A long-standing question in syntactic theory pertains to how to account for the different status of subjects and objects with respect to grammatical processes. Several decades of research in syntax have uncovered numerous ways in which subjects behave differently from objects. For example, in English and several other languages, objects have been argued to be transparent for sub-extraction, whereas subjects are typically not. A key question is what such asymmetries between arguments can tell us about the nature of grammar. What are the grammatical primitives that distinguish subjects from objects, for example? Must the relevant constraints make reference to grammatical function, or are such restrictions the result of the differing structural prominence of arguments? Answering questions of this kind can reveal deep facts about the building blocks that underpin our implicit knowledge of grammar. What abstract principles does a grammar require in order to adequately account for argument asymmetries?
This project aimed to investigate the phenomenon of parallelism conditions in so-called Across-the-Board dependencies. On the empirical side, the project aims to broaden the empirical base through a comparative study of tolerable mismatches between argument types in ATB-constructions on the basis of three languages (English, German, Polish) that also takes into account the role of variation. On the theoretical side, the project will incorporate these findings into a general theory of cross-linguistic argument asymmetries involving movement, a goal which has not yet been seriously pursued in contemporary syntactic research The general goals of the project can be divided into both an empirical and a theoretical contribution. On the empirical side, the project will collect data based on native speaker judgements from a range of speakers of English, German and Polish. The surveys will be designed in such a way as to provide a systematic empirical base to test both the predictions of certain theories of ATB-parallelism and also the degree of variation we find across speakers and languages. This will provide a solid empirical foundation on which theoretical work can be conducted. It will also provide a clearer picture about the central explananda for a theory of ATB-movement that more carefully takes into account the potential role of variation. With this improved empirical base, the theoretical contribution of the project will be to integrate the findings into a maximally general theory of argument asymmetries. As previously mentioned, the pursuit of a unified approach to argument asymmetries has been abandoned for entirely orthogonal reasons. There are, however, new concepts that can fill this theoretical void (i.e. phase theory) and provide a general explanation of the recurrent matrix subject vs. non-subject asymmetry we find across languages and domains. The project takes ATB-parallelism as a detailed case study in one such domain, but will ultimately seek to situate these findings in the relevant cross-linguistic context. Doing so, will allow us to arrive at a deeper understanding about what the cross-linguistic landscape of argument asymmetries tells us about the nature of syntactic knowledge and our capacity for language.