Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part IComparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part IIComparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part IIIComparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- 19Agreement and Concord
- 20Head Dependencies
- 21A-dependencies
- 22Anaphoric Dependencies
- 23The Comparative Syntax of Nominal Quantifiers
- 24Ā-dependencies and Successive Cyclic Movement
- 25From Interrogatives to Relatives
- Part IVComparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
24 - Ā-dependencies and Successive Cyclic Movement
from Part III - Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part IComparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part IIComparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part IIIComparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- 19Agreement and Concord
- 20Head Dependencies
- 21A-dependencies
- 22Anaphoric Dependencies
- 23The Comparative Syntax of Nominal Quantifiers
- 24Ā-dependencies and Successive Cyclic Movement
- 25From Interrogatives to Relatives
- Part IVComparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter re-examines cross-linguistic reflexes and effects of successive cyclic movement in Ā-dependencies, in particular wh-questions. It takes the overview papers of Den Dikken (2017) and Van Urk (2020) as a starting point and provides an update as well as new discussions. Assuming the standard Minimalist program with CP and vP as phases, it considers both CP-level and vP-level potential effects of successive cyclic movement. We note that there are essentially no effects that are exhibited at both the CP and vP levels. Furthermore, the CP-level effects are quite different from the vP-level effects, with the former related to phrasal material left behind at intermediate CPs. I discuss in Section 4 alternative views of some of the vP-level effects which suggest a potential source of difference between CP and vP-level effects.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 792 - 823Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Abels, K. 2003. Successive Cyclicity, Anti-Locality and Adposition Stranding. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Aldridge, E. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. PhD thesis, Cornell University, NY.Google Scholar
Arregi, K. 2003. Clausal pied-piping. Natural Language Semantics 11(2): 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2002. Remnant stranding and the theory of movement. In Artemis, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Barbiers, S. and Gärtner, H.-M. (eds.), Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants, 47–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., and Lekakou, M.. 2010. Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains. Journal of Linguistics 46(1): 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, W. G., Akinlabi, A., and Connell, B.. 2012. Two subject asymmetries in Defaka focus constructions. In Choi, J., Hogue, E. A., Punske, J., Tat, D., Schertz, J., and Trueman, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 294–302. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2003. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. In Cheng, L. L.-S. and Sybesma, R. (eds.), The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book, 107–148. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boef, E. 2013. Doubling in Relative Clauses, Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Bonet, E., Cheng, L. L.-S., Downing, L. J., and Mascaró, J.. 2019. (In)direct reference in the phonology-syntax interface under phase theory: A response to “Modular PIC” (D’Alessandro and Scheer 2015). Linguistic Inquiry 50(4): 751–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2008. On the operator freezing effect. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26: 249–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branan, K., and Erlewine, M. Y.. 2024. A-bar probing for the closest DP. Linguistic Inquiry 55(2): 375–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B. 2006. Differences between the wh-scope-marking and wh-copy constructions in Passamaquoddy. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S., and Downing, L. J.. 2021. Recursion and the definition of universal prosodic categories. Languages 6(3): 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2021. Minimalism: Where are we now and where can we hope to go. Gengo Kenkyu 160: 1–41.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á. J., and Ott, D.. 2019. Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special Issue: Generative Syntax. Questions, Crossroads, and Challenges: 229–261.Google Scholar
Coon, J., Baier, N., and Levin, T.. 2021. Mayan agent focus and the ergative extraction constraint: Facts and fictions revisited. Language 97: 269–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. 2020. Crossing and stranding at edges: On intermediate stranding and phase theory. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 17. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.854.Google Scholar
Davis, C. P. 2021. Possessor extraction in colloquial English: Evidence for successive cyclicity and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 52(2): 291–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. 1994. Scope marking as indirect wh-dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2(2): 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Besten, H. 2010. Is there prepositional stranding in COMP in Afrikaans? No way! In Zwart, J.-W. and de Vries, M. (eds.), Structure Preserved: Studies in Syntax for Jan Koster, 57–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, M. 2007. Phase extension contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1): 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, M. 2009. Arguments for successive cyclic movement through SpecCP, a critical review. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 89–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, M. 2017. Overtly marked wh-paths. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., 1–41. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, M. 2018. Dependency and Directionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, N. 1995. Particles and Projections in Irish Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, M. Y. 2018. Extraction and licensing in Toba Batak. Language 94: 662–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2017. Partial wh-movement. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., 1–57. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Felser, C. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114(5): 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D., and Pesetsky, D.. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgi, D. 2017. Patterns of movement reflexes as the result of the order of merge and agree. Linguistic Inquiry 48(4): 585–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgi, D., Salzmann, M., and Wierzba, M.. 2019. Condition A reconstruction in German Ā-movement: An empirical investigation. In Proceedings of NELS 49. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Gould, I. 2021. On wh-copying in Mon. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 30(4): 357–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerzoni, E. 2006. Intervention effects on NPIs and feature movement: Towards a unified account of intervention. Natural Language Semantics 14: 359–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harizanov, B. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax–morphophonology interface. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(4): 1033–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. 2013a. Diagnosing head movement. In Cheng, L. L.-S. and Corver, N. (eds.), Diagnosing Syntax, 112–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. 2013b. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125: 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. 2017. The “bundling” hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. In D’Alessandro, R., Franco, I., and Gallego, Á. J. (eds.), The Verbal Domain, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henry, A. 2012. Phase edges, quantifier float and the nature of (micro-)variation. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4(1): 23–39.Google Scholar
Herburger, E. 1994. A semantic difference between full and partial wh-movement in German. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Irurtzun, A. 2007. The Grammar of Focus at the Interfaces. PhD thesis, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J., and Postal, P.. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keine, S., and Zeijlstra, H.. To appear. Clause-internal successive cyclicity: Phasality or DP intervention. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, H. 2005. Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23(1): 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H. 2010. On Dutch allemaal and West Ulster English all. In Zwart, J.-W. and de Vries, M. (eds.), Structure Preserved: Studies in Syntax for Jan Koster, 267–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsah, S., and Murphy, A.. 2020. Tonal reflexes of movement in Asante Twi. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(3): 827–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, J. 2009. IM not perfect: The case against copying. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google ScholarPubMed
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2006. Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Syntax 9(1): 32–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohndal, T. 2010. Medial-wh phenomena, parallel movement and parameters. Linguistic Analysis 34: 215–244.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1976. Conditions on transformations in Modern Irish. In Kegl, J., Nash, D., and Zaenen, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1): 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2001. The morphosyntax of wh-extraction in Irish. Journal of Linguistics 37(1): 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, A. 2016. What copying (doesn’t) tell us about movement: Remarks on the derivation wh-copying in German. In Barnickel, K., Guzmán, M., Hein, J., Korsah, S., Murphy, A., Paschen, L., Pu, Z.škar, and Zaleska, J. (eds.), Replicative Processes in Grammar [Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 93], 149–188. Leipzig: University of Leipzig Press.Google Scholar
Newman, E. To appear. Probing for the closest DP: A reply to Branan et al. 2022. Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, M. 2002. CP-pied-piping and remnant IP movement in long distance wh-movement. In Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Barbiers, S., and Gärtner, H.-M. (eds.), Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants, 269–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. 1995. The Copy Theory of Movement and Linearization of Chains in the Minimalist Program. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, J. 1989. Parameters in the Grammar of Basque: A GB Approach to Basque Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pankau, A. 2013. Replacing Copies: The Syntax of Wh-Copying in German. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland, J. and ter Meulen, A. G. B. (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, C., and Pollock, J.-Y.. 2004. On I-clitics, wh-doubling in French and some North Eastern Italian dialects. Probus 16: 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackowski, A., and Richards, N.. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 565–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, M. 1995. Extractions from verb-second clauses in German? In Lutz, U. and Pafel, J. (eds.), On Extraction and Extraposition in German, 45–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, M. 2000. On the parenthetical features of German: Was…W-constructions and how to account for them. In Lutz, U., Müller, G., and von Stechow, A. (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking, 359–407. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rett, J. 2006. Pronominal vs. determiner wh-words: Evidence from the copy construction. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6(6): 355–374.Google Scholar
Rugna, G. 2023. Issues in the Morphosyntax of Wh-Elements, PhD thesis, University of Florence.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M., Wierzba, M., and Georgi, D.. 2023. Condition C in German A – movement: Tackling challenges in experimental research on reconstruction. Journal of Linguistics 59(3): 577–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. 1984. On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry 15(1): 103–129.Google Scholar
Torrence, H. 2012. The morpho-syntax of silent wh-expressions in Wolof. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(4): 1147–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrence, H. 2013. A promotion analysis of Wolof clefts. Syntax 16(2): 176–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Epstein, S. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, H. 1985. On pied-piped infinitives in German relative clauses. In Toman, J. (ed.), Studies in German Grammar, 165–192. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Urk, C. 2015. A Uniform Syntax for Phrasal Movement: A Case Study of Dinka Bor. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Van Urk, C. 2018. Pronoun copying in Dinka Bor and the copy theory of movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(3): 937–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Urk, C. 2020. Successive cyclicity and the syntax of long-distance dependencies. Annual Review of Linguistics 6(1): 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Urk, C., and Richards, N.. 2015. Two components of long distance extraction: successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 113–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiland, B. 2010. Overt evidence from left-branch extraction in Polish for punctuated paths. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2): 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.