Holmberg's Generalization: blocking and push up
Hans Broekhuis (Hans.Broekhuis@home.nl);
Leiden University Center for Linguistics
Workshop Comparing Frameworks (OTS, (Utrecht, September 24, 2009)
1
Outline of the problem
Holmberg’s Generalization (1999 version): Scandinavian object shift cannot apply
across a phonologically visible category asymmetrically c-commanding the object
position except adjuncts (≈ OS cannot cross a VP-internal verb or argument).
(1)
is taken to account for the
contrast in
(2)
a.
b.
Hvorfor læste Peter <den> aldrig [VP tV <*den>].
why
read Peter it
never
Jeg spurgte why Peter <*den> aldrig [VP læste
I
asked why Peter it
never
read
(Danish)
<den>].
it
◄  blocking ►
But HG can in principle
be satisfied in two ways
(3)
a.
b.
Blocking strategy: a VP-internal main verb blocks OS.
Push-up strategy: OS forces movement of a VP-internal main verb.
Push up leads to the
hypothetical language in (4)
(4)
a.
b.
Jeg
I
Jeg
I
spurgte
asked
spurgte
asked
hvorfor Peter aldrig [VP læste den her bog] ◄ no V-to-I with lex. DPs►
why
Peter never
read this book
hvorfor Peter læste den aldrig [VP tV tDO].
◄ V-to-I with pronouns►
why
Peter read it
never
push up is excluded in Danish
Is it universally excluded?
(5)
Hypothesis (to be rejected):
The blocking strategy is universally preferred to the push up strategy, e.g., due to
inherent architecture of the system (as in Holmberg 1999) or for reasons of economy
(since the push up strategy involves application of an otherwise unforced movement).
No!
(6)
a.
b.
c.
 Icelandic core data
Jón las ekki þessa bók.
Jón read not this book
Jón las þessa bók ekki tDP.
Jón read this book not
Jón las <hana> ekki <*hana>.
Jón read it
not
(þessa bók  focus)
(þessa bók  presupposition)
(hana = pronoun)
2
Hans Broekhuis
(7)
a.
b.
Icelandic double object constructions:
Blocking strategy: failure to apply object shift to a non-presuppositional IO results in
failure of applying object shift of a pronominal DO.
Push-up strategy: application of object shift of pronominal DO forces object shift of a
non-presuppositional IO.
Blocking is excluded;
Push up is required!
Icelandic (IO  focus; pronominal DO)
a. *Pétur sýndi
oft Maríu hana.
Pétur showed often Maríu it
b. *Pétur sýndi Maríui oft ti hana.
c. Pétur sýndi Maríui hanaj oft ti tj.
d. *Pétur sýndi hanaj oft Maríu tj.
(8)
◄ crucial example: * blocking ►
◄ crucial example:  push up ►
◄ Holmberg’s Generalization ►
Conclusion:
hypothesis (5) is false
(9)
Blocking and push-up strategy are both available
Basic ingredients of
the proposed analysis
(10)
a.
b.
c.
d.
2
The D&E analysis of object shift in Broekhuis (2008).
A set of order preservation constraints on Scandinavian object shift; cf. e.g. Williams 2003,
Müller 2000/2001 and Fox & Pesetsky 2005. This derives Holmberg’s Generalization.
A new and maximally simple theory on V-to-I, which straightforwardly accounts for
some core facts in the Germanic languages, including the variation that we find.
A proposal on how the theories in (10b) and (10c) interact.
The derivation-and-evaluation analysis of object shift
Figure 1: The derivation-and-evaluation model (Broekhuis and Dekkers 2000)
Output
Input
2.1
CHL
representations
OTEvaluator
The generator
(11)
a.
b.
CHL:
Select (external merge) subject to last resort (θ-theory), etc.
Move (internal merge) subject to last resort (checking theory), locality theory, etc.
But there are
no epp/edge-features
(12)
Optimal
output
Application of the operations in CHL is in principle free.
construction of a
candidate set is as in
Holmberg's Generalization
3
Figure 2: The construction of the candidate set
Operation 1
yes
no
Operation 2
yes
no
yes
no
Operation 3
yes
no
yes
no yes
no
yes
no
Two consequences
(13)
a.
b.
There is an upper limit to the size of the candidate set:
16 operations satisfying Last Resort: 216 = 65.536
16 operations satisfying Last Resort in 4 phases of 4 operations each: 4 x 24 = 64
Candidates in the candidate set differ in predictable ways, as indicated in Figure 2.
Constraints can be limited in number
and type, and constitute a hypothesis
of the interface conditions
2.2
The Evaluator
(14)
a.
b.
The syntactic constraints in CON
CHL constraints:
(i) Economy constraints: constraints on internal (or external) merge (cf. (16)).
(ii) EPP constraints: probe F attracts its goal (cf. (15)).
Interface constraints (cf. (19) and (21))
EPP constraints relate to
the movements allowed by
the Last Resort Condition
(15)
a.
b.
c.
EPP constraints:
EPP(φ): unvalued
φ-features attract their goal; this constraint favors ‘short’ object shift
triggered by the unvalued φ-features on V/aux.
EPP(case): an unvalued case-feature attracts its goal; this constraint favors ‘regular’
object shift triggered by the unvalued case features on v.
*STRAY FEATURE: amalgamate formal features of the functional heads with the root they
are associated with; this constraint favors e.g. verb movement triggered by the unvalued
verbal features on v, Asp and I.
and EPP constraints
interact with
(16)
a.
b.
Economy constraints:
*MOVE (STAY): don’t apply internal merge.
NOLEXM: don’t apply internal merge to lexical (θ-role assigning) verbs.
and thus derive the “strength”
properties of the features
(17)
a.
b.
Weak ranking: *MOVE >> EPP(case)  normally no regular object shift
Strong ranking: EPP(CASE) >> *MOVE  normally regular object shift.
but the “strength”
property is not absolute
and can be overruled
4
Hans Broekhuis
(18)
a.
b.
A >> *MOVE >> EPP(case) (if A favors movement, ‘Procrastinate’ is overruled)
B >> EPP(case) >> *MOVE (if B disfavor movement, ‘Strength’ is overruled)
The “strength” properties
can be overruled by the
interface constraints, like:
(19)
a.
b.
Interface constraints:
D-PRONOUN: A definite pronoun must be vP-external: *[vP ... pron[+def] ...].
ALIGNFOCUS (AF): the prosodically unmarked focus is the rightmost constituent in its clause.
D-PRONOUN may overrule
the weak ranking of EPP(case).
This gives rise to the following
Figure 3: Macro-parameterization of languages with respect to object shift
*MOVE >> EPP(case)
EPP(case) >> *MOVE
No full object shift
Full object shift:
Icelandic/Dutch
D-PRONOUN >>*MOVE
*MOVE >>D-PRONOUN
Pronoun shift:
Danish/Swedish
No object shift:
Finnish Swedish/Romance
(20)
a.
b.
Case (18a): D-PRONOUN overrides ‘Procrastinate’ in Danish
Case (18a): ALIGNFOCUS overrides ‘Strength’ in Icelandic; cf. (41) and Tableaux 1 &2
Tableau 1: Icelandic
object  focus
Jón keypti ekki bókina
Jón keypti bókinai ekki ti
AF
EPP(case)
*MOVE
*!

*
Tableau 2: Icelandic
object  focus
Jón keypti ekki bókina 
Jón keypti bókinai ekki ti
AF
EPP(case)
*MOVE
*
*!
*
Other interface constraints play a similar role,
as we will see later.
(21)
PF constraints:
a.
b.
c.
If the foot of X-chain α c-commands the foot of
X-chain β, the head of X-chain α c-commands the head of X-chain β; this constraint
favors preserving the underlying SUBJ - IO - DO order.
H-COMPL: a head precedes all terminals dominated by its complement; this constraint
favors maintaining the underlying VO-order in (22).
LEXICALLY FILL TOP F (LFTF): the highest head position in an extended projection must be
lexically filled; this constraint favors verb movement if there is no lexical complementizer.
RELATIVIZED MINIMALITY (RELMIN):
Holmberg's Generalization
3
5
The difference between VO- and OV-languages
(22)
a.
b.
 Universal base hypothesis (Broekhuis 2008)
[... I ... [(S) ... v[ucase] [... V[uφ] OBJ]]]
[... I ... [(S) ... v[ucase] [... aux[uφ] [... Asp [... V[uφ] OBJ]]]]]
EPP(φ) and EPP(case) predict that there are two
types of object shift. We start with discussing
‘short’ object shift and its role in the derivation of
the VO/OV distinction
(23)
a.
b.
c.
 Relevant constraints
EPP(φ): unvalued φ-features attract their goal.
*STRAY FEATURE: amalgamate formal features of the functional heads with the root they
are associated with.
*MOVE: don’t apply internal merge.
There are six possible rankings of these constraint.
Five of these give rise to
three different types of VO-languages.
3.1
Germanic VO-languages (simple tense examples)
(24)
a.
b.
c.
(25)
Germanic VO-languages: 5 potential rankings
Option Ia/b: *MOVE >> {EPP(φ), *STRAY FEATURE}  [... v [... V OBJ]]
Option II: *STRAY FEATURE >> *MOVE >> EPP(φ)
 [... v+V [... tV OBJ]]
Option IIIa/b: {EPP(φ), *STRAY FEATURE} >> *MOVE  [... v+V [OBJ ... tV tOBJ]]
Hypothesis: All Germanic languages: EPP(φ) >> *MOVE
 ‘short’ OS is obligatory
 option III seems the correct one
Familiar evidence from English:
Johnson (1991); Lasnik (1999a,b)
The DA proved [that the defendants were guilty] during each other’s trials.
The DA proved [the defendants to be guilty] during each other’s trials.
The DA accused the defendants during each other’s trials.
*?
(26)
a.
b.
c.
(27)
a. *that John every day reads books
b. *that John reads every day tV books
c. *that John books every day tV reads tDO
d. that John reads books every day tV tDO.
Tableau 1: VO-languages
EPP(φ)
[v adv [V O]]
[v+V adv [tV O]]
[v [O adv [V tO]]]
[v+V [O adv [V tO]]]
*>
*!
*STRAY FEATURE
*<
*!

The sixth ranking gives rise to
the OV-languages.
*MOVE
*
*
**
6
3.2
Hans Broekhuis
Germanic OV-languages (Dutch/German):
(28)
Germanic OV-languages: EPP(φ) >> *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE
(29)
 Simple tense: [... v [OBJ ... V[φ] tOBJ]]
dat Jan waarschijnlijk <dit boek> leest <*dit boek>
that Jan probably
this books reads
‘that Jan is probably reading this book.’
Tableau 2: OV-languages (simple tense)
EPP(φ)
[v [V O]]
[v+V [tV O]]
[v [O [V tO]]]
[v+V [O tV [tV tO]]]
*MOVE
*!
*!
*
*
**!

*STRAY FEATURE
*
*
If aux also has unvalued φ-features,
we also derive the correct order
in the perfect tense construction
(30)
 Perfect tense: [... v[ucase] [OBJ ... aux[φ] [... Asp [tOBJ ... V[uφ] tOBJ]]]]
dat Jan waarschijnlijk <dit boek> heeft <*dit boek> gelezen <*dit boek>.
that Jan probably
this book has
read
‘that Jan has probably read this book.’
Tableau 3: OV-languages (perfect tenses)
Candidates with V-movement ignored:
blocked by *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE
... v [... aux [... Asp [... V O]]]]
... v [... aux [... Asp [O... V tO]]]]
... v [O ... aux [... Asp+V [tO... V tO]]]]
EPP(φ)
**!
*!
*MOVE
*STRAY FEATURE
*
***
**
**
**
But the claim that aux also has φ-features
creates a problem for the OV-languages
3.3
(31)
The Germanic VO-languages again (perfect tense examples)
Potential problem: EPP(φ) >> *MOVE  φ-features on aux trigger short object shift, but:
*[... v+aux [OBJ ... taux [tOBJ... Asp+V [tOBJ ... tV tOBJ]]]]
Solution:
H-COMPL >> EPP(φ)
(32)
H-COMPL >> EPP(φ) >> *MOVE  object cannot cross main verb (traditional version of HG)
Consequence: we do not need the strong ranking of *STRAY
FEATURE to derive the VO-languages — we expect there to be an
additional type of VO-language (type B).
Holmberg's Generalization
(33)
a.
b.
7
Type A: H-COMPL >> {EPP(φ), *STRAY FEATURE >> *MOVE 
(i) [... v+V [OBJ ... tV tOBJ]]
(ii) [... v+aux [... taux [... Asp+V [OBJ ... tV tOBJ]]]]
Type B: H-COMPL >> EPP(φ) >> *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE 
(i) [... v+V [OBJ ... tV tOBJ]]
(ii) [... v [... aux [... Asp+V [OBJ ... tV tOBJ]]]]
Type B:
Short object shift will push up
the verbal root V into v
Tableau 4: VO-languages, hypothetical type B (simple tense)
H-COMPL
[v adv [V O]]
[v+V adv [tV O]]
[v [O adv [V tO]]]
[v+V [O adv [tV tO]]]
EPP(φ)
*!
*!
*!

*MOVE
*
*
**
* STRAY FEATURE
*
*
but cannot cross the V+Asp complex
due to H-COMP >> EPP(φ)
Tableau 5: VO-languages, hypothetical type B (complex tense)
H-COMPL
v [... aux [... Asp [...V O]]]]
v [... aux [... Asp+V [... tV O]]]]
v+aux [... taux [... Asp [... V O]]]]
v+aux [... taux [... Asp+V [... tV O]]]]
v [... aux [... Asp [O ...V tO]]]]
v [... aux [...Asp+V [O... tV tO]]]]
v+aux [... taux [... Asp [O ...V tO]]]]
v+aux [... taux [... Asp+V [O... tV tO]]]]
v [O ... aux [... Asp [tO... V tO]]]]
v [O ... aux [... Asp+V [tO... tV tO]]]]
v+aux [O ... taux [... Asp [tO... V tO]]]]
v+aux [O ... taux [... Asp+V [tO... tV tO]]]]
*!

*!
EPP(φ)
**!
**!
**!
**!
*
*
*
*
*!
*!
*!
*!
*MOVE
*
*
**
*
**
**
***!
**
***
***
****
*STRAY FEATURE
**
*
*
**
*
*
**
*
*
Conclusion: in VO-languages of type B
short object shift pushes V up into Asp,
but cannot cross the V+Asp complex
(34)
The hypothetical VO-languages of type B uses the push up strategy to force V-to-AsP:
EPP(φ) >> *MOVE favors short object shift; H-COMPL>> EPP(φ) disfavors crossing of the
main verb; EPP(φ) >> *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE favors push up of the verb over
blocking of short object shift.
VO-languages of type B exist:
Evidence: V-to-I
8
Hans Broekhuis
4
The analysis of V-to-I
(35)
a.
b.
Hypothesis:
Icelandic is a VO-language of type A: *STRAY FEATURE >> *MOVE 
V-to-I normally applies (unless blocked by some higher ranked constraint)
Danish is a VO-language of type B (cf. (33b)): *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE 
V-to-I normally does not apply (unless forced by some higher ranked constraint)
Note: The claim that Danish is a VO-language of type B, in
which V-to-v is due to short object shift, raises non-trivial
questions concerning sentential and PP-complements. This may
be an issue for the question period.
V-to-I in Danish main clauses:
LEXICALLY FILL TOP F
(36)
LEXICALLY FILL TOP
F (LFTF): the highest head position in an extended projection must
be lexically filled  favors V2 in main clauses; in embedded clauses the highest head
position in the extended verbal projection (= C) is lexically filled by the complementizer;
cf. Zwart (2001) for a comparable principle.
(37)
Germanic languages:
Icelandic: *STRAY FEATURE >> *MOVE  V-to-I in all context.
Danish/Swedish: LFTF >> *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE  V-to-I in main clauses only.
Dutch/German: LFTF >> *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE  V-to-I in main clauses only.
a.
b.
c.
However!
(38)
New question: if Danish is a VO-language of type B in which short OS pushes V into v,
why doesn’t regular OS push up the v+V complex into I in this language?
In order to answer this question we first have to
look at the analysis of regular OS in the D&E
framework.
5
Regular object shift
(39)
a.
b.
c.
d.
*MOVE (STAY): don’t apply internal merge.
EPP(case): an unvalued case-feature attracts its goal.
D-PRONOUN: A definite pronoun must be vP-external: *[vP ... pron[+def] ...].
AF: the prosodically unmarked focus is the rightmost constituent in its clause.
Figure 4: Macro-parameterization of languages with respect to object shift
*MOVE >> EPP(case)
EPP(case) >> *MOVE
No full object shift
Full object shift:
Icelandic/Dutch
D-PRONOUN >>*MOVE
*MOVE >>D-PRONOUN
Pronoun shift:
Danish/Swedish
No object shift:
Finnish Swedish/Romance
Holmberg's Generalization
AF >> EPP(case) >> *MOVE  Regular
(40)
a.
b.
5.1
(41)
9
object shift in Icelandic is sensitive to the
information structure of the clause
Jón las <hana> ekki <*hana>.
(regular OS weak pronouns obligatory)
Jón read it
not
Jón las < þessa bók> ekki <þessa bók>.
(regular OS of lexical DPs “optional”)
Jón read this book
not
Double object constructions (Icelandic)
a.
Pétur sýndi
oft Maríu bókina.
Pétur showed often Maríu the book
b. Pétur sýndi Maríui oft tIO bókina.
c. Pétur sýndi Maríui bókinaj oft tIO tDO.
d. *Pétur sýndi bókinaj oft Maríu tDO.
(Icelandic)
◄ extended version HG in (1) ►
Correct predictions on the basis
AF >> EPP(case) >> *Move
Tableau 6: Icelandic (IO and DO not in focus)
V-movement ignored;
forced by *STRAY FEATURE >> *MOVE
a. Subj I+V Adv tV IO DO
b. Subj I+V IO Adv tV tIO DO
c. Subj I+V IO DO Adv tV tIO tDO
d. Subj I+V DO Adv tV IO tDO
AF
EPP
(case)
*!*
*!

*!
*MOVE
(tO only)
*
**
*
Tableau 7: Icelandic (IO and DO both in focus)
V-movement ignored;
forced by *STRAY FEATURE >> *MOVE
a. Subj I+V Adv tV IO DO
b. Subj I+V IO Adv tV tIO DO
c. Subj I I+V IO DO Adv tV tIO tDO
d. Subj I+V DO Adv tV IO tDO
AF
EPP
(case)

*
**!
**!*
**!
**
*
*
*MOVE
(tO only)
*
**
*
Tableau 8: Icelandic (IO not in focus; DO in focus)
V-movement ignored;
forced by *STRAY FEATURE >> *MOVE
a. Subj I+V Adv tV IO DO
b. Subj I+V IO Adv tV tIO DO
c. Subj I+V IO DO Adv tV tIO tDO
d. Subj I+V DO Adv tV IO tDO
AF
EPP
(case)
**!
*

*!
*!*
*
*MOVE
(tO only)
*
**
*
10
Hans Broekhuis
Wrong prediction on the basis
AF >> EPP(case) >> *Move
Tableau 9: Icelandic (IO in focus: DO not in focus)
V-movement ignored;
forced by *STRAY FEATURE >> *MOVE
AF
a. Subj I+V Adv tV IO DO
b. Subj I+V IO Adv tV tIO DO
c. Subj I I+V IO DO Adv tV tIO tDO
d. Subj I+V DO Adv tV IO tDO
*!
*!*
*!*
*MOVE
(tO only)
EPP
(case)
**
*

*
**
*
*
Solution:
RELMIN >> AF
(42)
a.
b.
c.
Candidate 9d will be blocked in favor of candidate 9a; cf. tableau 10.
Candidate 10a involves blocking strategy; favored by ALIGNFOCUS >> EPP(case)
Candidate 10c involves push up strategy; excluded by ALIGNFOCUS >> EPP(case)
Tableau 10: Icelandic (IO in focus: DO not in focus)
V-movement ignored;
forced by *STRAY FEATURE >> *MOVE
RELMIN
AF
EPP
(case)

a. Subj I+V Adv tV IO DO
b. Subj I+V IO Adv tV tIO DO
c. Subj I+V IO DO Adv tV tIO tDO
d. Subj I+V DO Adv tV IO tDO
*
**!
**!
*!
**
*
*
*MOVE
(tO only)
*
**
*
Conclusion: if the direct
object is presuppositional,
blocking is preferred, but
when the direct object is a
pronoun, push up is preferred
(43)
a. *Pétur sýndi
oft Maríu hana.
Pétur showed often Maríu it
b. *Pétur sýndi Maríui oft ti hana.
c. Pétur sýndi Maríui hanaj oft ti tj.
d. *Pétur sýndi hanaj oft Maríu tj.
◄ * blocking ►
◄  push up ►
◄ Holmberg’s Generalization ►
This follows if
D-PRONOUN >> ALIGNFOCUS
Holmberg's Generalization
(44)
a.
b.
11
Candidate 12a involves blocking strategy; excluded by D-PRONOUN >> ALIGNFOCUS
Candidate 12c involves push up strategy; favored by D-PRONOUN >> ALIGNFOCUS
Tableau 11: Icelandic (DO pronoun; IO not in focus)
V-movement ignored;
forced by *STRAY FEATURE >> *MOVE
a. Subj I+V Adv tV IO pron
b. Subj I+V IO Adv tV tIO pron
c. Subj I+V IO pron Adv tV tIO tDO
d. Subj I+V pron Adv tV IO tDO
REL
MIN
DPRONOUN
AF
EPP
(case)
*!
*!
*MOVE
(tO only)
**
*
*
**
*

*!
*
Tableau 12: Icelandic (DO pronoun; IO in focus)
V-movement ignored;
forced by *STRAY FEATURE >> *MOVE
a. Subj I+V Adv tV IO pron
b. Subj I+V IO Adv tV tIO pron
c. Subj I+V IO pron Adv tV tIO tDO
d. Subj I+V pron Adv tV IO tDO
(45)
b.
a.
b.
*!
*!
*
**
**
EPP
(case)
*!
*MOVE
(tO only)
**
*
*
**
*
*
>> EPP(case) 
A non-presuppositional IO blocks OS of a presuppositional DO (blocking strategy)
D-PRONOUN >> ALIGNFOCUS 
A pronominal DO forces OS of a non-presuppositional IO (push up strategy)
ALIGNFOCUS
 Danish: D-Pronoun >> *MOVE >> EPP(case)  regular object shift with pronouns only
Hvorfor læste studenterne <den > ikke <*den>?
why
read the students it
not
Hvorfor læste studenterne <*artiklen> ikke <artiklen>?
why
read the students the article
not
Danish (judgments for Vikner 1989)
Peter viste
jo
Marie den.
Peter showed indeed Marie it
b. *Peter viste Marie jo tIO den.
c. %Peter viste Marie den jo tIO tDO
d. *Peter viste den jo Marie tDO
a.
(48)
AF
Double object constructions (Danish)
(46)
(47)

DPRONOUN
Conclusion:
a.
5.2
REL
MIN
%
◄ blocking ►
◄ push up ►
Example (47c) shows that non-pronominal indirect objects can be pushed up by a
pronominal direct object in Danish (the same holds for Swedish). This is rather
spectacular as OS is normally categorically excluded in Danish; cf. (46b).
The acceptability of both (47a) and (47c) follows if
RELMIN >> AF >> D-PRONOUN >> *MOVE >> EPP(CASE)
12
(49)
Hans Broekhuis
(i) D-PRONOUN is outranked by RELMIN  (47d) is excluded
(ii) D-PRONOUN overrules the weak ranking *MOVE >> EPP(case) 
Push up of IO by object shift of a pronominal DO (Tableau 13)
(iii) D-PRONOUN is outranked by alignfocus 
Blocking of object shift of DO pronoun by non-presuppositional IO (Tableau 14)
Tableau 13: Danish (DO-pronoun; IO not in focus)
REL
MIN
a. Subj I+V Adv tV IO pron
b. Subj I+V IO Adv tV tIO pron
c. Subj I+V IO pron Adv tV tIO tDO
d. Subj I+V pron Adv tV IO tDO
AF
D-PRONOUN
*!
*!

*!
*MOVE
(tO only)
EPP
(case)
**
*
*
**
*
*
Tableau 14: Danish (DO-pronoun; IO in focus)
REL
MIN
a. Subj I+V Adv tV IO pron
b. Subj I+V IO Adv tV tIO pron
c. Subj I+V IO pron Adv tV tIO tDO
d. Subj I+V pron Adv tV IO tDO
(50)
a.
b.

AF
DPRONOUN
*
**!
**!
*
*
*!
*MOVE
(tO only)
EPP
(case)
**
*
*
**
*
*
Conclusion:
A pronominal DO forces OS of a presuppositional IO (push up strategy)
 RELMIN >> D-PRONOUN >> *MOVE >> EPP(case)
A non-presuppositional IO blocks OS of a pronominal DO (blocking strategy)
 RELMIN >> ALIGNFOCUS >> D-PRONOUN
What about Question (38): if Danish is a VOlanguage of type B in which short OS pushes V into
v, why doesn’t regular OS push the v+V complex
into I in this language?
5.3
(51)
Embedded clauses
a.
Jeg
I
b. Jeg
I
c. *Jeg
I
(52)
a.
b.
c.
d.
spurgte
asked
spurgte
asked
spurgte
asked
hvorfor Peter aldrig [VP læste den her bog]
why
Peter never
read this book
hvorfor Peter aldrig [VP læste den]
why
Peter never
read it
hvorfor Peter læste den aldrig [VP tV tDO].
why
Peter read it
never
(Danish)
◄  blocking ►
◄ * push up ►
Danish subrankings established so far:
H-COMPL >> EPP(φ) >> *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE (cf. (33b))
LFTF >> *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE (cf. (37))
RELMIN >> ALIGNFOCUS >>D-PRONOUN >> *MOVE >> EPP(case) (cf. (50))
EPP(φ) >> ALIGNFOCUS >> *MOVE: short OS is not sensitive to the information structure
of the clause.
Holmberg's Generalization
13
equals
(53)
Danish: {H-COMPL, LFTF} >> EPP(φ) >> RELMIN >> ALIGNFOCUS >> D-PRONOUN >>
*MOVE >> {*STRAY FEATURE, EPP(case)}
Expectations on
the basis of (53):
(54)
a.
b.
>> *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE 
short OS forces V-to-v (correct)
H-COMPL >> D-PRONOUN >> *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE: 
regular OS forces v-to-I (wrong)
H-COMPL >> EPP(φ)
Solution:
EPP(φ) >> NOLEXM >> D-PRONOUN
(55)
a.
b.
EPP(φ) >> D-PRONOUN is independently established; cf. (53)
NOLEXM is independently established and disfavors movement of the main verb
c.
(Grimshaw 1997)
{H-compl, LFTF} >> EPP(φ) >> NOLEXM >> D-PRONOUN >> *MOVE >> {*STRAY FEATURE)
Expectations on
the basis of (55c):
(56)
a.
b.
>> NOLEXM >> *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE 
Short OS forces V-to-v (correct)
H-COMPL >> NOLEXM >> D-PRONOUN >> *MOVE >> *STRAY FEATURE 
Lack of v-to-I blocks regular object shift (correct)
H-COMPL >> EPP(φ)
This is shown in the evaluation
in Tableau 14
*!
*
*
*
*!
*
*
**
**!
**!
*!
For completeness’ sake the evaluation
of Danish main clauses
*
*
EPP(case)
*!
*!
*MOVE
(t0)
DPRONOUN
EPP(φ)
NOLEXM
*
*
*STRAYF
C ... I ... V+v ... O tV tO 
C ... I ... O V+v ... tO tV tO
C ... V+v+I ... tv tV O
C ... V+v+I ... tv O tV tO
C ... V+v+I ... O tv ... tO V tO
*!
*MOVE
(tV/tv)
C ... I ... v ... V O
C ... I ... v ... O V tO
C ... I ... O v ... tO V tO
C ... I ... V+v ... tV O
LFTF
HEADCOMPL
Tableau 15: V-to-I in Danish embedded clauses
*
*
*
**
**
**
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
*
**
**
**
*
*
*
14
Hans Broekhuis

*
*
*
*
*!
*
*
**
**
**
*!
<*
*
*!
*MOVE
(t0)
DPRONOUN
EPP(φ)
NOLEXM
*
*
EPP(case)
*>
*
*STRAYF
... I ... V+v ... O tV tO
... I ... O V+v ... tO tV tO
... V+v+I ... tv tV O
... V+v+I ... tv O tV tO
... V+v+I ... O tv ... tO V tO
*>
*>
*!
*<
*<
*!
*MOVE
(tV/tv)
... I ... v ... V O
... I ... v ... O V tO
... I ... O v ... tO V tO
... I ... V+v ... tV O
LFTF
HEADCOMPL
Tableau 16: V-to-I in Danish main clauses
*
*
*
**
**
**
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
*
**
**
**
*
*
*
Selected references:
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Broekhuis, Hans. 2008. Derivations and Evaluations: object shift in the Germanic languages. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Broekhuis, Hans, and Kees Van Dijk. 1995. The syntactic function of the auxiliary of time. In Linguistics in the
Netherlands 1995, eds. M. Den Dikken & K. Hengeveld. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A life in Language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52.
Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of JeanRoger Vergnaud, eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166.
Cambridge (Mass.)/Oxford, MIT Press.
Christensen, Ken Ramshøj. 2005. Interfaces. Negation - syntax - brain, University of Aarhus: Ph.D. dissertation.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Extraposition as intraposition, and the syntax of English tag questions. Amsterdam,
unpublished ms. Free University.
Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31:1-45.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28:373-422.
Hale, Ken, and Samuel Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In
The view from building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Ken Hale and
Samuel Keyser. Cambridge, MA/London, MIT Press.
Holmberg, Anders. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg's generalization. Studia Linguistica 53:1-39.
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Malden (Mass.)/Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 9:577-636.
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Movement and Silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999a. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999b. Chains of arguments. In Working minimalism, eds. Samuel David Epstein and Norbert
Hornstein. Cambridge (Mass.)/London, MIT Press.
Müller, Gereon. 2000. Shape conservation and remnant movement. In Proceedings of NELS 30, eds. A.
Hirotani, N. Hall Coetzee and J.-Y. Kim, 525-539. Amherst (Mass.), GLSA.
Müller, Gereon. 2001. Order preservation, parallel movement, and the emergence of the unmarked. In
Optimality-theoretic syntax, eds. Géraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw and Sten Vikner, 113-142.
Cambridge (Mass.)/London, MIT Press/MITWPL.
Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the best good enough?, eds.
Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis and David Pesetsky, 337-383.
Cambridge (Mass.)/London, MIT Press/MITWPL.
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365-424.
Vikner, Sten. 1989. Object shift and double objects in Danish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44:141-155.
Vikner, Sten. 1990. Verb movement and Licensing of NP positions in the Germanic languages: Dissertation.
Vikner, Sten. 2006. Object Shift. In The Blackwell companion to Syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk Van
Riemsdijk. Oxford, Blackwell.
Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation theory. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: MIT Press.
Holmberg's Generalization
15
Appendix I: The constraints used in this hand-out
I. CHL constraints
The CHL constraints determine whether a certain movement “normally” does or does not
apply. The weak ranking *MOVE > EPP(F) expresses that the movement triggered by unvalued
feature F is “normally” blocked. The strong ranking > EPP(F) > *MOVE expresses that the
movement triggered by unvalued feature F is “normally” allowed.
(57)
a.
b.
c.
(58)
a.
b.
 EPP constraints: probe F attracts its goal
EPP(φ): unvalued φ-features attract their goal; this constraint favors ‘short’ object
shift triggered by the unvalued φ-features on V/aux.
EPP(case): an unvalued case-feature attracts its goal; this constraint favors
‘regular’ object shift triggered by the unvalued case features on v.
*STRAY FEATURE: amalgamate formal features of the functional heads with the
root they are associated with; this constraint favors e.g. verb movement triggered
by the unvalued verbal features on v, Asp and I.
 Economy constraints: constraints disfavoring movement
*MOVE (STAY): don’t apply internal merge.
NOLEXM: don’t apply internal merge to lexical (θ-role assigning) verbs.
II. Interface constraints:
The interface constraints may override the weak/strong rankings of EPP constraints, and thus
determine the conditions under which (i) a movement that is normally blocked by the weak
ranking of EPP(F) may nevertheless occur and (ii) a movement that is normally forced by the
weak ranking of EPP(F) may nevertheless be blocked.
(59)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Interface conditions
D-PRONOUN: A definite pronoun must be vP-external: *[vP ... pron[+def] ...].
ALIGNFOCUS (AF): the prosodically unmarked focus is the rightmost constituent in its
clause.
RELATIVIZED MINIMALITY (RELMIN): If the foot of X-chain α c-commands the foot of
X-chain β, the head of X-chain α c-commands the head of X-chain β; this constraint
favors preserving the underlying SUBJ - IO - DO order.
H-COMPL: a head precedes all terminals dominated by its complement; this constraint
favors maintaining the underlying VO-order in (22).
LEXICALLY FILL TOP F (LFTF): the highest head position in an extended projection must
be lexically filled; this constraint favors verb movement if there is no lexical
complementizer.
16
Hans Broekhuis
Appendix II: further reading
From 1997-2009, I have published a large number of papers on the Derivation-andEvaluation approach; most of the English papers can be downloaded from Lingbuzz; a
number of Dutch papers can be found in Gramma/ttt (vol.6) and Nederlandse Taalkunde
(6/1; 10/3-4; 14/2). Thoroughly revised/improved and extended versions of these papers as
well as previously unpublished work have been collected in Broekhuis (2008); papers that
are not included are Broekhuis & Dekkers (2000) and Broekhuis & Klooster (2007). The
push-up data in this talk are also discussed in Broekhuis (2008), but presented in a more
concise way in Broekhuis (2009). The following two papers are relatively new: Broekhuis &
Vogel (In prep.) and Broekhuis & Woolford (in progress). Slightly different (more OT-like)
work in the D&E framework can be found in Dekkers (1999), who shows in a very
convincing way that most filters/principles of the GB-era can be readily captured by means
of a small number of OT-constraints. More work that explicitly aims at reconciling
Minimalism and OT is done by Gereon Müller (see e.g. the references to the handout) and
Woolford (2007).
Broekhuis, Hans, and Joost Dekkers. 2000. The minimalist program and optimality theory:
derivations and evaluations. In Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax and acquisition,
eds. Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw and Jeroen van de Weijer, 386-422.
Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press.
Broekhuis, Hans, and Wim Klooster. 2007. Merge and Move as costly operations. Groninger
Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 45:17-37.
Broekhuis, Hans, and Ralf Vogel. In prep. Crash-proof syntax and filters. In Exploring crashproof grammars, ed. Michael T. Putnam, Elsevier Publishers [downloadable from
Lingbuzz].
Broekhuis, Hans, and Ellen Woolford. in progress. Minimalism and optimality Theory. In
The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. Marcel Den Dikken, Cambridge
University Press.
Dekkers, Joost. 1999. Derivations & Evaluations. On the syntax of subjects and
complementizers, University of Amsterdam/HIL: PhD. dissertation.
Woolford, Ellen. 2007. Case Locality: Pure Domains and Object Shift. Lingua 117:15911616.