Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Linguistic Review

Editor-in-Chief: van der Hulst, Harry


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.558
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.813

CiteScore 2017: 0.56

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.403
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.876

Online
ISSN
1613-3676
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 33, Issue 1

Issues

Head-head relations in Problems of projection

Vicki Carstens
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Linguistics, Southern Illinois University, 3232 Faner Hall, Carbondale, Illinois
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Norbert Hornstein / T. Daniel Seely
Published Online: 2015-12-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0014

Abstract

Chomsky 2013 argues that D of an external argument in Spec TP is in principle as close to C as T is. Assuming that “inversion depends upon locality independent of category,” T and D should therefore compete with each other as candidates for raising to C in English questions, yet only T so raises. Chomsky takes this to indicate that the external argument is in its base position, Spec, vP, when C is merged. Our paper argues that this approach cannot generalize to account for why only V+v and not D of an external argument can raise to T in V-v-to-T languages. It also has major difficulties accounting for a well-known asymmetry: T raises to C only in English non-subject questions. We conclude that head-movement is sensitive to categorial and other features of lexical items, contra the claims of Chomsky 2013.

Keywords: head-movement; projection; Feature Inheritance; T-to-C; labeling

References

  • Agbayani, Brian. 2000. Wh-subjects in English and the vacuous movement hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 703–713.Google Scholar

  • Brandi, Luciana & Patricia Cordin. 1989. Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter. In Osvaldo Jaggli & Kenneth Safir (eds.), The null subject parameter, 111–142. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2015. On the timing of labeling: deducing Comp-trace effects, the Subject Condition, the Adjunct Condition, and tucking in from labeling. Ms., University of Connecticut.

  • Carstens, Vicki & Loyiso Mletshe. 2015. Radical defectivity: implications of Xhosa expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 46(2).187–242.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1968. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H.-M. Gartner (eds.), Interfaces +Recursion = Language? 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter..Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On Phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130.33–49.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of Projection: Extensions. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond – studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 3–16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Epstein, Sam, Hisa Kitahara, & Daniel Seely. 2010. Uninterpretable features: what are they and what do they do? In Michael Putnam (ed.), Exploring crash-proof grammars, 125–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Epstein, S. D., H. Kitahara & T. D. Seely. 2012. Structure building that can’t be!. In M. Uribe-etxebarria & V. Valmala (eds.), Ways of structure building, 253–270. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Epstein, Samuel, H.Kitahara & T. D.Seely. 2015. ‘What do you wonder’ is not syntactic. In Samuel Epstein, H.Kitahara & T. D.Seely (eds.), Explorations in maximizing syntactic, inimization, 222–239. Routledge: Routledge Leading Linguists Series.Google Scholar

  • Erlewine, Michael. to appear. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.

  • Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Kluwer Publications.Google Scholar

  • Ginzburg, Jonathan & Ivan A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative Investigations. Palo Alto: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Kandybowicz, Jason. 2008. On the incompatibility of Feature Inheritance and the PIC. Ms., Swarthmore College.

  • Kramer, Ruth. 2009. VSO and SVO word order in Middle Egyptian. In Charles G. Häberl (ed.), Afroasiatic studies in memory of Robert Hetzron: Proceedings of the 35th annual North American conference on Asiatic linguistics, 92–147. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar

  • Lasnik, Howard. 1995b. Verbal morphology: Syntactic Structures meets the Minimalist Program. In H. Campos & P. Kempchinsky (eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Carlos Otero, 251–275. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lasnik, Howard (with Marcela Depiante and Arthur Stepanov). 2000. Syntactic structures revisited. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • McCloskey, James. 2005. Predicates and heads in Irish clausal syntax. In Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley & Sheila Ann Dooley (eds.), Verb first: on the syntax of verb-initial languages, 155–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • McCloskey, James. 2000. Quantifier float and Wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1). 57–84.Google Scholar

  • McCloskey, James. 1996. On the scope of verb movement in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14. 47–104.Google Scholar

  • McCloskey, James. 2011. The shape of Irish clauses. In Andrew Carnie (ed.) Formal approaches to Celtic linguistics, 143–178. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

  • McCloskey, James. 2012. Irish existentials in context. To appear in Syntax.

  • Melebari, Ala’a & T. Daniel Seely. 2012. Agreement without ‘exception’ in Standard Arabic? Presentation at the Illinois Symposium on Semitic Linguistics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

  • Mohammad, Mohammad A. 2000. Word order, agreement, and pronominalization in Standard and Palestinian Arabic. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Ouali, Hamid. 2008. On C-to-T ɸ-feature transfer: the nature of agreement and anti-agreement in Berber. In: Rl D’Alessandro, G. H. Hrafnbjargarson & S. Fischer (eds.), Agreement Restrictions, 115–18. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 355–426. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Piatelli-Palmarini, M. (ed.), 1980. Language and learning: the debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pollock 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365–424.Google Scholar

  • Richards, M. 2007. On feature inheritance: an argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 563–572.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 2013. Cartography, criteria, and labeling. Ms, Università di Sienna.

  • Rizzi, Luigi & Ur Shlonsky. 2007. Strategies for subject extraction. In U. Sauerland & H.-M. Gartner (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language?; Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics. Studies in Generative Grammar 89, 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head-movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2007. Anti-agreement, anti-locality, and minimality. Natural language & Linguistic Theory 25.403–446.Google Scholar

  • Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1986. On verb-second and the functional content of syntactic categories. In Haider, Hubert & Martin Prinzhorn (eds.), Verb second phenomena in the Germanic languages, 7–25. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-12-12

Published in Print: 2016-02-01


Citation Information: The Linguistic Review, Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 67–86, ISSN (Online) 1613-3676, ISSN (Print) 0167-6318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0014.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Mayumi Hosono
Studia Linguistica, 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in