Minimalism Bridge: Toba Batak Extraction Restriction @cite{erlewine-2018} #
@cite{elkins-torrence-brown-2026}
Connects the empirical extraction data from Toba Batak to the Minimalist analysis in @cite{erlewine-2018}.
The Analysis (@cite{erlewine-2018}, §3–4) #
The extraction restriction follows from the interaction of probing and nominal licensing:
Predicate fronting (§4.2): C bears
[PROBE:FOC], which attracts the closest[+FOC]constituent — normally the vP — to Spec,CP, deriving V-initial word order. The subject/pivot is stranded in Spec,TP after vP fronts.Nominal licensing (§4): T bears
[PROBE:D], which Case-licenses the subject DP in Spec,TP. If a non-subject DP were attracted to Spec,CP by[PROBE:FOC], it would end up in a position with no available Case licensor — the derivation crashes. Therefore only the pivot (already Case-licensed by T) can be Ā-extracted.Non-DP extraction is unrestricted (§4.3): Since the restriction is about nominal licensing, non-DP constituents (adverbs, PPs) can freely front to Spec,CP regardless of voice.
The descriptive generalization is: extraction of a DP argument is grammatical iff it is the pivot for the given voice.
Connection to Mam #
Both TB and Mam involve successive-cyclic movement leaving
morphological traces at clause boundaries. The shared abstraction
is CyclicChain from Position.lean:
- Mam: Each intermediate Voice⁰ Agrees [+oblique], spelling out as =(y)a'. The chain entries correspond to feature-valuation events.
- TB: Each intermediate C⁰ shows extraction voice morphology, reflecting the passage of the wh-element through Spec,CP.
Predict whether extraction is grammatical from voice + extractee.
The nominal licensing analysis predicts:
- DP arguments: extraction is grammatical iff the DP is the pivot, because only the pivot is Case-licensed (by T's [PROBE:D] in Spec,TP) before Ā-extraction (§2–4).
- Non-DP adjuncts: always grammatical, because adjuncts don't need Case licensing (§4.3).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.FillerGap.Studies.Erlewine2018.predictExtraction voice Interfaces.Extractee.adjunct = Fragments.TobaBatak.ExtractionJudgment.grammatical
Instances For
AV + agent (pivot): Case-licensed in Spec,TP → extractable.
AV + patient (non-pivot): no Case licensor in Spec,CP.
AV + oblique (non-pivot): no Case licensor in Spec,CP.
OV + patient (pivot): Case-licensed in Spec,TP → extractable.
OV + agent (non-pivot): no Case licensor in Spec,CP.
OV + oblique (non-pivot): no Case licensor in Spec,CP.
AV + adjunct: no Case needed → freely extractable (§4.3).
OV + adjunct: no Case needed → freely extractable (§4.3).
The structural analysis correctly predicts every monoclausal datum.
For DP arguments, the prediction function agrees with extractsPivot: extraction is grammatical iff the extracted element is the voice- determined pivot. This is the descriptive generalization that the nominal licensing analysis (predicate fronting + Case on T) derives.
For DP arguments, the prediction function IS the pivot check — they agree extensionally on the extraction data. This grounds the descriptive generalization ("only pivots extract") in the licensing analysis ("only Case-licensed DPs can be Ā-extracted, and only the pivot is Case-licensed").
The nominal licensing analysis predicts non-DPs extract freely: since non-DPs don't need Case, the Case-based restriction doesn't apply. This is the distinguishing prediction of §4.3.
VP-raising (@cite{cole-hermon-2008}, Toba Batak) and predicate fronting (@cite{erlewine-2018}, Toba Batak) share the same core prediction: the predicate phrase moves above the subject, yielding V-initial surface order.
Both analyses predict:
- The predicate c-commands the subject at surface structure
- Only the subject (pivot) can subsequently Ā-extract
- Non-DP adjuncts extract freely (not subject to Case licensing)
The key parametric difference:
- @cite{cole-hermon-2008}: VP moves to Spec,TP; subject stranded in Spec,vP
- @cite{erlewine-2018}: vP moves to Spec,CP; subject stranded in Spec,TP
vP-to-Spec,CP analysis #
@cite{erlewine-2018}'s analysis differs structurally from @cite{cole-hermon-2008}:
- @cite{cole-hermon-2008}: VP → Spec,TP (5 steps: 4 EM + 1 IM)
- Erlewine: Subj → Spec,TP then vP → Spec,CP (7 steps: 5 EM + 2 IM)
Both derive the same VOS surface order, but the derived tree is structurally different: Erlewine's has an additional CP layer, and the fronted constituent is vP (containing a subject trace) rather than bare VP.
Little v (Erlewine's analysis, unique ID).
Equations
Instances For
T head (Erlewine's analysis, unique ID).
Equations
Instances For
C head bearing [PROBE:FOC] (Erlewine's analysis, unique ID).
Equations
Instances For
The vP after subject extraction: [vP tSubj [v' v [VP V Obj]]].
The trace marks where the subject DP originated before moving to Spec,TP.
Equations
Instances For
Erlewine's vP-to-Spec,CP derivation for Toba Batak VOS.
Steps (bottom-up):
- EM-R Obj →
[VP V Obj] - EM-L v →
[v' v VP] - EM-L Subj →
[vP Subj [v' v VP]] - EM-L T →
[TP T [vP Subj [v' v VP]]] - IM Subj →
[TP Subj [T' T [vP tSubj [v' v VP]]]] - EM-L C →
[CP C [TP Subj [T' T [vP tSubj [v' v VP]]]]] - IM vP →
[CP [vP tSubj v VP] [C' C [TP Subj [T' T tvP]]]]
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Erlewine's derivation yields VOS word order.
Both analyses agree on VOS surface order despite different structural heights.
Erlewine has TWO movements (Subj → Spec,TP + vP → Spec,CP) vs @cite{cole-hermon-2008}'s ONE (VP → Spec,TP).
Different derived structures despite the same word order.
Fronted vP c-commands the subject in Erlewine's derived tree.
The fronted vP is in Spec,CP; its sister C' dominates the subject in Spec,TP. This yields the same binding prediction as @cite{cole-hermon-2008}'s VP-in-Spec,TP analysis: the predicate phrase c-commands the subject.
Same VP base in both analyses (stage after first merge).