We consider the typology of attested Ā-extraction asymmetries between core argument DPs and argue that an Ā-probe can be required to specifically target the closest DP. Such an Ā-probe specification is part of Aldridge’s ( 2004 , 2008 ) influential analysis of syntactically ergative extraction restrictions, but has not been widely adopted outside of work on ergative languages. We argue that restricted probing of this form underlies subject-only extraction behaviors in a number of nonergative languages, including some of those in Keenan and Comrie’s (1977) typology of relativization asymmetries. We describe the behaviors of such probes in detail and relate them to other probe-goal behaviors in recent work on composite A /Ā probes.

Pronominal paradigms in Philippine-type Austronesian languages show a robust and curious gap: in transitive clauses, pivot arguments and nonpivot agents may have bound pronominal forms, appearing as second-position clitics, but pronominal nonpivot themes must be full, free pronouns. This gap is instructive regarding the orga-nization of the lower phase edge. As cliticization involves a syntactic dependency between the host and argument position and all syntactic dependencies are constrained by phases, the gap is explained if pivots and nonpivot agents are specifiers of the phase head, making them the only DPs accessible for operations from outside of the lower phase.

We argue for the existence of covert focus movement in English focus association with only . Our evidence comes from Tanglewood configurations of the form in Kratzer 1991 . We show that Tanglewood configurations are sensitive to syntactic islands, contrary to Kratzer’s claims and predictions. We propose that Tanglewood configurations always involve covert movement of the focused constituent—possibly with covert pied-piping—to bind a bound variable in the ellipsis site. This availability of covert pied-piping explains examples such as Kratzer’s where the Tanglewood construction appears to be island-insensitive. We show that covert focus movement is long-distance and not simply Quantifier Raising. Kratzer’s proposal that ellipsis enforces the identity of focus indices and several other previous approaches are shown to overgenerate Tanglewood readings.

In this article, we argue for the existence of covert pied-piping in wh -questions through a previously unnoticed pattern of intervention effects in Superiority-obeying English multiple wh -questions. We show that the preference of covert pied-piping, unlike that of overt pied-piping, is for movement of larger constituents. We argue that this discrepancy stems from conflicting requirements of PF and LF: overt pied-piping feeds both LF and PF, but covert pied-piping feeds LF only. The study of covert pied-piping thus reveals the true preference of LF and narrow syntax with regard to pied-piping: larger pied-piping constituents are preferred over smaller ones. This preference can be overridden by certain PF constraints that apply to overt pied-piping.