Subjacency and barriers

Key terms
Note: Page citations are from Haegeman 1994, except where otherwise noted.

barrier by inheritance: When, according to Chomsky, a CP becomes a barrier due to its domination of a BC (see
blocking category).
barriers: certain maximal projections that can restrict the influence of outside governors and limit movement,
such as with wh-movement, NP-movement, and involving relative clauses. (549ff.)
blocking category (BC): a maximal projection that is not L-marked (see L-marking) and that, therefore, is
“potentially opaque” (that is, a possible barrier) due to an element contained within it. (555)
complex NP restraint (CNPC): A supposition by Ross that movement out of a complex NP is blocked; that is,
complex NPs are “islands” for movement (see also wh-island).
L-marking: A term, lexical marking, introduced by Chomsky, to denote the “special relation” between a lexical
item and the complement that it governs and theta-marks. (555)
opaqueness: a condition describing a maximal projection in which outside governance (antecedent
government) is restricted. (550)
subjacency: constraints, or boundaries, on the distance of movement in grammatical structures, hypothesized
by Chomsky et al. as TP and NP. (402)
transparency: a condition describing a maximal projection in which barriers to outside governance do not exist.
(551)
VP-adjunction: adjoining of a “heavy NP” (559), QP, or wh-word to a VP as a way of “circumventing the
subjacency condition” (562).
wh-island: Ross uses the term to describe wh-questions from which extraction, from a lower to a higher [Spec,
CP] position, is problematic. (402)

The argument
In chap. 10 (“Barriers”), Haegeman tries to define barriers or barrierhood to apply both to the concepts of
government and subjacency. Barriers are maximal projections that may or may not impose limits on
governance and on the distance a constituent can move (549).

In Haegeman, the subjacency condition originally had been expressed as:

Movement cannot cross more than one boundary node, where bounding nodes are IP and NP. (402)

Successive-cyclic movement is possible, using a vacant [Spec, CP] as an “escape hatch” (403). Relative
clauses, NP-movement, and wh-movement are given as subject to the subjacency condition (402-6).

Other treatments of Chomsky’s work characterize subjacency as another locality constraint in addition to the
binding of anaphors in a local domain (Smith 2004, 68). The binding of subjacency is on how far constituent
elements can move and preserve grammaticality.

Based on examples with ECM (exceptional case-marking) and ECP (empty category principle), some maximal
projections demonstrate transparency to outside government: “Whenever we can show that case is assigned
or that a trace is governed from outside the maximal projection, we shall have to conclude that this projection
is transparent for government” (550). For example:

1. Infinitival TP: I believe [TP him to be happy]. [believe assigns accusative case]
I prefer very much [CP for [TP him to leave first]]. [for assigns accusative case] (550)

2. Finite TP: [CP Whoi do [TP you think [CP t'i [TP ti left]]]]? [lowest traces are properly governed and
whoi is not theta-governed] (551)
3. Transparent CP: Wheni do [TP you think [CP t'i [TP Manafort will invite Flynn ti]]]? [lowest trace of
when is antecedent-governed; intermediate trace antecedent-governed by when] (551)
 4. Transparent small clauses: I thought [AGRP Manafort unhappy]. [subject NP of small clauses
case-marked by matrix verb] (551-52)

Some maximal projections, however, are barriers. “They are not barriers by definition,” Haegeman writes.
“Barrierhood is a relative property which apparently is determined by the syntactic position in which the
maximal projection appears.” For example, below are cases in which maximal projections are barriers:

1. Opaque small clauses: Manafort arrived [PRO totally exhausted]. [non-overt NP – that is, PRO
– is needed to which exhausted assigns thematic role. PRO is ungoverned at TP level.] 1
2. Opaque CP: Manafort decided [CP [TP PRO to see the movie]]. [PRO must be ungoverned]

But consider:

[CP1 Wheni did [TP1 Manafort decide [CP2 t'i [TP2 PRO to fix the election ti]]]]?

The conclusion is that, in the example above, CP2 with TP2 forms a barrier, but TP2 on its own does not.
Therefore, PRO can still be ungoverned but t'i can still govern ti. TP1 with CP2 is not a barrier, because when
antecedent-governs t'i (554).

CPs constitute blocking categories (BCs) when they dominate a BC. CP in such a case is a barrier by
inheritance. Repeating one of the examples above:

Manafort decided [CP [TP PRO to see the movie]].

See revised definitions for barriers and government on pages 556-57. The provisional conclusion is that
“government cannot cross a barrier and movement must not cross more than one barrier” (557).

Haegeman then gives numerous examples of syntactic representations, involving VP-adjunction, that help
explain the barriers hypothesis. (1) Heavy NP-shift: My doctor told me to [VP [VP drink] [ADVP very slowly] [NP two
glasses of mineral water with a slice of lemon]]. NP is right-adjoined to maximal projection. Adverb phrase is
VP-adjoined (559-60). (2) Quantifier raising: [CP Whoj [TP [NP tj [VP [VP likes] [QP everyone]]]]]? VP-adjoined everyone
is not dominated by both segments of VP; therefore, it is not dominated by VP (561). (3) Wh-movement. Whoi
did [TP Manafort [VP t'i [VP invite ti]]]? First wh-movement crosses one segment of VP. Next movement also crosses
one segment of VP. TP can only be a barrier by inheritance (561-62). Given these examples, adjoining a
constituent to VP “is a way of circumventing the subjacency condition” (562). It’s another “escape hatch.”

Consider [Wheni do [TP you [VP t''i [VP think [CP t'i [TP Manafort will fix the election ti]]]]]]? Movement from t'i to t''i
crosses CP, which is L-marked by think and not a BC. The next movement can be explained by VP-adjunction; it
only crosses one segment of a VP (562-63).

Haegeman next considers “island violations,” that is, wh-questions for which extraction creates grammatical
problems. [CP1 Which man do [TP1 you [VP1 t'' wonder [CP2 when [TP2 PRO to [VP2 t' [VP2 meet t]]]]]]]? Which man
crosses one barrier at CP2, leading to new subjacency condition: Movement must not cross more than one
barrier (564).

The conclusion is that sentences possess degrees of deviance that can be calculated by how many barriers are
crossed. Ideally, movement doesn’t cross any barriers. With one crossing, acceptability is reduced (564).

References
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 13. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Haegeman, Liliane, 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. 2d ed. Blackwell Textbooks in
Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, Neil. 2004. Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1 Small clauses are transparent when they are complements of theta-marking verbs (e.g., I thought Manafort unhappy).

Chomsky calls this L-marking. Small clauses are opaque when they are adjuncts, modifying NP but not arguments of the
verb (Manafort arrived totally exhausted) (555). A maximal projection that is not L-marked is a blocking category (BC).