LINGUIST List 5.332
Tue 22 Mar 1994
Calls: Tilburg Conference on Rightward Movement
Editor for this issue: <>
Message 1: +0100
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 14:19:35 +0100
This is the second call for papers for the Tilburg Conference on
Rightward Movement. There is a correction included: the postal code
for Tilburg was inadvertently left out of both the first electronic
posting and the printed posters we have recently mailed out. For those
who have already mailed submissions this should not be a problem, the
Dutch postal service is very effective and we are confident that all
submissions will reach us. Nevertheless, future submissions should
include the updated address. We apologize for any inconvenience.
CALL FOR PAPERS CALL FOR PAPERS CALL FOR PAPERS
6-8 October 1994
See description that follows.
Those interested in presenting a paper should send 11 copies of
a two page abstract (10 anonymous; 1 camera-ready, with name(s),
affiliation(s) and contact address (including email)) to:
5000 LE Tilburg
Abstracts with page text too condensed to be easily read will
be rejected without review. No email submissions accepted.
Abstracts must be received by 15 April 1994. Notification of
acceptance will be made by mid-June.
The organizing committee will provide lodging for all speakers
during the conference. In addition, a contribution will be made
towards speakers' travel expenses (we will approximately follow
the GLOW tradition in this respect).
email to: rghtwrdkub.nl
Tilburg Conference on Rightward Movement
The 1994 Tilburg conference on rightward movement will address
the issue of whether rightward movement exists at all, if it does
what its properties are and under what conditions it operates,
and if it does not, how apparent rightward movement phenomena
can be accounted for in an alternative manner.
Until recently, the existence of rightward movement rules was
largely uncontroversial. Much of the groundwork was provided in
Ross' 1967 dissertation. With later developments it became
mandatory to subsume rightward movement under "move alpha."
Baltin's work (1981, 1983) has been particularly important in
this respect. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that one of the core
properties of extraposition-like rules, viz. their upward
boundedness (Ross' Right Roof Constraint) has resisted attempts
to derive it from subjacency. The fact of the matter is that
there is good evidence that extraposition operates successive
cyclically via the right edges of at least NP, AP and PP. Upward
boundedness appears to be a property of CP only.
In light of the recent proposals to make move alpha subject to
principles of economy (Chomsky 1991), it is interesting to note
that extrapositions are, by and large, optional. To the extent
that they are not fully optional, the main factors involved seem
to be stylistic in nature. They create a strong discourse focus
and are subject to considerations of heaviness. Such factors make
rightward movements look so different that it has sometimes even
been proposed that they constitute a separate type of rule and
operate in a separate module of the grammar, e.g. the stylistic
rules of Rochemont (1978).
It has been known for many years that rightward movements have
some properties that call into doubt the very notion that they
could be movement rules. Particularly salient in this regard is
the fact that extraposed phrases can have multiple antecedents,
(1) In this country more patients take more doctors to court
than any other place in the world.
Interestingly, this property has never settled the issue of
whether this can be movement. Nevertheless, several non-movement
analyses have been proposed, including Gueron & May (1984) and
Culicover & Rochemont (1990).
In thinking about rightward movement, it is easy to be misled
into thinking that extraposition phenomena are the only ones that
are relevant. Other relevant processes can be found in the domain
of putative head movements. Consider for example the fact that
V-to-I movement is generally thought of as movement to the right
in strict SOV languages such as Japanese and Turkish, and
according to some also in mixed SOV languages like German.
Furthermore, standard analyses of Verb (Projection) Raising in
German and Dutch (Evers 1975) are based on a rightward adjunction
The attempts, since Stowell (1981), to derive word order from
independent principles of grammar have been mainly directed
toward head-complement order and, to a lesser extent, to the
determination of fixed positions for specifiers and functional
heads. The position of adjuncts, including most extraposition
structures, has received considerably less attention. This line
of research has recently culminated in Kayne's proposal (1993)
that all languages are underlyingly SVO and that rightward
movement cannot exist.
Kayne's paper is highly programmatic and intended as such. The
restrictiveness of the proposal per se makes necessary a bulk of
leftward movements that were not previously thought to be
operative. There is a serious danger here that the explosive
growth of morphosyntactic triggers that results from the
introduction of minimalism in Chomsky (1992) will end up being
excessive in light of the additional movements necessitated by
Kayne's proposal. For SOV languages, for example, extensive
scrambling must be assumed, even though many of the
considerations that militate against scrambling-as-movement (cf.
the previous Tilburg conference) have not been dispelled.
Extraposition structures raise many difficult questions for
Kayne's idea. By and large, extraposed phrases end up being the
only ones that remain in situ during a derivation. This does not
square well with the special discourse properties often
associated with extraposed constituents, but also leaves us short
of a potential explanation for their island forming properties.
The existence of other types of rightward dependencies is equally
problematic under Kayne's proposal. To mention just one example,
it appears that stranded prepositions move rightward in Dutch
into a position more or less adjacent to, but not incorporated
in, a verb cluster:
(2) a. Hij heeft het toilet met een tandeborstel schoon moeten
he has the john with a tooth brush clean had-to
b. *Hij heeft het toilet schoon met een tandeborstel
c. Hij heeft er het toilet mee schoon moeten maken
he has there the john with clean had-to make
d. Hij heeft er het toilet schoon mee moeten maken
e. *Hij heeft er het toilet schoon moeten mee maken
This short list of potentially problematic phenomena will have
to suffice to give an impression of the range of topics we hope
to address and of the problems we hope to help solve during the