On Freezing Effects

 Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 On Freezing Effects 1 Ángel J. Gallego [email protected] Centre de Lingüística Teòrica – Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Abstract: This paper discusses the nature of Rizzi’s (2006, 2007) Criterial Freezing, a mechanism yielding island effects on XPs moving into edge positions within the Left Periphery to satisfy dedicated ‚criteria‛. Contrary to Rizzi’s (2006) feature checking implementation, it is claimed that freezing, as originally outlined in Chomsky (2000, 2001) Probe-Goal framework, is restricted to purely formal features of the Case/agreement systems, criterial formatives (e.g., [topic], [focus], [wh]) being irrelevant for minimality purposes. Consequently, it is argued that Criterial Freezing is best regarded as an interface constraint precluding XPs from being assigned multiple interpretations of the same type, for legibility/convergence reasons ultimately related to the Principle of Full Interpretation. Keywords: activity, (criterial) freezing, full interpretation, left periphery, minimality. Resumen: Este trabajo aborda la naturaleza del proceso de Inmovilización de Criterio establecido por Rizzi, un mecanismo que reivindica Efectos de isla por parte de aquellos SSXX que se mueven a una posición de arista dentro de la periferia izquierda para de esta forma satisfacer ‘criterios’ específicos. A diferencia de la implementación llevada a cabo por Rizzi en su teoría de validación de rasgos, se establece que la operación de Inmovilización, tal y como se concibe inicialmente en el marco de trabajo Sonda-Meta de Chomsky (2000, 2001) está limitado a rasgos puramente formales de los sistemas de Caso/concordancia, por lo que los formativos de criterio (por ejemplo, [tópico], [foco], [wh]) son irrelevantes desde un punto de vista minimalista. Por lo tanto, se establece que el proceso de Inmovilización de Criterio ha de ser considerado como una limitación propia de la interfaz que evita que los SSXX reciban interpretaciones múltiples del mismo tipo, debiéndose en última instancia a razones de legibilidad/convergencia relacionadas con el Principio de Interpretación Plena. 1 For judgments, discussion, and encouragement I would like to thank Cedric Boeckx, José M. Brucart, Noam Chomsky, Violeta Demonte, M. Lluïsa Hernanz, Carme Picallo, Gemma Rigau, Luigi Rizzi, Jaume Solà, and Juan Uriagereka. Special thanks to Ángel Jiménez for editorial assistance. Usual disclaimers apply. This research has been partially supported by grants from the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia-FEDER (HUM2006-13295-C02-02), and from the Generalitat de Catalunya (2005SGR-00753).  Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 34 On freezing effects Palabras clave: actividad, inmovilización (de criterio), interpretación plena, periferia izquierda, minimalidad. Resumo: Este artigo discute a natureza do Congelamento Criterial de Rizzi (2006, 2007), um mecanismo que produz efeitos de ilha em XPs deslocados para posições periféricas dentro da Periferia à Esquerda para satisfação de «critérios» dedicados. Contrariamente à implementação da propriedade de verificação de Rizzi (2006), afirma-se que o congelamento (como originalmente concebido em Chomsky (2000, 2001) quadro Sonda-Alvo restringe-se a propriedades puramente formais dos sistemas de Caso/concordância, sendo formativos criteriais (por exemplo, [tópico], [foco], [wh-]) irrelevantes para fins de minimalidade. Consequentemente, é argumentado que o Congelamento Criterial é melhor concebido como um interface de restrição impedindo a atribuição de múltiplas interpretações do mesmo tipo a XPs, por razões de legitimidade/convergência relacionadas em última instância com o Princípio da Interpretação Plena. Palavras-chave: atividade, congelamento (criterial), interpretação plena, periferia à esquerda, minimalidade. 1. Introduction Chomsky (2008) builds on the asymmetry in (1) to argue that phase edges give rise to CED effects (I abstract away from the severity of the ungrammaticality in each instance, concentrating instead on the relative judgements Chomsky assumes): (1) a. *[CP Of which cari C did [TP [the driver ti]j T [v*P tj v* cause a scandal] ] ]? b. [CP Of which cari C was [TP [the driver ti]j T [vP v awarded tj a prize] ] ]? (from Chomsky 2008: 147) In addition, Chomsky argues that the problem in (1) should also be relevant to cases like (2), studied by Lasnik & Saito (1992), where wh-movement targets an already wh-moved phrase. (2) a. ??[CP Whoi C do you wonder [CP [which picture of ti]j C Mary bought tj ] ]? b. ??[CP Whoi C do you wonder [CP [which picture of ti]j C tj is on sale] ]? (from Lasnik & Saito 1992: 102) Chomsky, specifically, refers to unpublished work by Esther Torrego (reported in Chomsky 1986a as Torrego 1985) to reinforce a phase-based analysis of so-called Condition on Extraction Domains (CED) effects. The pivotal idea is that the specifiers of v* and C for some reason render syntactic objects  Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 35 Ángel J. Gallego internally frozen: that is, these can be extracted in themselves, but not their subparts. However, and contrary to the expectations raised by Chomsky, Torrego’s (1985) data were actually judged as grammatical by her (other speakers find the examples somewhat marginal, but never severely ungrammatical, and bilingual speakers often report the English examples in (2) as somewhat worse than the Spanish counterparts): (3) [CP De qué autorai C no sabes [CP [qué traducciones ti]j C [TP tj han ganado … of what author not know-2SG what translations have-3PL won … premios internacionales] ] ]? (Spanish) awards international ‘Which author don’t you know what translated books by have won international awards?’ (from Torrego 1985: 31) The same facts carry over to Italian, and apparently with rather similar judgements, as recently shown by Rizzi (2006, 2007): (4) ?[CP Di quale autorez C ti domandi [CP [quanti libri tz]i C [TP siano stati … of which author CL-you wonder-2SG how-many books be-3PL been … censurati ti] ] ] (Italian) censored ‘Which author do you wonder how many books by have been censored?’ (from Rizzi 2006: 114) Apart from being topical to the present discussion, the examples in (3) and (4) are interesting inasmuch as they challenge what Rizzi (2006, 2007) –from a different (not phase-based) perspective– refers to as Criterial Freezing, which involves a constraint against multiple A-bar checking. (5) Criterial Freezing (first version) A phrase meeting a criterion is frozen in place (from Rizzi 2006: 112) According to Rizzi (2006, 2007), (5) accounts for facts like those in (6), taken form Bošković (2008) and Rizzi (2006) (for related data and additional discussion, see Collins 1997, Epstein 1992, Müller & Sternefeld 1996, and references therein):  Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 36 On freezing effects (6) a. *[CP Who thinks [CP that, which problemi, Mary hates ti ] ]? b. *[CP Which booki C does Bill wonder [CP ti C she read ti ] ]? Descriptively, (6a) and (6b) are ruled out because the very same whphrase participates in two operations of the A-bar checking sort (or ‘criterial’, as per Rizzi’s analysis). In other words, the examples yield an illicit output because the wh-phrases who and which book essentially undergo ‘too much (A-bar) checking’. Similar, though apparently unrelated, facts have received much attention within Case/agreement systems, under the rubric of Hyperraising (see Lasnik & Boeckx 2006 for discussion). Data like (7) were provided by Chomsky (1986b) to claim that DPs cannot move to a Case checking position from another Case checking position, a fact that Chomsky (2000, 2001) analyzes, precisely, in terms of freezing: a DP moved to a Case checking position is ‚frozen in place‛. 2 (7) *[CP C [TP Johni T seems [TP ti T is ill ] ] ] (illicit step) In a similar vein as above, note that (7) is ruled out because John undergoes, in a concrete sense, ‘too much (A) checking’. At this point, it is worth considering the scenarios where movement for checking purposes yields an illicit output: 3 (8) a. A  A b. A  A-bar c. A-bar  A d. A-bar  A-bar 2 Chomsky (2000, 2001) introduces the notion of ‘activity’ when discussing freezing effects. An XP is ‘frozen in place’ when it is inactive –assuming structural Case is the feature rendering XPs active. See Boeckx (2008a) and Lasnik (2001) for discussion on how freezing requires the relevant XPs to move to the SPEC of some inflectional head (a requirement related to person checking, according to Boeckx). 3 I am ignoring intermediate steps created by successive cyclic movement, since, with Takahashi (1994) (and contra Rizzi 2006), I take those to be created not for feature checking, but in order to make movement steps as short as possible; such a view is not incompatible with the Extension Condition under Chomsky’s (2001, 2007, 2008) phasebased conception of the cycle. See Boeckx (2007) for ample discussion of alternative views to cyclicity.  Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 37 Ángel J. Gallego We have already seen the scenario depicted in (8a) –so-called Hyperraising. Typically, (8b) and (8c) are subsumed under violations of Chomsky & Lasnik’s (1993) Condition on Chain Uniformity, 4 some cases of which are illustrated in (9): 5 6 (9) a. [CP Whoi C [TP ti T [vP v left ti ] ] ] ? (A  A-bar) (illicit step) b. *[CP C [TP Whoi T seems [CP ti C [TP ti T [vP v left ti ] ] ] ] ] ? (A-bar  A) (illicit step) Finally, consider (8d), the movement pattern I want to concentrate on in this paper. There, an element moves from an A-bar position to another A-bar position, as shown in (6), therefore falling under Rizzi’s Criterial Freezing situation. In this paper, I argue against feature-based accounts of (6), like the one pursued by Rizzi. Instead of blaming it on feature-checking, I attribute the relevant degradation to an interface constraint barring chain occurrences from being assigned more than one interpretation. Such an output constraint –I claim– can be seen as a consequence of Chomsky’s (1986b) Principle of Full Interpretation (PFI). In present terms, the PFI can be understood as requiring derivations to provide unambiguous instructions to the external systems. Discussion is divided into three sections. In section 2 I focus on the Torrego/Rizzi facts, for which I propose an analysis in terms of an aboutness 4 For general discussion on Chain Uniformity, see Lasnik & Uriagereka (2005: ch.4). 5 As Boeckx (2003) and Rizzi & Slonshky (2007) argue, the unexpected grammaticality of (9a) follows from different strategies that allow wh-phrases to move to SPEC-C without ever going through SPEC-T, circumventing freezing. See Chomsky (2008) for an implementation of the same idea where A and A-bar movements occur in parallel (in a locally non-Markovian derivation) so that SPEC-T and SPEC-C are never connected, thus creating independent (and uniform) chains. 6 For recent discussion about (9b), so-called ‚improper movement‛, see Abels (2007), and Chomsky (2007: 17), where such phenomenon is treated in ‘activity’ terms (see fn. 2): the wh-copy is already inactive because its Case feature has been deleted in SPEC-T (Noam Chomsky, p.c.). See Epstein & Obata (2008) for a more articulated analysis of ‚improper movement‛ within Chomsky’s (2007, 2008) ϕ-feature inheritance theory.  Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 38 On freezing effects base-generation, instead of a genuine subextraction. Section 3 in turn criticizes the nature of Rizzi’s (2006, 2007) Criterial Freezing, and consequently, the idea that semantic features play an active role within the computation. Main conclusions are summarized in section 4. 2. Subextraction or aboutness base-generation As pointed out at the outset, the goal of Chomsky’s (2008) analysis is to argue that phase edges (SPEC-v* / SPEC-C) induce island effects. The facts, though, are far from clear, and moreover recent work has questioned such a hypothesis, particularly with respect to the SPEC-v* instance (see Boeckx 2008b and Broekhuis 2007). In this section I want to argue that Torrego’s (1985) data have been misanalized, proposing that the alleged subextracted wh-phrase is generated as an aboutness dependent in the matrix clause (for related discussion, see Barbiers 2002, Cinque 1990, Koster 1987, and Müller 1995). Obviously, if this is correct the consequences extend to the evidence brought up by Rizzi (2006), and the approach then explains away one of the possible inconsistencies with Chomsky’s (2008) analysis, concretely for the SPEC-C subcase. Recall Torrego’s (1985) original example: (10) [CP De qué autorai C no sabes [CP [qué traducciones ti]j C [TP tj han ganado … of what author not know-2SG what translations have-3PL won … premios internacionales] ] ]? (Spanish) awards international ‘Which author don’t you know what translated books have won international awards?’ In this structural interpretation of the facts, (10) is clearly at odds with any strict interpretation of Criterial Freezing. This is so because the buried whphrase de qué autora (Eng. of which author) is subextracted out of qué traducciones de qué autora (Eng. which translations by which author), after the latter has reached a criterial (thus, island-inducing) position. In order to track the fact in (10), Rizzi (2007) weakens the original formulation of his Criterial Freezing, as follows: (11) Criterial Freezing (final version) In a criterial configuration, the Criterial Goal is frozen in place. (from Rizzi 2007: 149) Given (11), only the higher wh-chunk qué traducciones (Eng. what translations) dubbed ‘criterial Goal’ by Rizzi, is frozen, the buried remnant still being capable of moving out. Although certainly designed to be consistent with the facts, the analysis raises some doubts –the most pressing one being how  Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 39 Ángel J. Gallego come the internal part of an XP doesn’t freeze if the latter does. It is of course possible that a moving object (e.g. a trailer) becomes frozen in place (reaching a trailer park and turning into a trailer home); and moreover that its parts (doors and windows) continue to be movable. But the scenario is far-fetched and presupposes a curious underlying architecture. In many ways, the formulation in (11) is reminiscent of Boeckx’s (2003) analysis of resumption, whereby a DP is split into two units: an A (or agreeing) part and an A-bar part. (12) [CP WHi C . . . [DP RP [ ti ]] . . . ] The wh-material in (12) moves to SPEC-C leaving the resumptive pronoun (RP) behind. Much as in Rizzi (2006, 2007), the stranded element occupies a complement position within a larger unit. However, unlike Rizzi (2006, 2007), Boeckx (2003) takes the DP to have undergone no checking whatsoever upon splitting –that is, stranding cannot take place if the DP has already occupied a (Case-)checking position. So generalized, the logic of Boeckx’s (2003) predicts that all DPs in (A or A-bar) checking positions should become islands, blocking subextraction. Of course, this is not what the Torrego/Rizzi data show. As already mentioned, there is substantial evidence indicating that an analysis along these lines is essentially correct in the case of (1): subjects become islands in SPEC-T, where maximal ϕ-checking occurs. Here I want to push the same claim for the Torrego/Rizzi paradigm, which forces me to suggest that the wh-extracted DP is best analyzed as an aboutness dependent of the matrix verb. 7 In fact, it is telling to notice that the verbs used to illustrate the phenomenon (saber and domandarsi) easily adopt an aboutness structure (order and structural details aside): (13) [VP [V’ [V’ V XP ] about ZP]] The key aspect of (13) for my purposes is of course this: XP and about ZP do not form a constituent. If correct, this plainly means that ZP cannot be extracted out of XP’s projection, since they (or their ancestors, in obvious ways) never entered relevant merging dependencies in the first place. With these observations in mind, let us go back to (10). First of all, note that the Spanish verb saber (Eng. know) can readily instantiate two selectional 7 The literature shows scepticism with respect to whether of-phrases are subextracted or base-generated as adjunct/adverbial phrases (see Broekhuis 2007 and Kayne 2002). With Chomsky (2008), I take of-phrases to form a constituent within the DPs targeted for subextraction.  Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 40 On freezing effects frames: (14a) and (14b). The interesting case is (14b), where the verb selects for the aboutness dependent de María (Eng. of María): (14) a. Juan sabe [CP que María fuma] (Spanish) Juan know-3SG that María smoke-3SG ‘Juan knows that María smokes.’ b. Juan sabe [PP de María] [CP que fuma] (Spanish) Juan know-3SG of María that smoke-3SG ‘Juan knows about María that she smokes.’ In order to make sure that the Torrego/Rizzi facts involve subextraction, we must exclude the possibility that (14b) be the base configuration underlying (10). This can easily be ensured by introducing an additional aboutness phrase, as in (15a). As predicted by Boeckx’s (2003) analysis and shown by (15b), that makes subextraction of subextraction of de qué escritor (Eng. of which writer) totally impossible: 8 (15) a. Juan sabe [de María] [CP [qué novelas de Cortázar]i C ha leído ti] (Spanish) Juan know-3SG of María what novels by Cortázar have-3SG read ‘About María, Juan knows which novels by Cort{zar she has read.’ b. *[CP De qué escritori C sabe Juan [de María] . . . [CP [qué novelas ti]j C … of what writer know-3SG Juan of María what novels … ha leído tj] ] ? (Spanish) have-3SG read ‘Which writer does Juab know about Ana which novels by she has read?’ 8 For ill-understood reasons, aboutness phrases appear to create mild intervention effects on their own, even in simple instances of wh-movement. This can be seen in (i) below, where the aboutness dependent de María (Eng. of María) somehow makes subextraction worse: (i) ??[CP Qué fotografíasi C dijo Juan de María [CP que . . . what pictures said-3SG Juan of María that . . . quería vender ti ] ]? (Spanish) wanted-3SG sell-INF ‘As for María, which pictures did Juan say that she wanted to sell?’ (ii) ??[CP A quiéni C dijo Juan de María [CP que . . . to who said-3SG Juan of María that . . . le había dado libros ti ] ]? (Spanish) CL-to him had-3SG given books ‘As for María, who did Juan say that she had given books to?’ To my ear, though, these examples sound better than (15b) –but of course the issue has to be investigated further in more carefully controlled environments.  Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 41 Ángel J. Gallego A second way of excluding the base structure in (14b) as relevant to the condition being tested involves binding. Relevant instances exhibit a variable within a question phrase, which is to be interpreted in the scope of a quantifier in the embedded clause. If true extraction were taking place, it should be possible for the variable to be bound by the quantifier, after reconstruction, as is the case in the viable (16a) involving wh-in-situ. As (16b) shows, the boundvariable reading is lost in the sorts of instances that interest us here, suggesting that reconstruction into the scope of the quantifier todo padre (Eng. every father) does not take place. A natural interpretation of this fact is that, rather than mysteriously affecting the reconstruction process in these instances, the quantifier simply never c-commands (any copy of) the variable. That in turn is what we expect if subextraction is never at issue here. 9 (16) a. [CP [ De qué hijo suyo]i C sabes que ha oído [CP todo padre … of what son his know-2SG that have-3SG heard every father … [qué rumores ti] ] ]? (Spanish) what rumors ‘Which son of his do you know which rumors about has every father heard?’ b. (*)[CP [De qué hijo suyo]i C sabes [CP [qué rumores ti+ C ha oído … of what son his know-2SG what rumors have-3SG heard … todo padre] ]? (Spanish) every father ‘Which son of his do you know which rumors about has every father heard?’ In a nutshell, ungrammaticality obtains the minute genuine subextraction is carefully controlled for. The result is expected if the wh-phrase in matrix SPEC-C in Torrego (1985) and Rizzi (2006, 2007) was never subextracted to begin with. 9 I would like to emphasize that variable binding in (16b) is not barred because of the subject occupying a postverbal position –a possibility that must be excluded for the argument to go through. As (i) shows, postverbal subjects can indeed bind a variable. (i) [CP [De qué hijo suyo]i C ha oído (todo padre) . . . of what son his have-3SG heard every father . . . [muchos rumores ti] (todo padre) ]? (Spanish) many rumors every father ‘Which son of his has every father heard many rumors about?’ I take this evidence to reinforce an analysis in terms of aboutness basegenaration of the wh-moved PP.  Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 48 On freezing effects I have put forward an alternative way to capture Criterial Freezing effects with no feature checking involved. Building on Chomsky’s (1986b) hypothesis that every element must receive an (unambiguous) interpretation at the interfaces, I have argued that Boeckx’s (2003) PUC suffices to account for the deviance that arises whenever an XP is assigned more than one interpretation of the same type. If correct, the overall account suggests that one other device previously taken to be ‘substantive’ within the system (Criterial Freezing) can be reduced to interface conditions. This is –I feel– a much welcome possibility, as it reinforces the (strong) minimalist thesis that descriptive technology associated to the first factor (UG) can be recast in third-factor terms, thus providing a principled explanation for the linguistic phenomena investigated here (see Chomsky 2005, 2007, 2008). REFERENCES Abels, Klaus 2007. Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement: improper movement, remnant movement, and a linear asymmetry. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 53-120. Barbiers, Sjef. 2002. Remnant Stranding and the Theory of Movement. In Artemis Alexiadou et al. (eds.), Dimensions of Movement. Benjamins: Amsterdam, 47-67. Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and Chains. Stranding as Resumption. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Boeckx, Cedric. 2007. Understanding Minimalist Syntax. Lessons from Locality in Long-Distance Dependencies. Malden: Blackwell. Boeckx, Cedric 2008a. Aspects of the Syntax of Agreement. London: Routledge. Boeckx, Cedric 2008b. Bare Syntax. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Boeckx, Cedric & Youngmi Jeong. 2004. The fine structure of intervention in syntax. In Ch. Kwon & W. Lee, Issues in Current Linguistic Theory: A Festschrift for Hong Bae Lee. Seoul: Kyungchin, 83-116. Bošković, Željko. 2008. On the operator freezing effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 249-287. Bošković, Željko & Daiko Takahashi. 1998. Scrambling and Last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 347-66.  Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 49 Ángel J. Gallego Broeckhuis, Hans. 2007. Extraction from subjects: some remarks on Chomsky's ‚On phases.‛ In H. Broekhuis et al. (eds.), Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 59-68. Cheng, Lisa. 1997. On the Typology of Wh-Questions. New York: Garland Publishing. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge of Language. Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by K. Hale & S. J. Keyser. 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In R. Martin et al. (eds.), Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honour of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89-155. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1-52. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1-22. Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H-M. Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-30 Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On Phases. In C. Otero et al. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133-166. Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1993. The Theory of Principles and Parameters. In J. Jacobs et al. (eds.), Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung - An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (vol. I). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 506-570. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A-bar Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Collins, Chris. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Epstein, Samuel. 1992. Derivational Constraints on A-bar Chain Formation, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 235–259.  Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 50 On freezing effects Epstein, Samuel & Miki Obata. 2008. Deducing Improper Movement from Phase-Based C-to-T phi-Transfer: Feature Splitting Internal Merge. Paper presented at WCCFL 27, UCLA. Fitzpatrick, Justin. 2002. On Minimalist Approaches to the Locality of Movement, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 443-463. Etxepare, Ricardo & Myriam Uribe-Etxebariia. 2005. In-situ wh-phrases in Spanish: locality and quantification, Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 33. L'architecture propositionnelle, la syntaxe de la périphérie gauche. Hale, Kenneth & Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard S. 2002. On some Prepositions that Look DP-internal: English of and French de, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 71-115. Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1997. Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Koster, Jan. 1987. Domains and Dynasties. Foris: Dordrecht. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of arguments. In S. Epstein & N. Hornstein (eds.), Working minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 189-215. Lasnik, Howard. 2001. Subjects, objects, and the EPP. In W. Davies & S. Dubinsky (eds.), Objects and other subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 103-121. Lasnik, Howard & Cedric Boeckx. 2006. Long NP-Movement. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax (vol. 3). Oxford: Blackwell, 109-130. Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α: conditions on its applications and outputs, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard & Juan Uriagereka (with Cedric Boeckx). 2005. A Course in Minimalist Syntax. Foundations and Prospects. Oxford: Blackwell. Müller, Gereon. 1995. A-bar Syntax. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin. Müller, Gereon & Wolfgang Sternefeld. 1996. A-bar Chain Formation and Economy of Derivation, Linguistic Inquiry 27: 480-511. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics vol 1.1, 2009, 33-51 http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index ISSN 1989-8525 51 Ángel J. Gallego Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and Left Periphery. In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (vol. 3). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 223-251. Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. In L. Cheng & N. Corver (eds.), Wh-Movement: Moving on. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 97-133. Rizzi, Luigi. 2007. On Some Properties of Criterial Freezing. CISCL Working Papers on Language and Cognition 1: 145-158. Rizzi, L. & Ur Slonshky. 2007. Strategies of Subject Extraction. In U. Sauerland & H-M. Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 115-160. Starke, Michal. 2001. Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. Doctoral dissertation. University of Geneva. Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Minimality of Movement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Torrego, Esther. 1985. On Empty Categories in Nominals. Ms., U.Mass Boston. Ángel J. Gallego [email protected] Departament de Filologia Espanyola – Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona