Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

1 Introduction.- 1.1. The Descriptive and Theoretical Goals.- 1.2. An Overview of Government Binding Theory.- 1.3. An Overview of the Major Results of This Study.- 2 Celtic Agreement, the Avoid Pronoun Principle, and Binding Theory.- 2.1. Introduction.- 2.2. Breton Agreement Markers Determined by the Avoid Pronoun Principle.- 2.3. Generalizing the Analysis of Breton Agreement to Welsh.- 2.3.1. The Welsh Facts.- 2.3.2. The Null Subject and Prepositional Object Contain Instances of pro.- 2.3.3. The Avoid Pronoun Principle and the Distribution of Welsh NP Agreement.- 2.3.4. Welsh Pronouns with AGR and the Avoid Pronoun Analysis.- 2.3.5. Pronouns that Co-occur with Agreement in Breton.- 2.4. Evidence from the Binding Theory: Breton and Welsh Have a Null AGR.- 2.5. AGR as a SUBJECT for the Binding Theory.- 3 Raising and Passivization in Breton: An Argument for Anaphoric Traces.- 3.1. The Theoretical Status of Anaphoric Traces.- 3.2. The Breton Raising to Subject Construction.- 3.2.1. Agreement and Identifying the Breton Subject.- 3.2.2. Breton Raising to Subject Involves Anaphoric Traces.- 3.3. Raising Structures Parallel Passive Structures.- 3.4. Breton Raising and Pseudopassive: Further Implications.- 3.4.1. A Problem for Theories Lacking Anaphoric Traces.- 3.4.2. Breton Raising and Passive: Problems for Other Theories of Agreement.- 3.4.2.1. The Weakness of Case Absorption Accounts.- 3.4.2.2. Breton Agreement Is Not an Incorporated Pronoun.- 3.4.3. Reconciling Breton Passives with GB Theory: A Revision of Burzio's Generalization.- 3.5. Conclusion.- 4 PRO-INFL and Reduced Structures.- 4.1. Reduced Structures Have Missing INFLs.- 4.2. Some INFLs Missing in Welsh and English Are PRO-INFL.- 4.3. Corroborating Evidence for the PRO-INFL Analysis.- 4.3.1. PRO-INFL Only Appears When INFL Is Ungoverned.- 4.3.2. Reduced Wh-Questions Do Not Contain PRO-INFL.- 4.4. Contraction and Reduced Structures.- 4.5. A Competing Analysis.- 4.6. Breton is Consistent with the PRO-INFL Analysis.- 5 Government and the Connection Between Relative Pronouns, Complementizers and Subjacency.- 5.1. Introduction.- 5.2. Relative Pronouns in English.- 5.2.1. Relative Pronouns Are Pronominal Anaphors.- 5.2.2. Relative Pronouns Are Interpreted by Control Theory.- 5.3. Relative Pronouns Are Pronominal Anaphors.- 5.3.1. The Distribution of French Relative Pronouns.- 5.3.2. An Explanation for When S Is a Bounding Node.- 5.3.3. Infinitival Complementizers and the Head of $$ bar{S} $$.- 5.4. Welsh and Breton Lack Relative Pronouns.- 5.4.1. The Particle A Does Not Have the Distribution of a Pronoun.- 5.4.2. Welsh and Breton Infinitival Complementizers Are Not the Head of $$ bar{S} $$.- 5.4.3. S Is Not a Bounding Node for Subjacency in Welsh and Breton.- 5.4.3.1. Movement Structures in Welsh and Breton.- 5.4.3.2. Welsh and Breton Bounding Nodes.- 5.5. Competing Analyses and Other Arguments.- 5.6. Conclusion.- 6 The Interaction of Government Theory with Synthetic Agreement.- 6.1. Introduction.- 6.2. The ECP Gives a Unified Treatment of Complementizers and Agreement in Welsh Movement Structures.- 6.2.1. Welsh Structures Involving Short Wh-movement.- 6.2.2. Welsh Structures Involving Long Distance Wh-movement.- 6.2.3. Extraction over Uninfected Verbs in Welsh.- 6.3. Two Asymmetries in Breton and Welsh Extraction.- 6.3.1. A Difference Between Welsh and Breton Extraction over Non-Finite Verbs.- 6.3.2. Welsh and Breton Extraction Over Finite Verbs.- 6.4. Welsh and Breton Extraction from Negatives.- 6.5. Competing Analyses and Arguments.- 6.5.1. An Alternative Way of Reducing the ECP.- 6.5.2. Another Analysis of Breton Agreement and the ECP.- 6.5.3. Another Analysis of Welsh Relativization.- 6.6. Subject-Object Asymmetries at LF and the ECP.- 6.6.1. Subject-Object Asymmetries in Multiple Wh-questions.- 6.6.2. Quantification and Subject-Object Asymmetries at LF.- 6.7. Conclusion.- References.- Index of Languages.- Index of Names.