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

The Linguistic Review

Editor-in-Chief: van der Hulst, Harry

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.676
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.831

CiteScore 2016: 0.52

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.662
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.573

Online
ISSN
1613-3676
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 33, Issue 1 (Feb 2016)

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, ISSN (Online) 1613-3676, ISSN (Print) 0167-6318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0014.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in