νP-internal position whereas only unbound argument traces are licensed in the higher position. It will be argued that the formal features of a DP may license the unbound copy of an argument in the remnant movement construction. No similar operation is available for unbound adjunct-type traces. Assuming a phasal approach, I will argue that no unbound copy at all is created in the case of νP-fronting with an antecedent in the low position thereby explaining why “unbound traces” are always licensed when the antecedent is in a low position. mehr

In this article, I develop the basis for a general theory of wh-constructions that allows (a) to explain the variation found with respect to the positions of wh-phrases in single and multiple questions in the languages of the world, and (b) to distinguish between different uses of wh-phrases as question word phrases, wh-exclamatives, relative pronouns, and wh-indefinites. The analysis is based on the idea that fronting of wh-phrases applies for reasons of feature-checking, as assumed in Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001). The features that have to be checked in wh-questions are universally, [wh]- (=[interrogative]) and [focus]-features. Typological variation with respect to single and multiple wh-questions results from the fact that it is parameterized (i) in which structural position these features are realized in a language and (ii) which of the two features triggers wh-fronting. mehr

In this article I analyze binding and extraction asymmetries between direct and indirect objects in German double object constructions. I argue that i) indirect objects (goal/recipient arguments) are base-generated as A(rgument)-Adjuncts (Grimshaw 1988) and that ii) dative and accusative arguments undergo object shift in the overt syntax in German. This analysis provides a unified account of the fact that indirect objects, in contrast to direct objects, show other binding properties. lt also explains that indirect DP-, PP- or sentential objects are barriers for extraction in contrast to direct objects, which are not. mehr