Abstract
A growing body of work argues that Agree has the effect of “unlocking” certain domains, phases, such that otherwise illicit extraction from them becomes permitted (Rackowski & Richards 2005, van Urk and Richards 2015, Halpert 2016, 2018, Branan 2018). First, we address when such unlocking is required. While some works argue that unlocking is only needed for extraction from deep within a phase, others argue that all extraction requires it. We argue in support of the former view, based on Chichewa facts reported in Mchombo (2004, 2006). Second, we consider the relationship between unlocking effects and phase theory more generally. We argue that the possibility of unlocking indicates that material deep within a phase must not be rendered inaccessible by spellout, or else unlocking effects should be impossible. We explore how unlocking might be handled in the cyclic linearization theory of phases (Fox & Pesetsky 2005, a.o.) which leaves syntactic elements accessible post-spellout.
Highlights
A growing body of work argues that Agree has the effect of “unlocking” certain domains, phases, such that otherwise illicit extraction from them becomes permitted (Rackowski & Richards 2005, van Urk and Richards 2015, Halpert 2016, 2018, Branan 2018)
3.5 UNLOCKING IN DINKA. van Urk & Richards (2015) proposed that extraction from phase edges does require unlocking, contrary to what we argued above, based on the interaction of extraction and EPP effects in Dinka (Nilotic). van Urk & Richards show that Dinka has two positions in the clause, which they identify as spec-CP and spec-vP, that in the basic case must be filled by a DP
The first was to examine the mechanics of unlocking effects, by which Agree with a phase facilitates extraction from it
Summary
A growing body of work argues that Agree has the effect of “unlocking” certain domains, phases, such that otherwise illicit extraction from them becomes permitted (Rackowski & Richards 2005, van Urk and Richards 2015, Halpert 2016, 2018, Branan 2018). Recent work in syntactic theory argues for a connection between agreeing with certain domains, taken to be phases (Chomsky 2000, 2001, a.o.), and extraction out of them. As we’ll see, in Chichewa the leftmost element in the nominal domain may generally be dislocated; but other elements may be dislocated only when the nominal as a whole controls verbal agreement morphology This can be explained neatly under the “either-or” theory of unlocking, which allows for multiple methods of phase escape, but is unexpected under the “both-and” theory, which affords no special status to edges. Movement to the phase edge escapes spellout of the complement, permitting subsequent agreement or movement Under this hypothesis, elements remaining in the complement of the phase should be unrecoverable by later probes. Phases restrict the derivation in a particular way; some but not all elements within a phase may be targeted by operations triggered by elements not contained in the phase, as per the Phase Impenetrability Condition
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
