Criterial Freezing and the Non-Deterministic Theory of Movement
1. Purpose. This talk shows how a puzzle induced by the notion of criterial freezing (Rizzi
2006) is solved by a non-deterministic theory of movement based on [Note: you don’t
actually discuss the role of EF’s in this abstract (you just mention EF once in the final
paragraph) – maybe you should just drop the reference here to EF] (Chomsky 2005).
2. Puzzle. There is some evidence that Possessor-Raising in Korean is a movement to Spec-T
as shown in (1) and (2):
(1) a. [TP [DP Johni-uy tongsayng-i]j
caki-casinj,*i-uy cip-ey
sa-n]-ta.
J.-GEN brother-NOM self-GEN
house-at live-PRES-DEC
'John'si brotherj lives at self’sj,*i house.'
b. [TP Johni-i [DP ti tongsayng-i]j
caki-casinj,i-uy cip-ey
sa-n]-ta.
J.-NOM
brother-NOM self-GEN
house-at live-PRES-DEC
‘Johni is such that his brotherj lives at self’sj,i house.'
(2) a. [TP [DP kui-uy tongsayng-i]
Johni-uy cip-ey
sa-n]-ta.
he-GEN brother-NOM J.-GEN
house-at live-PRES-DEC
'Hisi brother lives at John'si house.'
b. [TP kui-ka [DP ti tongsayng-i]
John*i-uy cip-ey
sa-n]-ta.
he-NOM
brother-NOM J.-GEN house-at live-PRES-DEC
‘Hei is such that his brother lives at John's*i house.'
(1b) shows that the Possessor-Raised phrase (John-i) may satisfy binding condition A
whereas (2b) shows that the Possessor-Raised phrase (ku-ka) induces a violation of binding
condition C, evidence that Possessor-Raising involves A-movement. At the same time, there
is also evidence that Possessor-Raising induces a movement to Spec-C, an A’-movement, as
shown in (3):
(3) a. [TP [DP John-uy tongsayng-i] cha-lul
sa-ess]-ta.
J.-GEN brother-NOM car-ACC buy-PAST-DEC
‘John’s brother bought a car.’
b. [TP John-ii [DP ti tongsayng-i] cha-lul
sa-ess]-ta.
J.-NOM
brother-NOM car-ACC buy-PAST-DEC
‘John is such that his brother bought a car.’
c. [CP John-ii [TP [DP ti tongsayng-i]
cha-lul
sa-ess]-ta].
J.-NOM
brother-NOM car-ACC buy-PAST-DEC
‘It is John that his brother bought a car.’
d. ?*[CP cha-lulj John-ii [TP [DP ti tongsayng-i] tj sa-ess]-ta].
car-ACC J.-NOM
brother-NOM
buy-PAST-DEC
‘A car, John is such that his brother bought it.’
e. ?*[CP Opj John-ii [TP [DP ti tongsayng-i] tj sa]-n]
chaj
.
J.-NOM
brother-NOM
buy-REL car
‘A car that John’s brother bought.’
That is, as shown in (3b, c), the Possessor-Raised phrase (John-i) functions not only as a
subject as discussed above but also simultanesously as a focused phrase, and its focus effect
is best assumed to be due to Focus Movement to Spec-C as indicated in (3c), which would
account for the ungrammaticality of (3d, e) by a ban on multiple Specs of C including a nonclausemate argument from TP below, like the possessor phrase within the subject. In fact,
surprisingly, the Possessor-Raised phrase always displays both the ‘aboutness’ effect and the
focus effect at the same time as discussed below. Hence, given the general cross-linguistic
evidence that the ‘aboutness’ effect tends to be induced by Spec-T position and the focus
effect by Spec-C position (Rizzi 2006), we face a wrong prediction that the A’-movement of
the Possessor-Raised phrase may not apply to the output of its A-movement in cases like (3b,
c), due to Rizzi’s (2006: 112) Criterial Freezing (4):
(4) A phrase meeting a criterion is frozen in place.
3. Two Distinct Criterial Effects: Aboutness Effect and Focus Effect. I claim that the
multiple Case phrases in Korean like the Possessor-Raised phrase John-i in (1b), (2b), and
(3b), induce both the characteristic ‘aboutness’ criterion effect and the focus criterion effect at
the same time, as each is structurally represented in (3b, c). The fact that the characteristic
‘aboutness’ effect and the focus effect of a multiple Case phrase are distinct can be confirmed
1
by examples like (5a, b, c) and (6a, b, c):
(5) a. [vP L.A.-ey hankwuk salam-i
manhi sa]-n-ta.
L.A.-in Korean people-NOM many live-PRES-DEC
‘In L.A. many Korean people live.’
b. [TP L.A.-kai [vP ti hankwuk salam-i manhi sa]-n]-ta.
‘As for L.A. many Korean people live in it.’
c. [CP L.A.-kai [TP [vP ti hankwuk salam-i manhi sa]-n]-ta].
‘It is L.A. that many Koreans live in it.’
(6) a. [vP L.A.-ey John-i sa]-n-ta. ‘In L.A. John lives.’
b. *[TP L.A.-kai [vP ti John-i sa]-n]-ta. ‘As for L.A. John lives in it.’
c. [CP L.A.-kai [TP [vP ti John-i sa]-n]-ta]. ‘It is L.A. that John lives in it.’
Note that L.A.-ka ‘L.A.-NOM’ may have the ‘aboutness’ effect (as indicated in 5b) as well as
the focus effect (as indicated in 5c) when it occurs in construction with the sentential
predicate meaning “many Korean people live in it” in the sense that “many Korean people
live in it” can be a characterizing statement about L.A. On the other hand, L.A.-ka ‘L.A.NOM’ may not have such characteristic ‘aboutness’ effect (as in 6b) when it occurs in
construction with the sentential predicate meaning “John lives in it” since the sentential
predicate “John lives in it” cannot be a proper characterizing statement about L.A.; hence, (6b)
is interpreted as anomalous. But, as (6c) shows, L.A.-ka ‘LA-NOM’ may have the focus effect
when it occurs in construction with the sentential predicate meaning “John lives in it”, if
given a special context like as an answer to a question like (7):
(7) [CP John-i sa-nun] tosi-ka eti-i-nya? ‘Which is the city where John lives?’
Thus, the characteristic ‘aboutness’ effect and the focus effect are distinct semantic criterial
effects correlating with distinct syntactic effects.
4. Problem and Solution. The criterial freezing theory of movement (Rizzi 2006) is a
deterministic theory of movement (Chomsky 2000, 2001) in that movement is licensed or
“determined” by the checking of criterial features at narrow syntax. For example, in cases
like (3b), the criterial feature of ‘aboutness’ posited on T attracts the phrase (John-i) bearing
that feature by checking the criterial feature and the attracted phrase should be frozen in place
according to (4); hence, there is no way for the phrase (John-i) to move further, nor any way
to move the phrase otherwise, e.g., move it again from within the subject phrase to Spec-C
for the focus effect, unless we make a wrong assumption that a constituent may bear the two
different criterial features like ‘aboutness’ and focus at the same time, inducing two different
criterial freezing movements, which would lead to violation of (4) in the sense that (4) bans a
constituent from being frozen more than once within a clause though it may allow a part of a
frozen constituent to be frozen again conforming to (4).
On the other hand, in the non-deterministic theory of movement (Yang 2009), where
optional movements like Possessor-Raising in Korean are induced by unmarked IM or
unmarked EF (Chomsky 2005) without being “determined” by any feature checking at
narrow syntax, whatever the derived structures created via unmarked IM, these are only to be
interpreted by the interpretive system at the interface. Given such a non-deterministic theory
of movement along with the necessary interpretive system, syntactic structures like (3b, c) are
derived by unmarked IMs at narrow syntax, which would allow the parallel movements of
(3b, c); that is, the A-movement as in (3b) and the A’-movement as in (3c) are derived by
unmarked IMs in parallel (Chomsky 2005), the semantic (criterial) effects like ‘aboutness’
and focus being interpreted in terms of the structural positions in the derived structures (3b, c).
On the other hand, Rizzi’s original idea of criterial freezing that each movement may induce
only one criterial effect is captured by the general interpretive condition on merge in the nondeterministic theory of movement. [How?]
References
Chomsky, Noam (2005) On Phases, Ms., MIT.
Rizzi, Luigi (2006) On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. In: Lisa
Cheng and Norbert Corver, eds., WH-Movement Moving, The MIT Press.
Yang, Dong-Whee (2009) Edge Feature, D-effects, and Movement, Studies in Generative
Grammar 19:1:83-132.
2