<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W06-1523">
  <Title>apos;Single Cycle' Languages: Empirical Evidence for TAG-Adjoining</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="154" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Data
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> A systematization of the relevant data leads to the following descriptive generalization: movement/filler-gap dependencies of any kind in Russian and Polish are strictly confined to a single Tense domain, roughly, C(omplementizer) P(hrase) in the standardly assumed clause structure.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Consider first the case of A'-movement. It is well known that Russian lacks standard long-distance wh-movement out of finite (tensed) clauses of the type in (1) (Comrie (1972), among others). Russian also lacks other long-distance A'dependencies such as Topicalization (M&amp;quot;uller and Sternefeld, 1993). This is shown in (3).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  pendently shown to be domains smaller than CP, namely, VPs (Babby, 1998), unlike in English where they are analyzed as either CPs or TPs, depending on a theory.1 Subjunctive clauses present a well known 'restructuring' context. In many languages, they trigger 'clause union' and allow otherwise clause-bound processes, e.g. clitic climbing. In Russian, subjunctive clauses display the obviation effect with respect to Condition B whereby the embedded subject must have a reference disjoint with that of the matrix subject, typical of a clause-bound process:  Given this and other local effects, subjunctives in Russian and other languages have been argued to involve a 'domain extension' process (not very well understood in a derivational theory) collapsing matrix and embedded clauses into a single Tense domain ((Picallo, 1984; Progovac, 1993; Terzi, 1992) among others).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The precise nature of the single Tense domain restriction in Russian has remained largely unclear. A number of technical solutions were proposed in the Government and Binding and Minimalist frameworks in the form of various constraints on extraction and additional barriers (M&amp;quot;uller, 1995; Zaenen, 1983; Pesetsky, 1982; Stepanov, 2001; Koster, 1978). However, the 1Babby's relevant argument draws on the assumption that the silent PRO subject has null dative case in Russian. Thus a contrastive reflexive doubling the PRO subject appears in dative case in non-obligatory control sentences, but must appear in nominative in obligatory control cases. Babby argues that the latter involves no PRO at all, just a bare VP. question why Russian and Polish should differ from English in this manner continues to be sub-ject to much discussion.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> LDDs are also missing in the context of so called A-movement. Long subject raising is unavailable in Russian (even though predicates with 'raising' semantics are available), unlike in English, cf. (7):2  On the standard view in transformational theory (Chomsky, 1981) both subject raising and object raising, or Exceptional Case Marking (ECM), cases are explained by the same principles. In this respect, it is not surprising that Russian lacks infinitival ECM contexts as well (Brecht, 1974; Lasnik, 1998):  Aspectual, or 'phase' verbs (begin, continue) have sometimes been argued to involve long (cross-clausal) raising (Perlmutter, 1970). A number of empirical diagnostics applied to Russian clearly demonstrate the monoclausal (single Tense) character of these constructions in this language (Stepanov, 2006). For instance, assuming that sentential adverbs such as possibly modify the Tense (TP) domain (Watanabe, 1993), in a truly biclausal configuration a lower TP adverb could in principle have a narrower scope with respect to the matrix verb. However, with Russian aspectuals the situation is different. In (9) na sledujuVsVcej nedele necessarily modifies the entire sentence, along with vozmoVzno:  Other potential candidates for cross-clausal LDD in Russian such as epistemic modal constructions have also been argued to involve a single Tense domain (Schoorlemmer, 1994). In effect, the current literature on Russian syntax reveals no clear cases of LDD spanning more than one Tense domain, and those contexts that have been assumed  to do that (often on analogy with other languages), on closer introspection show the single Tense behavior, such as those above.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> A similar state of affairs was found in Polish, where the lack of LDD in the domain of A'-movement out of finite clauses is well documented (see (Giejgo, 1981; Zabrocki, 1981; Witkos, 1981) for A'-movement cases, and (Zabrocki, 1981) for A-movement cases).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> One may entertain two analytical strategies in handling the Russian/Polish facts. One is to look for separate analyses of the lack of long A'- and A-dependencies. We believe such an approach would miss an important generalization concerning the across-the-board character of local movement dependencies in these languages. A more intriguing and fruitful possibility to explore is that Russian and Polish only allow dependencies confined, roughly speaking, to a single CP. We call such languages 'single cycle' languages, in contrast to the more familiar, 'successive cyclic' language type (English). The question to be addressed now is: what is responsible for the 'single cycle' property?</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>