Russian Adverbs and Relativized Minimality
Russian Adverbs and Relativized Minimality Rebecca Shields, University of Wisconsin-Madison [email protected] overview: Long-distance adverb scrambling in Russian obeys Relativized Minimality, but some cases of local scrambling do not. This suggests that Relativized Minimality is not a condition on movement in general, but only on movement that moves “far enough” – extremely local movements are immune to it.
1.
BACKGROUND: ADVERBS AND MINIMALITY
1.1 Hierarchy of adverbs (Cinque 1999) (1)
a. He probably frequently visits them. b.* He frequently probably visits them.
(2)
evaluative > evidential > epistemic > frequency > manner
1.2
Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990, 2001)
(3)
Relativized Minimality Condition (RMC) Y is in a Minimal Configuration with X iff there is no Z such that (i) Z is of the same structural type as X (ii) Z intervenes between X and Y
(4)
*… Xi … Z … Yi … (where X and Z are of the same structural type)
(5)
RMC effects in adverb movement (Koster 1978, cited in Rizzi 2001) a. Helaasi is hij ti waarschijnlijk ziek. (Dutch) unfortunatelyi is he ti probably sick ‘He is unfortunately probably sick.’ b. Waarschijnlijki is hij (*helaas) ti ziek. probablyi is he unfortunately ti sick
1.3
Potential Movement Condition (Li, Lin, & Shields 2005)
(6)
a. b. c. d.
(7)
a. how skillfully…? b.* how probably…?
How skillfullyi does John (*frequently) ti mow his lawn? How skillfullyi does John (probably) ti mow his lawn? Skillfullyi, John (*frequently) ti mows his lawn. Skillfullyi, John (*probably) ti mows his lawn.
WIGL III
Feb. 25, 2005
(8)
Potential Movement Condition (PMC) If x ranges over types of movement (wh, topic, …) and [X] over the features that signal a constituent's ability to undergo x-movement, then x-movement of an adverb is blocked only by a c-commanding [+X] adverb.
2.
RUSSIAN SCRAMBLING: AN RMC PUZZLE
2.1
Types of Russian scrambling: short local, long local, and long distance
arguments: (9) a. Oni kupili kvartiru. they bought apartment.ACC ‘They bought the/an apartment.’ b. Oni kvartirui kupili ti. they apartment.ACCi bought ti c. Kvartirui oni kupili ti. apartment.ACCi they bought ti d. Ja kvartirui znaju [chto oni kupili I apartment.ACCi know [that they bought ‘I know that they bought the/an apartment.’ e. Kvartirui ja znaju [chto oni kupili apartment.ACCi I know [that they bought
ti]. t i] ti]. t i]
adjuncts:1 (10) a. On bystro pechataet. he quickly types ‘He types quickly.’ b. Bystroi on ti pechataet. quicklyi he ti types c. Ja bystroi xochu [chtoby on ti napechatal]. I quicklyi want [that he ti typed] ‘I want him to type it quickly.’ d. Bystroi ja xochu [chtoby on ti napechatal]. quicklyi I want [that he ti typed]
1
The fact that adjuncts scramble in Russian is reported in Bailyn (2001, 2004). Contra Bošković (2004), this does in fact seem to be able to undergo “true” or Japanese-style scrambling, and not necessarily topicalization. As Bošković points out, topicalization is subject to a number of islands such as wh-island, but scrambling is not. Like Japanesestyle scrambling, and unlike topicalization, adjunct extraction in Russian can cross a wh-island: (i) Bystroi vidish’ [kak on ti pechataet]? quicklyi you.see [how he ti types] ‘Do you see how quickly he types?’
2
WIGL III 2.2
Feb. 25, 2005
Russian scrambling and the RMC
Long distance scrambling: obeys RMC (11) a. ? Ja chastoi xochu [chtoby ona ti (bystro) exala]. I ofteni want [that she ti (quickly) went] ‘I want it to often go (quickly).’ b. Ja bystroi xochu [chtoby ona (*chasto) ti exala]. I quicklyi want [that she (often) ti went] ‘I want it to (often) go quickly.’ Long local scrambling: obeys RMC in one dialect, but not in another (12) a. Reguljarnoi on ti grubo otvechaet. regularly he ti rudely answers ‘He regularly answers rudely.’ b.√/*Gruboi on reguljarno ti otvechaet. rudely he regularly ti answers Short local scrambling: does not obey RMC (in either dialect) (13) a. On reguljarno grubo otvechaet. he regularly rudely answers ‘He regularly answers rudely.’ b. On gruboi reguljarno ti otvechaet. he rudely regularly ti answers Puzzle: why can RMC effects be obviated with some types of scrambling, but not others? 2.3 RMC with PMC constrains WH-mvt (14) Kak reguljarnoi on ti (grubo) otvechaet? how regularlyi he ti (rudely) answers ‘How regularly does he answer (rudely)?’ (15) Kak gruboi on (*reguljarno) ti otvechaet? how rudelyi he (regularly) ti answers ‘How rudely does he (*regularly) answer?’ (16) Kak gruboi on (navernoe) ti otvechaet? how rudelyi he (probably) ti answers ‘How rudely does he (probably) answer?’
Dialect 1 Dialect 2
Short local No No
Adverb scrambling obeys RMC? Long local Long distance No Yes Yes Yes
3
WIGL III
3.
PROPOSAL
3.1
Dialect 1: allows A-scrambling of adjuncts
Feb. 25, 2005
• If the locally scrambled adverb can target an A-position rather than an A’-position, we predict RMC effects to be obviated, because an intervening A’ element is not relevant for A-movement. Local scrambling can be A-movement, but long-distance scrambling can not:2 local scrambling fixes Binding Condition A violation, LD scrambling does not3 (17) a. *Svoii podchinennye volnujut Ivanai. self’si subordinates.NOM worry Ivan.ACCi ‘Self’s subordinates worry Ivan.’ b. ?Ivanai volnujut svoii podchinennye. Ivan.ACCi worry self’si subordinates.NOM c. ?Ivanai svoii podchinennye volnujut. Ivan.ACCi self’si subordinates.NOM worry d. *Ivanai my xotim, chtoby svoii podchinennye volnovali. Ivan.ACCi we want that self’si subordinates.NOM worry ‘We want self’s subordinates to worry Ivan.’ local scrambling fixes Weak Crossover violations, LD scrambling does not (18) a. * Eei sobaka ljubit kazhduju devochkui. her dog.NOM loves every girl.ACC ‘Heri dog loves every girli.’
2
(17) and (18) a, b, and d, are from Bailyn (2004), with judgments from my informants (Bailyn reports the (b) sentences to be grammatical). Bailyn assumes that there is only one A-position available per clause in Russian, so that a scrambled object displays A-properties only in OVS word order, when the object has been raised to Spec, IP in place of the subject (as in the (b) sentences). However, Russian in fact seems to be an IP-absorption language in the sense of Richards (2001), allowing multiple Spec, IPs, as the OSV order of the (c) sentences shows. 3 Bošković (2004) states that Russian does not allow local A-scrambling. His evidence for this comes from the inability of the word drug druga ‘each other’ to repair BCA violations in examples like the following (Bošković 2004, p. 627): (i) *[Larisu i Tanju]i [materi drug drugai] vstretili ti. Larisa.ACC and Tanja.ACC mothers.NOM each.other.GEN met ‘Each other’s mothers met Larisa and Tanja.’ However, as pointed out by Rappoport (1986), drug druga has special properties that distinguish it from reciprocals like English each other. Specifically, within an NP drug druga appears to be subject oriented on an animate SUBJECT, and it requires a reciprocal predicate. Unlike each other’s mothers, the NP materi drug druga must refer to two entities, each of which gave birth to the other. The ungrammaticality of (i) therefore stems from the stricter locality requirements of drug druga as compared to other anaphors. Note that the following is also unacceptable: vstretili ti [materej drug drugai] . (ii) *[Larisa i Tanja]i Larisa.NOM and Tanja.NOM met mothers.ACC each.other.GEN ‘Larisa and Tanja met each other’s mothers.’
4
WIGL III
Feb. 25, 2005
b. Kazhduju devochkui ljubit eei sobaka. every girl.ACC loves her dog.NOM ‘Heri dog loves every girli.’ (cf. Every girli is loved by heri dog.) c. Kazhduju devochkui eei sobaka ljubit. every girl.ACC her dog.NOM loves ‘Heri dog loves every girli.’ d.* Kazhduju devochkui ja xochu, chtoby eei sobaka poljubila. every girl.ACC I want that her dog.NOM loved ‘I want heri dog to love every girli.’ 3.2
Dialect 2: RMC does not apply if movement is structure-preserving • A-scrambling of adjuncts must not be allowed, to prevent obviation of RMC violations with long local scrambling. • In this dialect adverbs can only scramble RMC-free within EpistemicP, the first functional projection above VP (assuming frequency and manner adverbs are generated within VP). Suppose that the RMC only constrains movement of elements that have moved out of the ccommand domain of their original licenser, which I assume to be VP in the case of VP adverbs. Movement that is structure-preserving, such as the movement from Y to X in (20), is then not subject to the RMC, and may cross apparent interveners.4 Any movement beyond EpisP will no longer be structure-preserving, and will therefore be subject to the RMC.
(19) EpisP ty Epis’ ty X Epis΄ ty AdvP Epis΄ ty Epis VP ty V΄ ty Y V΄ ty V …
4
The notion of structure-preserving transformations originates with Emonds (1970), but I am applying it here along with the definition of c-command from Chomsky (1986), in which intermediate projections are transparent for ccommand.
5
WIGL III
Feb. 25, 2005
short scrambling across adverbs above epistemic: evidential and evaluative (20) a. On predpolozhitel’no/ochevidno gromko vsem rasskazhet. he presumably/ obviously loudly everyone.DAT will.tell ‘He will presumably/obviously tell everyone loudly.’ b.* On gromkoi predpolozhitel’no/ochevidno ti vsem rasskazhet.5 he loudlyi presumably obviously ti everyone.DAT will.tell (21) a. On neozhidanno gromko vsem rasskazhet. He unexpectedly loudly everyone.DAT will.tell ‘He will unexpectedly tell everyone loudly.’ b.* On gromkoi neozhidanno ti vsem rasskazhet.6 He loudlyi unexpectedly ti everyone.DAT will.tell
4.
FURTHER QUESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
• Implications of this pattern for a base-generation/lowering account of scrambling: can RM apply to lowering? • Implications for the analysis of wh-islands as RM violations: long distance adverb scrambling doesn’t obey wh-island, but it does obey RM. • This analysis is incompatible with the notion of RM as a cyclic derivational constraint, because if this were the case RM effects could be obviated via a series of local movements.
Bibliography Bailyn, John. 2001. On scrambling: a reply to Bošković and Takahashi. Linguistic Inquiry 32:635-658. Bailyn, John. 2004. Generalized Inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22:1-49. Bošković, Željko. 2004. Topicalization, focalization, lexical insertion, and scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 4:613-638. Bošković, Željko & Daiko Takahashi. 1998. Scrambling and Last Resort. Linguistic Inquiry 3:347-366. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. New York: Oxford. Emonds, Joseph. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations. Ph.D. dissertation: MIT. Junghanns, Uwe, & Gerhild Zybatow. 1997. Syntax and information structure of Russian clauses. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 4. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 289-319. Koster, Jan. 1978. Locality Principles in Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht. Li, Yafei, Vivian Lin, & Rebecca Shields. 2005. Adverb classes and the nature of Minimality. Ms., UW-Madison. Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2003. A-movement scrambling and options without optionality. Word order and scrambling, Simin Karimi, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press. Müller, Gereon, & Wolfgang Sternefeld. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24:461-507. Rappoport, Gilbert. 1986. On anaphor binding in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:97-120. Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: interactions and architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. Relativized Minimality effects. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, eds. Oxford: Blackwell. 89-110. Shvedova, Natalja, ed. 1980. Russkaja grammatika (Russian grammar), vol. 2. Moscow: Nauka. Zemskaja, E. A. 1973. O nekotoryx spetsificheskix chertax porjadka slov v razgovornoj rechi (On several specific features of word order in colloquial speech). In Russkaja razgovornaja rech’ (Russian colloquial speech), E. A. Zemskaja, ed. Moscow: Nauka. 5
Ungrammatical on the evidential reading of ochevidno. As ochevidno also has a manner reading, this sentence is grammatical on the irrelevant interpretation ‘he will tell loudly in an obvious manner’ 6 A speaker of dialect 1 judged this sentence to be grammatical. This is predicted if A-mvt is a possibility for short local scrambling. However, the same speaker rejected (20b).
6
1.
BACKGROUND: ADVERBS AND MINIMALITY
1.1 Hierarchy of adverbs (Cinque 1999) (1)
a. He probably frequently visits them. b.* He frequently probably visits them.
(2)
evaluative > evidential > epistemic > frequency > manner
1.2
Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990, 2001)
(3)
Relativized Minimality Condition (RMC) Y is in a Minimal Configuration with X iff there is no Z such that (i) Z is of the same structural type as X (ii) Z intervenes between X and Y
(4)
*… Xi … Z … Yi … (where X and Z are of the same structural type)
(5)
RMC effects in adverb movement (Koster 1978, cited in Rizzi 2001) a. Helaasi is hij ti waarschijnlijk ziek. (Dutch) unfortunatelyi is he ti probably sick ‘He is unfortunately probably sick.’ b. Waarschijnlijki is hij (*helaas) ti ziek. probablyi is he unfortunately ti sick
1.3
Potential Movement Condition (Li, Lin, & Shields 2005)
(6)
a. b. c. d.
(7)
a. how skillfully…? b.* how probably…?
How skillfullyi does John (*frequently) ti mow his lawn? How skillfullyi does John (probably) ti mow his lawn? Skillfullyi, John (*frequently) ti mows his lawn. Skillfullyi, John (*probably) ti mows his lawn.
WIGL III
Feb. 25, 2005
(8)
Potential Movement Condition (PMC) If x ranges over types of movement (wh, topic, …) and [X] over the features that signal a constituent's ability to undergo x-movement, then x-movement of an adverb is blocked only by a c-commanding [+X] adverb.
2.
RUSSIAN SCRAMBLING: AN RMC PUZZLE
2.1
Types of Russian scrambling: short local, long local, and long distance
arguments: (9) a. Oni kupili kvartiru. they bought apartment.ACC ‘They bought the/an apartment.’ b. Oni kvartirui kupili ti. they apartment.ACCi bought ti c. Kvartirui oni kupili ti. apartment.ACCi they bought ti d. Ja kvartirui znaju [chto oni kupili I apartment.ACCi know [that they bought ‘I know that they bought the/an apartment.’ e. Kvartirui ja znaju [chto oni kupili apartment.ACCi I know [that they bought
ti]. t i] ti]. t i]
adjuncts:1 (10) a. On bystro pechataet. he quickly types ‘He types quickly.’ b. Bystroi on ti pechataet. quicklyi he ti types c. Ja bystroi xochu [chtoby on ti napechatal]. I quicklyi want [that he ti typed] ‘I want him to type it quickly.’ d. Bystroi ja xochu [chtoby on ti napechatal]. quicklyi I want [that he ti typed]
1
The fact that adjuncts scramble in Russian is reported in Bailyn (2001, 2004). Contra Bošković (2004), this does in fact seem to be able to undergo “true” or Japanese-style scrambling, and not necessarily topicalization. As Bošković points out, topicalization is subject to a number of islands such as wh-island, but scrambling is not. Like Japanesestyle scrambling, and unlike topicalization, adjunct extraction in Russian can cross a wh-island: (i) Bystroi vidish’ [kak on ti pechataet]? quicklyi you.see [how he ti types] ‘Do you see how quickly he types?’
2
WIGL III 2.2
Feb. 25, 2005
Russian scrambling and the RMC
Long distance scrambling: obeys RMC (11) a. ? Ja chastoi xochu [chtoby ona ti (bystro) exala]. I ofteni want [that she ti (quickly) went] ‘I want it to often go (quickly).’ b. Ja bystroi xochu [chtoby ona (*chasto) ti exala]. I quicklyi want [that she (often) ti went] ‘I want it to (often) go quickly.’ Long local scrambling: obeys RMC in one dialect, but not in another (12) a. Reguljarnoi on ti grubo otvechaet. regularly he ti rudely answers ‘He regularly answers rudely.’ b.√/*Gruboi on reguljarno ti otvechaet. rudely he regularly ti answers Short local scrambling: does not obey RMC (in either dialect) (13) a. On reguljarno grubo otvechaet. he regularly rudely answers ‘He regularly answers rudely.’ b. On gruboi reguljarno ti otvechaet. he rudely regularly ti answers Puzzle: why can RMC effects be obviated with some types of scrambling, but not others? 2.3 RMC with PMC constrains WH-mvt (14) Kak reguljarnoi on ti (grubo) otvechaet? how regularlyi he ti (rudely) answers ‘How regularly does he answer (rudely)?’ (15) Kak gruboi on (*reguljarno) ti otvechaet? how rudelyi he (regularly) ti answers ‘How rudely does he (*regularly) answer?’ (16) Kak gruboi on (navernoe) ti otvechaet? how rudelyi he (probably) ti answers ‘How rudely does he (probably) answer?’
Dialect 1 Dialect 2
Short local No No
Adverb scrambling obeys RMC? Long local Long distance No Yes Yes Yes
3
WIGL III
3.
PROPOSAL
3.1
Dialect 1: allows A-scrambling of adjuncts
Feb. 25, 2005
• If the locally scrambled adverb can target an A-position rather than an A’-position, we predict RMC effects to be obviated, because an intervening A’ element is not relevant for A-movement. Local scrambling can be A-movement, but long-distance scrambling can not:2 local scrambling fixes Binding Condition A violation, LD scrambling does not3 (17) a. *Svoii podchinennye volnujut Ivanai. self’si subordinates.NOM worry Ivan.ACCi ‘Self’s subordinates worry Ivan.’ b. ?Ivanai volnujut svoii podchinennye. Ivan.ACCi worry self’si subordinates.NOM c. ?Ivanai svoii podchinennye volnujut. Ivan.ACCi self’si subordinates.NOM worry d. *Ivanai my xotim, chtoby svoii podchinennye volnovali. Ivan.ACCi we want that self’si subordinates.NOM worry ‘We want self’s subordinates to worry Ivan.’ local scrambling fixes Weak Crossover violations, LD scrambling does not (18) a. * Eei sobaka ljubit kazhduju devochkui. her dog.NOM loves every girl.ACC ‘Heri dog loves every girli.’
2
(17) and (18) a, b, and d, are from Bailyn (2004), with judgments from my informants (Bailyn reports the (b) sentences to be grammatical). Bailyn assumes that there is only one A-position available per clause in Russian, so that a scrambled object displays A-properties only in OVS word order, when the object has been raised to Spec, IP in place of the subject (as in the (b) sentences). However, Russian in fact seems to be an IP-absorption language in the sense of Richards (2001), allowing multiple Spec, IPs, as the OSV order of the (c) sentences shows. 3 Bošković (2004) states that Russian does not allow local A-scrambling. His evidence for this comes from the inability of the word drug druga ‘each other’ to repair BCA violations in examples like the following (Bošković 2004, p. 627): (i) *[Larisu i Tanju]i [materi drug drugai] vstretili ti. Larisa.ACC and Tanja.ACC mothers.NOM each.other.GEN met ‘Each other’s mothers met Larisa and Tanja.’ However, as pointed out by Rappoport (1986), drug druga has special properties that distinguish it from reciprocals like English each other. Specifically, within an NP drug druga appears to be subject oriented on an animate SUBJECT, and it requires a reciprocal predicate. Unlike each other’s mothers, the NP materi drug druga must refer to two entities, each of which gave birth to the other. The ungrammaticality of (i) therefore stems from the stricter locality requirements of drug druga as compared to other anaphors. Note that the following is also unacceptable: vstretili ti [materej drug drugai] . (ii) *[Larisa i Tanja]i Larisa.NOM and Tanja.NOM met mothers.ACC each.other.GEN ‘Larisa and Tanja met each other’s mothers.’
4
WIGL III
Feb. 25, 2005
b. Kazhduju devochkui ljubit eei sobaka. every girl.ACC loves her dog.NOM ‘Heri dog loves every girli.’ (cf. Every girli is loved by heri dog.) c. Kazhduju devochkui eei sobaka ljubit. every girl.ACC her dog.NOM loves ‘Heri dog loves every girli.’ d.* Kazhduju devochkui ja xochu, chtoby eei sobaka poljubila. every girl.ACC I want that her dog.NOM loved ‘I want heri dog to love every girli.’ 3.2
Dialect 2: RMC does not apply if movement is structure-preserving • A-scrambling of adjuncts must not be allowed, to prevent obviation of RMC violations with long local scrambling. • In this dialect adverbs can only scramble RMC-free within EpistemicP, the first functional projection above VP (assuming frequency and manner adverbs are generated within VP). Suppose that the RMC only constrains movement of elements that have moved out of the ccommand domain of their original licenser, which I assume to be VP in the case of VP adverbs. Movement that is structure-preserving, such as the movement from Y to X in (20), is then not subject to the RMC, and may cross apparent interveners.4 Any movement beyond EpisP will no longer be structure-preserving, and will therefore be subject to the RMC.
(19) EpisP ty Epis’ ty X Epis΄ ty AdvP Epis΄ ty Epis VP ty V΄ ty Y V΄ ty V …
4
The notion of structure-preserving transformations originates with Emonds (1970), but I am applying it here along with the definition of c-command from Chomsky (1986), in which intermediate projections are transparent for ccommand.
5
WIGL III
Feb. 25, 2005
short scrambling across adverbs above epistemic: evidential and evaluative (20) a. On predpolozhitel’no/ochevidno gromko vsem rasskazhet. he presumably/ obviously loudly everyone.DAT will.tell ‘He will presumably/obviously tell everyone loudly.’ b.* On gromkoi predpolozhitel’no/ochevidno ti vsem rasskazhet.5 he loudlyi presumably obviously ti everyone.DAT will.tell (21) a. On neozhidanno gromko vsem rasskazhet. He unexpectedly loudly everyone.DAT will.tell ‘He will unexpectedly tell everyone loudly.’ b.* On gromkoi neozhidanno ti vsem rasskazhet.6 He loudlyi unexpectedly ti everyone.DAT will.tell
4.
FURTHER QUESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
• Implications of this pattern for a base-generation/lowering account of scrambling: can RM apply to lowering? • Implications for the analysis of wh-islands as RM violations: long distance adverb scrambling doesn’t obey wh-island, but it does obey RM. • This analysis is incompatible with the notion of RM as a cyclic derivational constraint, because if this were the case RM effects could be obviated via a series of local movements.
Bibliography Bailyn, John. 2001. On scrambling: a reply to Bošković and Takahashi. Linguistic Inquiry 32:635-658. Bailyn, John. 2004. Generalized Inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22:1-49. Bošković, Željko. 2004. Topicalization, focalization, lexical insertion, and scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 4:613-638. Bošković, Željko & Daiko Takahashi. 1998. Scrambling and Last Resort. Linguistic Inquiry 3:347-366. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. New York: Oxford. Emonds, Joseph. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations. Ph.D. dissertation: MIT. Junghanns, Uwe, & Gerhild Zybatow. 1997. Syntax and information structure of Russian clauses. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 4. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 289-319. Koster, Jan. 1978. Locality Principles in Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht. Li, Yafei, Vivian Lin, & Rebecca Shields. 2005. Adverb classes and the nature of Minimality. Ms., UW-Madison. Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2003. A-movement scrambling and options without optionality. Word order and scrambling, Simin Karimi, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press. Müller, Gereon, & Wolfgang Sternefeld. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24:461-507. Rappoport, Gilbert. 1986. On anaphor binding in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:97-120. Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: interactions and architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. Relativized Minimality effects. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, eds. Oxford: Blackwell. 89-110. Shvedova, Natalja, ed. 1980. Russkaja grammatika (Russian grammar), vol. 2. Moscow: Nauka. Zemskaja, E. A. 1973. O nekotoryx spetsificheskix chertax porjadka slov v razgovornoj rechi (On several specific features of word order in colloquial speech). In Russkaja razgovornaja rech’ (Russian colloquial speech), E. A. Zemskaja, ed. Moscow: Nauka. 5
Ungrammatical on the evidential reading of ochevidno. As ochevidno also has a manner reading, this sentence is grammatical on the irrelevant interpretation ‘he will tell loudly in an obvious manner’ 6 A speaker of dialect 1 judged this sentence to be grammatical. This is predicted if A-mvt is a possibility for short local scrambling. However, the same speaker rejected (20b).
6
