Rightward Movement

1
Rightward Movement

• Mahajan, 1997

2
1. Rightward Scrambling

• canonical order Sub IO DO V Aux
• Hindi is a head final language.
• Rightward Scrambling the arguments of the verb
  appear in a postverbal position or a post
  -auxiliary position. These configurations result
  by leftward movement operations of the verb and
  some of his arguments.

3
Rightward Scrambling

• 1.1 raam-ne vah kitaab dhyaan se
  parii thii
• Ram ERG that book care
  with read PERF. fem be PST.fem
• Ram read this book with care
  (carefully) ? canonical order, object
  agreement
• 1.2 siitaa-ne dhyaan se parii
  thii vah
  kitaab
• Sita ERG care with
  read PERF. fem be PST.fem that book
  fem
• Sita read this book with care
  (carefully) ? rightward scrambling
•  
• 1.3 siitaa-ko yah baat pataa he
  ki mohan aayegaa
• Sita DAT this fact know
  be PRES that Mohan come FUT
  
• Sita knows the fact that Mohan will
  come ? finite relative clause is in the
• 
  
  final position
• 1.4 siitaa-ne dhyaan se dekhaa
  thaa raam-ko
• Sita ERG care with see
  PERF be PST Ram OBJ
• Sita saw Ram with care (carefully) ?
  rightward scrambling

 
4

•  Multiple postverbal arguments or a postverbal
  argument between the verb and the auxiliary are
  also possible.
• Mahajans analysis (1988) assimilates rightward
  scrambling to some analyses of leftward
  scrambling and assumes that postverbal NPs are
  moved and right adjoined to the IP.
• This analysis cannot explain variable binding,
  anaphor binding, quantifier scope and condition C
  effects in Hindi.
• The current analysis treats postverbal NPs to be
  stranded in some position in a clause with
  leftward movement of the elements that precede
  it.
• (non movement analysis of rightward
  scrambling)

5
2. Postverbal NPs and variable binding  

• Leftward scrambling of a quantifier overrides
  week crossover, rightward scrambling does not.
• Under the rightward movement analysis of
  rightward scrambling, the postverbal NP should
  have been in a position c-commanding the pronoun
  in order to overcome WCO.
• The movement in 2.2 is an instance of right
  adjunction to IP, an A- movement, which causes
  the ungrammaticality. There is no SPEC position
  of a functional projection to the right of the
  verb.

6

• 2.1 uske i bhaai-ne har ek
  aadmii-ko i maaraa
• his brother ERG every
  man OBJ hit PERF
• His i brother hit everyone i ? WCO
  leftward scrambling
•  
• 2.2 uske i bhaai-ne maaraa
  har ek aadmii-ko i
• his brother ERG hit
  PERF every man OBJ
• His i brother hit everyone i ? WCO
  rightward scrambling
• An alternative to the rightward movement approach
  would be that the direct object first moves to
  SPEC AGR0 to mediate agreement and then stays
  there.
• The ind. object and the verb move to the left of
  the direct object, as in sentence 2.3. The
  quantifier no longer c-commands the pronoun.
• 2.3 raam-ne uske i maalik-ko
  dii har ek kitaab i
• Ram ERG its owner DAT
  give PERF. fem every book fem
  
• Ram had given every book i to its i
  owner ? WCO rightward scrambling

7
3. Rightward Scrambling and anaphor binding

• Leftward scrambling creates configurations in
  which a left scrambled nominal can bind an
  anaphor that it comes to c-command after
  movement.
• The pre-subject direct object in 3.2 provides an
  antecedent for the anaphor in the subject phrase.
  If the direct object appears in a postverbal
  position as in 3.3, it cannot serve as an
  antecedent for the reciprocal.
• The reciprocal is not c-commanded by its
  antecedent, which supports the idea that
  rightward scrambling is
• not a case of rightward movement.

8

• 3.1 ? ek duusre i ke parivaaro-ne siitaa
  ?r raam-ko i (khaane le liye) bulaayaa
  
• each others family ERG
  Sita and Ram OBJ (eating for)
  call PERF. fem
• Each others families invited Sita and
  Ram (for dinner)
•  
• 3.2 siitaa ?r raam-ko i ek duusre i ke
  parivaaro-ne (khaane le liye) bulaayaa
• Sita and Ram OBJ each others
  family ERG (eating for) call
  PERF. fem
• Each others families invited Sita and
  Ram (for dinner)
•  
• 3.3 ? ek duusre i ke parivaaro-ne (khaane
  le liye) bulaayaa siitaa ?r raam-ko i
  
• each others family ERG
  (eating for) called Sita and
  Ram OBJ
• Each others families invited Sita and
  Ram (for dinner)

9
4. Scrambling and Condition C effects

• Condition C an r- expression cannot be bound
• Clause internal leftward scrambling may not
  reconstruct for Condition C effects. An IO
  pronoun such as in 4.1 cannot c-command a
  co-referent r-expression within a DO. If the DO
  is left scrambled over the indirect object (4.2)
  the condition C effect disappears.
• A - movement reconstructs for Condition C
  effects while A- movement does not. DO that
  agrees with the participle reconstructs above the
  embedded subject for the purpose of Condition C.
  The post verbal NP seems to be in the c-command
  domain of the subject with respect to Condition C.

10

• The contrast between A - movement and A-
  movement can also be found when the IO is a
  pronoun.
• 4.3 and 4.4 yield a strong Condition C violation,
  4.2 does not.
• Rightward movement can be either analyzed as
  rightward scrambling or as a case of stranding,
  which explains the facts about condition C more
  systematically.

11

• 4.1 siitaa-ne use i tumhaaraa raam-ko i
  likhaa hua p? tr
  dikhaayaa
• Sita ERG him your Ram
  DAT written be PERF. fem letter masc
  show PERF. masc
• Sita showed a letter written by you to
  Ram i to him i ? no c- commando ID DO
•  
• 4.2 siitaa-ne tumhaaraa raam-ko i likhaa
  hua p? tr use i dikhaayaa
  
• Sita ERG your Ram DAT
  written be PERF. fem letter masc him
  show PERF. masc
• Sita showed him i a letter written by
  you to Ram i ? DO is left scrambled
•  
•  
• 4.3 siitaa-ne use i l?taa dii
  tumhaarii raam i vaalii
  kitaab
• Sita ERG him-to return give
  PERF. fem your Ram GEN
  book . fem
• Your Rams i book (your copy of the
  book written by Ram) Sita returned to him i
• 
  ? DO containing an r-
  expression is postverbal
•  
• 4.4 siitaa-ne use i dikhaayaa
  tumhaaraa raam-ko i likhaa hua
  p? tr
• Sita ERG him show PERF. masc
  your Ram DAT written be PERF
  letter masc Sita showed him i a
  letter written by you to Ram i ? rightward
  scrambling
•  

12
5. Scrambling and Scope

• In Hindi and in Japanese leftward scrambling of
  the object over the subject produces ambiguity,
  even when the canonical surface order does not
  yield scope ambiguities.
• 5.1 is unscrambled and ambiguous. DO in 5.2 is
  scrambled over the subject and yields a scope
  ambiguity.
• The movement produces a configuration where the
  object comes to c-command the subject and the
  subject c-commands the trace of the moved object.
  
• This movement allows for the object to c-command
  the subject and the object can take wider scope,
  and it also allows the subject to take wider
  scope over the object.

13

• If rightward scrambling is produced by rightward
  movement (right adjunction to IP), the scope in
  5.3 should have been ambiguous.
• If the postverbal object has been stranded in
  that position by leftward verb movement , then
  the object need not cross the subject or its
  trace and the scope will not be ambiguous.
• 5.1 sab tiin ciize
  khariide ge
• everyone three things buy FUT
  
• Everyone will buy three things ? scope
  subjgtobj (everygt three), no ambiguity

14

• 5.2 tiin ciize sab
  khariide ge
• three things everyone buy FUT
  
• Everyone will buy three things ? scope
  threegtall allgt three, ambiguity
•  
• 5.3 sab khariide ge tiin
  ciize
• everyone buy FUT three
  things
• Everyone will buy three things ? scope
  subjgtobj (everygt three), no ambiguity
• The Scope Principle (Aoun Li, 1993) a
  quantifier A may have scope over a quantifier B
  if A c-commands a member of the chain containing
  B.

15
6. Multiple rightward scrambling

• It is possible in Hindi to have more than one
  postverbal NP. In 6.1 and 6.2 two of the
  arguments of the verb appear in the postverbal
  position. Under the rightward movement analysis
  the sentence final argument should have c-
  commanded the postverbal argument, but the facts
  show exactly the opposite.
• 6.1 sittaa -ne dikhaaii mohan-ko
  ek kitaab
• Sita ERG show PERF. fem Mohan
  DAT a book fem
• Sita showed a book to Mohan ? ek
  kitaab c-commands mohan-ko? no
•  
• 6.2 sittaa -ne dikhaaii ek
  kitaab mohan-ko
• Sita ERG show PERF. fem a
  book fem Mohan DAT
• Sita showed a book to Mohan ? mohan-ko
  c-commands ek kitaab ? no

16
7. Summarize

• ? Mahajan argues against rightward movement and
  variable binding under reconstruction and
  supports the idea that a leftward movement is
  generating the word order. All scrambling
  operations involve leftward movement.
• ? Evidence supporting the non-rightward movement
  analysis of rightward scrambling
• ? In some sentences with two postverbal NPs, the
  rightward movement analysis would yield a strong
  condition C violation, which is not the case.
• ? Leftward scrambling induces scope ambiguities
  while rightward scrambling does not.

17
7. Summarize

• Hindi finit clauses appear in an extraposed
  position.
• This extraposition is viewed as clause stranding,
  the same way postverbal nominals are cases of
  nominal stranding.
• The extraposed clauses have a low position and
  they may contain a pronaon bound by a quentifier
  in the preverbal position. They may not contain
  an r-expression coindexed with a pronoun in the
  preverbal position.
• The postverbal NPs are lower than the verb.
•  

18
7. Summarize

• Rightward scrambling differs from leftward
  scrambling. It involves stranding of a nominal
  complement under leftward verb movement.
• Extraposition cannot be a rightward movement rule
  in Hindi.
• Postverbal constituents do not appear in a
  postverbal position because of rightward movement
  rules.