Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusions
References

Perspectives on Merge and Labels

Profile image of Ángel J. GallegoÁngel J. Gallego

2017

Abstract

This paper reconsiders so-called freezing effects within Chomsky’s (2004 and sub.) Phase Theory. I argue that freezing (or halting) should not be seen as the consequence of an exocentric {XP,YP} structure in which the heads of XP and YP share some feature (cf. Chomsky 2013, 2015) or as the invisibility of X’ projections (cf. Rizzi 2015). Instead, I submit that A-freezing (Chomsky’s 2000, 2001 Activity Condition) and A-bar freezing (Rizzi’s 2006 Criterial Freezing) should be dealt with by different principles: the former follows from an independently motivated rule of efficient computation (the application of cyclic Transfer; cf. Chomsky 2000, Uriagereka 1999), coupled with Labeling Theory (cf. Chomsky 2013, 2015), whereas the latter is simply syntactically vacuous. In line with previous proposals (cf. Gallego 2009, Epstein, Kitahara & Seely 2016), I claim that XPs in edge positions are not frozen in the narrow syntax (they can always move, unless affected by cyclic Transfer). Nevert...

Related papers

Some (not all) nonsententials are only a phase
catherine fortin

Lingua, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
On Certain Consequences of Feature Spread in Phase-Based Syntax1
Ala'a Mohsen

2007

The paper presents some empirical consequences resulting from the application of Chomsky's phase-based system and, specifically, the implementation of feature spread between phase heads (C, v) and their complements (T,V) , respectively. We begin with a brief overview of the "old" rules for the syntactic derivation and proceed with the description of the innovative concept of feature spread and the way it modifies the derivational process. Next, we hint at some problematic areas for the new system, i.e. extraction from the subject as well as that trace phenomenon. As for the former, we present, based on the comparison of the behaviour of raising as well as control verbs (including, among others, raising and control constructions), some evidence for the theory of Control as movement. What follows, we derive a parametrised version of Subject Condition. Finally, we look at certain facts from Polish (e.g. Genitive of Negation) that seem to lend credibility to the feature spread analysis.

View PDFchevron_right
The syntactic triangle: phases, categories and reference
Boban Arsenijevic

Novi Sad Generative Syntax Workshop, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
Extraction from subjects: Some remarks on Chomsky’s ‘On phases’.
Hans Broekhuis

Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huijbregts, Ursula Kleinhenz en Jan Koster (eds). Organizing Grammar. Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Mouton de Gruyter: Berling, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Putting phases into perspective
Kleanthes K. Grohmann

Syntax, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
The matrix: Merge and the typology of syntactic categories
Andrea Moro

2020

In recent works (Moro 2000; 2009; Chomsky 2013; 2017; Chomsky et al. 2019; Rizzi<br> 2015; 2016) a new type of phrasal structure has been assumed resulting from<br> Merging two XPs where neither XP projects: the unlabelled [XP YP]. This structure<br> stands out as an exception with respect to the typical X0 s and XPs. I will show<br> that by considering some basic properties of Merge in an abstract combinatorial<br> framework the stipulative character of this category is absorbed along with some<br> potential redundancies of UG.

View PDFchevron_right
Labeling, maximality and the head – phrase distinction
Rizzi Luigi

The Linguistic Review, 2016

Combining the labeling algorithm of Chomsky (2013) with bare phrase structure raises the question of how heads (simple or complex) and phrases can be distinguished. I propose a notational device which draws the distinction in a way which solves technical problems for the labeling algorithm. Focusing on phrasal movement, I show how the "halting problem" for wh-movement, and in particular the freezing effects arising in criterial positions, can be derived from labeling and a maximality principle, restricting movement to maximal elements with a given label. Looking then at head movement, I argue that it can be made consistent with the No Tampering condition, and work out the labeling algorithm for structures derived by head movement. Finally, I argue that the ban against excorporation in head movement can be analyzed as a case of freezing, and traced back, much as freezing in phrasal movement, to the maximality principle relativized to the headphrase distinction.

View PDFchevron_right
Constraint on Merge: The Roots of the Lexical/Functional Divide
Ludovico Franco

Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2012

This paper addresses the following questions: is (external) merge, the binary operation that combines two elements into a constituent in every variant of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1993, 1995 and related works), an unconstrained operation? If so, what avoid generating ill-formed structures? I will argue here for a simple functional / lexical constraint on Merge, assuming a possible principled binary opposition for the items which enter the syntactic derivation. I will basically follow Kayne (2009), who assumes that the class of nouns (or L-roots) is the only open (lexical) class in grammar, updating the intuitions of Hale and Keyser (1993). This proposal leads to interesting structural and typological consequences.

View PDFchevron_right
The Extended Merge Hypothesis and the Fundamental Principle of Grammar
Norbert Hornstein

Philosophies, 2021

This paper discusses the main minimalist theory within the Minimalist Program, something I dub the (Weak) Merge Hypothesis (MH). (1) The (Weak) Merge Hypothesis (MH): Merge is a central G operation. I suggest that we extend (1) by adding to it a general principle that I dub the Fundamental Principle of Grammar (FPG). (2) The Fundamental Principle of Grammar (FPG): α and β can be grammatically related. (G-related) only if α and β have merged. Adding (1) and (2) gives us the Strong Merge Hypothesis. (3) The Strong Merge Hypothesis (SMH): All grammatical dependencies are mediated by Merge. SMH has some interesting consequences which the rest of the paper briefly reviews. Highlights include the Movement Theory of Construal, The Periscope Property on selection, as well as preserving the standard results from the Weak Merge Hypothesis.

View PDFchevron_right
Neither Unified Nor Free: Some Inconsistencies in Problems of Projection (2016, Studies in Modern Grammar 91)
Jae-Young Shim

Studies in Modern Grammar, 2016

This paper examines the validity of the two claims advocated in Chomsky (2014) and address some inconsistencies in these claims. One claim concerns the proposed unification of the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) and the Empty Category Principle (ECP) under the labeling theory Chomsky advances in the paper. This paper shows that the EPP and the ECP are not in fact given a unified account under labeling theory as proposed but rather they are still approached by the two independent principles, i.e. the EPP by labeling and the ECP by the Phase Impenetrability Condition. The other claim that this paper investigates is on the proposal that the operation Merge can apply freely in relation to other operations in the syntax. This paper shows that at least in certain cases, the timing of the application of Merge cannot be free but should instead be constrained, especially in relation to the operation of Labeling Algorithm.

View PDFchevron_right

References (88)

  1. Adger, D. & P. Svenonius. 2011. Features in Minimalist Syntax. In Boeckx, C. (ed.) The handbook of linguistic mini- malism, 27-51. Oxford: Blackwells.
  2. Bach, E. & G. Horn 1976. Remarks on 'Conditions on Transformations'. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 265-361.
  3. Benincà, P. & N. Munaro. 2010. Mapping the Left Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Blümel, A. 2014. Propagating Symmetry -Case Studies in exocentric Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt.
  5. Bošković, Ž. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic In- quiry 27: 1-68.
  6. Bošković, Ž. 2008. On the operator freezing effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 249-287.
  7. Bosque, I. & Á.J. Gallego. 2014. "Reconsidering Subextraction: Evidence from Spanish". Borealis 3: 223-258.
  8. Broekhuis, H. 2006. Extraction from subjects: some remarks on Chomsky's 'On phases'. In Organizing grammar. Studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, H. Broekhuis et al. (eds.), 59-68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  9. Chomsky, N. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.
  10. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  11. Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformation. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.), 232-286. New York: Holt, Renehart and Winston. [reprinted in Chomsky 1977b]
  12. Chomsky, N. 1986a. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  13. Chomsky, N. 1986b. Knowledge of language. Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
  14. Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  15. Chomsky, N. 1995. Categories and transformations. In The minimalist program, 219-394. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  16. Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin et al. (eds.), 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  17. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  18. Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures (vol. 3), A. Belletti (ed.), 104-131. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
  19. Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1-22.
  20. Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky's minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, U. Sauerland & H-M. Gärtner (eds.), 1-30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  21. Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, C. Otero et al. (eds.), 134-166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  22. Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of Projection. Lingua 130: 33-49.
  23. Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of Projection. Extensions. In Structures, Strategies and Beyond, E. di Domenico et al. (eds.), 1-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  24. Chomsky, N., Á.J. Gallego & D. Ott. 2017. Generative Grammar and the Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions, and Challenges. Ms. available in Lingbuzz [http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003507]
  25. Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Cinque, G. 2004. Issues in adverbial syntax. Lingua 114: 683-710.
  26. Collins, C. 2002. Eliminating labels. In Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, S. Epstein & T. Seely (eds.), 106-132. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  27. Donati, C. 2006. "On wh-head movement". In Wh-movement: moving on, L. Cheng and N. Corver (eds.), 21-46. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.
  28. Epstein, S. 1992. Derivational Constraints on A-bar Chain Formation. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 235-259.
  29. Epstein, S. & D. Seely. 2002. Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax. In Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, S. Epstein & D. Seely (eds.), 65-89. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  30. Epstein, S. & D. Seely. 2006. Derivations in minimalism: Exploring the elimination of A-chains and the EPP. Cam- bridge: CUP.
  31. Epstein, S., H. Kitahara, & D. Seely. 2016. What do we wonder is not syntactic? In S. Epstein et al. (eds.), Explor- ations in Maximizing Syntactic Minimization, 222-239. London: Routledge.
  32. Freidin, R. 1999. Cyclicity and Minimalism. In S. D. Epstein & N. Hornstein, Working Minimalism, 95-126. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.
  33. Gallego, Á.J. 2009. On Freezing Effects. Iberia 1: 33-51.
  34. Gallego, Á.J. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  35. Gallego, Á.J. 2012. Phases. Developing the Framework. Berlin: De Gruyter.
  36. Gallego, Á.J. 2014. Deriving Feature Inheritance from the Copy Theory of Movement. The Linguistic Review 31: 41- 71.
  37. Gallego, Á.J. & J. Uriagereka. 2011. Dos tipos de argumentos y la distinción indicativo vs. subjuntivo. Cuadernos de la ALFAL 3: 188-199.
  38. Gallistel, C.R. & A.P. King. 2009. Memory and the Computational Brain: Why Cognitive Science will Transform Neuroscience. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
  39. Grohmann, K. 2003. Prolific Peripheries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  40. Haegeman, L. & V. Hill. 2010. The syntacticization of discourse. Ms., Ghent University and University of New Brunswick-SJ.
  41. Hale, K. & S. Keyser. 1993. On the argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of sylvain bromberger, K. Hale & S. Keyser (eds.), 53-109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  42. Hale, K. & Keyser, S. 1997. The limits of argument structure. In Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax inter- face, A. Mendikoetxea & M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.), 203-230. Bilbao: Servicio de Publicaciones de la UPV.
  43. Hale, K. & S. Keyser. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. In MIT working papers in linguistics 32: Papers from the Upenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure, H. Harley (ed.), 73-118. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  44. Hale, K. & S. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  45. Hiraiwa, K. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Hornstein, N. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.
  46. Hornstein, N. 2009. A theory of syntax: Basic operations and the minimalist program. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.
  47. Huang, J. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D Dissertation, MIT.
  48. Kayne, R. 1989. Facets of Romance past participial agreement. In Dialectal Variation and the Theory of Grammar, P. Benincà (ed.), 85-103. Foris: Dordrecht
  49. Kitahara, H. 2016. External Merge of Internal Argument DP to VP and Its Theoretical Implications. In S. Epstein et al. (eds.), Explorations in Maximizing Syntactic Minimization, 195-200. London: Routledge.
  50. Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
  51. Lasnik, H. 2006. Conceptions of the cycle. In Wh-movement: moving on, L. Cheng & N. Corver (eds.), 197-216. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.
  52. Lasnik, H. & M. Saito. 1992. Move α: conditions on its applications and outputs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  53. López, L. 2009. A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  54. Moro, A. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. Movement as a symmetry breaking phenomenon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  55. Murphy, E. 2015. The brain dynamics of linguistic computation. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1515.
  56. Narita, H. 2014. Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  57. Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  58. Obata, M. 2010. Root, successive-cyclic and feature-splitting internal Merge: Implications for feature-inheritance and transfer. Ph.D. Dissertation, U.Michigan.
  59. Ott, D. 2011. A note on free relative clauses in the theory of phases. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 183-192.
  60. Ott, D. 2014. 2014. An ellipsis approach to Contrastive Left-dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 269-303.
  61. Pesetsky, D. 2007. Undermerge . . . and the secret geniti ve inside every Russian noun. Handout of a talk at Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguisitcs 16.
  62. Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego. 2001. "T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences". In Ken Hale: A life in language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 355-426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  63. Pylkännen, L. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  64. Richards, M. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase ompenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 563-572.
  65. Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  66. Rizzi, L. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Parameters and functional heads: essays in comparative syntax, A. Belleti & L. Rizzi (eds.), 63-90. Oxford, NY : Oxford University Press.
  67. Rizzi, L. 1997. "The fine structure of the left periphery". In Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  68. Rizzi, L. 2000. Comparative syntax and language acquisition. London: Routledge.
  69. Rizzi, L. 2001. On the position "Int(errogative)" in the left periphery of the clause. In Current studies in Italian syntax offered to Lorenzo Renzi, G. Cinque & G. Salvi (eds.), 287-296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  70. Rizzi, L. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures (vol. 3), A. Belletti (ed.), 223-251. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
  71. Rizzi, L. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In wh-movement: Moving on, L. Cheng & N. Corver (eds.), 97-133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  72. Rizzi, L. 2007. On some properties of rciterial freezing. CISCL working papers on language and cognition 1: 145-158.
  73. Rizzi, L. 2015. Notes on Labeling and Subject Positions. In Structures, strategies and beyond, E. di Domenico et al. (eds.), 17-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  74. Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
  75. Rubio, C. 2014. Syntactic Constraints on Topicalization Phenomena. PhD Dissertation, UAB.
  76. Šimík, R. 2011. The elimination of formal wh-features and a theory of free wh-movement. Ms., Universität Potsdam.
  77. Speas, M. & C. Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in grammar, A.M. Di Sciullo (ed.), 315-344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  78. Starke, M. 2001. Move dissolves into Merge: A theory of locality. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Geneva. Stepanov, A. 2001. Cyclic domains in syntactic theory. Ph.D. Dissertation, UConn.
  79. Suñer, M. 1999. La interrogación indirecta. In I. Bosque I. & Demonte (coords.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 2149-2195. Madrid: Espasa.
  80. Takahashi, D. 1994. Minimality of Movement. PhD. Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
  81. Torrego, E. 1985. On empty categories in nominals. Ms., UMass Boston.
  82. Torrego, E. & J. Uriagereka. 1992. Indicative dependents. Ms., UMass Boston/UMD.
  83. Uriagereka, J. 1995. An F position in Western Romance. In Discourse configurational languages, K. Kiss (ed.), 153- 175.
  84. Uriagereka, J. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism, N. Hornstein & S. Epstein (eds.), 251-282. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.
  85. Uriagereka, J. 2008. Syntactic anchors. On semantic structuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  86. Uriagereka, J. 2011. Derivational cycles. In The handbook of linguistic minimalism, C. Boeckx (ed.), 239-259. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  87. Wexler, K. & P. Culicover. 1981. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  88. Zeijlstra, H. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29: 491-539.

Related papers

Computation with doubling constituents: Pronouns and antecedents in Phase Theory
Anna Maria Di Sciullo

2012

In the biolinguistics program, syntax has access to only limited and minimal operations such as Merge (and Move) plus local (to Phase) probe-goal, Chomsky (2000, 2001). Under this blueprint, the challenge for implementation is twofold: (1) to show that such a system operating locally can systematically derive complex facts, and (2) that computation, i.e. the selection of the appropriate operation is locally (and perhaps globally) efficient. To this end, available mechanisms may be prioritized to create an unambiguous instruction stream, e.g. Merge over Move. In this paper, we develop a computationally verified implementation of classic Binding Theory facts, including pronoun and anaphor asymmetries for mono-and multi-clausal sentences, possessive DPs, and picture DPs. We take as our starting point Chomsky's probe-goal system plus Kayne's (2002) doubling constituent proposal for pronoun-antecedent coreference relations. Within this framework, maintaining Phase locality between probe and goal forces independent licensing of an r-expression from its pronominal component via an operation of Last Resort theta Merge. We maintain that this Last Resort variant of Merge maintains the computational efficiency of the probe-goal system in that it operates precisely at the limit of probe-goal search domain and it does not introduce any additional choice points into the instruction stream.

View PDFchevron_right
Labeling and Other Syntactic Operations
Petr Biskup

This article proposes certain modifications to the minimalist system, among which labeling plays a prominent role. It argues for a specific model of cyclic Transfer, where every operation Merge constitutes a phase. The operation labeling is a prerequisite of Transfer and can be delayed. This allows syntactic objects to escape from a phase. Because of the early Transfer, movement is triggered by a greedy feature on the moving syntactic object. It will be shown that the proposed system can straightforwardly derive the following movement phenomena: freezing effects, order preservation in multiple movement, the prohibition of headless XP-movement and the ban on acyclic combinations of incorporations. It will be also shown that the proposal has certain advantages over Chomsky's minimalist system.

View PDFchevron_right
Freezing Effects in a free-Merge System
Ángel J. Gallego

This paper reconsiders so-called freezing effects within Chomsky’s (2004 and sub.) Phase Theory. I argue that freezing (or halting) should not be seen as the consequence of an exocentric {XP,YP} structure in which the heads of XP and YP share some feature (cf. Chomsky 2013, 2015) or as the invisibility of X’ projections (cf. Rizzi 2015). Instead, I submit that A-freezing (Chomsky’s 2000, 2001 Activity Condition) and A-bar freezing (Rizzi’s 2006 Crite-rial Freezing) should be dealt with by different principles: the former follows from an independently motivated rule of efficient computation (the application of cyclic Transfer; cf. Chomsky 2000, Uriagereka 1999), coupled with Labeling Theory (cf. Chomsky 2013, 2015), whereas the latter is simply syntactically vacuous. In line with previous proposals (cf. Gallego 2009, Epstein, Kitahara & Seely 2016), I claim that XPs in edge positions are not frozen in the narrow syntax (they can always move, unless affected by cyclic Transfer). Nevertheless, such XPs may be part of a configura-tion and thus receive an interpretation at the semantic component (cf. Chomsky 2001, 2004). Therefore, if they move from an edge, the relevant interpretation at that edge (be it topic, focus, etc.) will be lost, as interpretations of the rele-vant kind (theta-roles, criterial-roles, etc.) cannot accumulate, which I ultimately attribute to a Principle of Interface Freezing, whose effects can be subsumed under the Principle of Full Interpretation (cf. Chomsky 1986a).

View PDFchevron_right
Working Papers 6: Minimalist Perspective on Child Syntax. Other Theoretical Implications: Labels, Phases, and Treelet-structures.
Joseph Galasso

Much of the impetus behind our current thinking of syntactic theory has to do with the notion of movement operations—both at the morphological as well as at the syntactic level. The idea developed herein is that movement is no longer just a metaphor as was once used for linguistic theory—just as the syntactic tree is no longer a mere model of syntax—but rather that 'movement up the syntactic tree' has become better understood as bearing a real physiological relevancy regarding how aspects of morphosyntactic displacement get pegged to certain cortical regions of the brain. In other words, linguistic theory has now become biology, and biology is maturational. Hence, the nature of syntactic movement and whether or not it occurs at early stages of child language development has become the central focus which undergirds much of the literature on child syntax, making-up a maturational-based brain-to-language corollary. In this chapter, we will take a closer look at recursive Move [z i , [x, y, z i ]] and its sister operation Merge [x + y = z] and see if the two follow from a biologically-determined maturational timeline, as evidenced by the data. Regarding child language acquisition, theoretical implications follow which demonstrate a Merge over Move account of developmental syntax. Regarding theoretical syntax (as assumed by the Minimalist Program (MP)), implications can be drawn which suggest that the notion of Phase—which had earlier been assumed to cover only vP, CP (Chomsky 2000)—can be extended to any constituency which is 'affected' both at the syntactic and/or semantic levels at transfer by the presence or absence of movement. Thus MOVE defines the phase, as it defines whether or not the string advances up the tree for additional feature checking. The MOVE/Phase Axiom: (a) If movement blocks a constituency from transfer/interpretation, than that constituency is a phase. (Transfer is denoted with the symbol [ /$/ ] placed in front of constituent). (b) Otherwise all stings must transfer as early as possible in the derivation. Whether a string transfers, it not being blocked by movement, than that string is a phase.

View PDFchevron_right
Remarks on Labeling and Determinacy
William Kruger

Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 2023

An important goal of theoretical work from a Minimalist perspective is to identify “third-factor” constraints on syntactic rules and operations stemming from general principles of computational optimization and efficiency (Chomsky 2005, 2008). Recent work by Chomsky et al. (2019) and Epstein et al. (2018) develops a principle of “Determinacy” whereby the input or output of a rule is required to correspond one-to-one with a single term in the domain of that rule, thereby ruling out “ambiguous” or “indeterminate” rule-applications. The goals of this short article are threefold. The first goal is to explain the potential for a principle of Determinacy to motivate certain restrictions on syntactic rules (e.g., Merge) by reviewing proposals by Goto and Ishii (2019, 2020). The second goal is to apply Determinacy to the labeling procedure developed by Chomsky (2013, 2015) in order to account for restrictions on labeling in contexts where multiple potential labels are available. The third goal is to deploy Determinacy to provide an explanation for Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) proposal that syntactic movement of an item ("Internal Merge") renders it invisible to the labeling procedure.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved