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

Phase cancellation by external pair-merge of heads

Samuel D. Epstein / Hisatsugu Kitahara / Daniel Seely
Published Online: 2015-12-05 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0015

Abstract

As Chomsky (2004, 2005) notes, a theory with set-Merge allows this operation to apply in two different ways, externally (to two separate objects) and internally (one object contained within the other). Here we extend Chomsky’s form of argument to pair-Merge; i.e. in the absence of some stipulation preventing it, it too can apply in two ways: internally and externally. We will argue that external pair-Merge of heads overcomes a paradox concerning bridge verb constructions. In the final section we note that external pair-Merge of heads is, in effect, a “presyntactic” morphological (“word formation”) rule entailed by current syntactic theory. The extent to which the standard theory of morphological operations can be subsumed by external pair-Merge of heads, further unifying syntax and (aspects of) morphology is left for further research.

Keywords: merge; pair-merge; minimalism; phase; copies

References

  • Abel, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, antilocality, and adposition stranding. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s Phi? agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 1994. D-structure, theta-criterion, and movement into theta positions. Linguistic Analysis 24. 247–286.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2014. From the Complex NP Constraint to everything: On deep extractions across categories. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs.

  • 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, Storrs.

  • Carstens, Vicki. 2005. Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23. 219–279.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 1–22.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Mart Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, 1–29. New York: 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, 136–166. 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

  • Davis, Lori J. 1984. Arguments and expletives: Thematic and non-thematic noun phrases. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Donati, Caterina. 2006. On wh-head movement. In Lisa Lai-Schen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on, 21–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Epstein, Samuel David. 1990. Differentiation and reduction in syntactic theory: A case study. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8. 313–323.Google Scholar

  • Epstein, Samuel David. 1998. Overt scope marking and covert verb-second. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 181–227.Google Scholar

  • Epstein, Samuel David. 2007. On i(nternalist)-functional explanation in minimalism. Linguistic Analysis 33. 20–53.Google Scholar

  • Epstein, Samuel David, Hisatsugu Kitahara & T. Daniel Seely. 2010. Uninterpretable features: What are they and what do they do? In Michael T. Putnam (ed.), Exploring crash proof grammars, 125–142. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Epstein, Samuel David, Hisatsugu Kitahara & T. Daniel Seely (2015). From Aspects ‘daughterless mothers’ (aka delta nodes) to POP’s ‘motherless’-sets (aka non-projection): a selective history of the evolution of Simplest Merge. To appear in Angel Gallego & Dennis Ott (eds.) 50 years later: Reflections on Chomsky’s Aspects, 99–112. MITWPL Aspects volume.

  • Frampton, John & Sam Gutmann. 2002. Crash-proof syntax. In Samuel David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, 90–105. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2003. Prolific domains: On the antilocality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Jónsson, Johannes Gisli. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in icelandic. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Kayne, Richard. 1989. Facets of romance past participle agreement. In Paolo Benincà (ed.), Dialect variation and the theory of grammar, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Legate, Julie Anne. 2002. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 506–516.Google Scholar

  • McCloskey, James. 1991. There, it, and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 563–567.Google Scholar

  • Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics4(2). Article 14.

  • Marantz, Alec. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds.), Distributed morphology today. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Nobrega, Vitor. 2015. On Merge and Word Formation: the Case of Compounds. U. of Sao Paulo (USP) handout.

  • Nomura, Masashi. 2005. Nominative case and Agree(ment). Doctoral dissertation, Storrs:University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

  • Nomura, Masashi. 2015. On pair-Merge. Unpublished manuscript, Chukyo University.

  • Obata, Miki & Samuel David Epstein. 2012a. Feature-splitting internal merge: the case of tough-constructions. In Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria & Vidal Valmala (eds.), Ways of Structure Building, 366–384. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Obata, Miki & Samuel David Epstein. 2012b. Feature-splitting internal merge: improper movement, intervention, and the A/A’ distinction. Syntax 14. 122–147.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Piggot, Glyne & Lisa Demena Travis. 2013. Adjuncts within heads and complex words. In Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali & Robert Truswell (eds.), Syntax and its limits, 157–174. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford University Press.

  • Putnam, Michael T. 2010. Exploring crash proof grammars. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Richards, Marc. 2009. Internal pair-merge: The missing mode of movement. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8. 55–73.Google Scholar

  • Riqueros, José. 2013. Spanish nominal(ization) patterns. Doctoral dissertation. Storrs:University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

  • Schütze, Carson Theodore. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case, and licensing. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Safir, Kenneth. 1985. Syntactic chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Saito, Mamoru. 2012. Case checking/valuation in Japanese: Move, agree or merge? Nanzan Lingusitics 8. 109–127.Google Scholar

  • Saito, Mamoru. 2013. Conditions on Japanese phrase structure: From morphology to pragmatics. Nanzan Lingusitics 9. 119–145.Google Scholar

  • Saito, Mamoru. 2014. Case and labeling in a language without φ-feature agreement. In Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque & Yoshio Endo (eds.) On peripheries: Exploring clause initial and clause final positions, 269–297. Tokyo: Hitsuzi Syobo Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Saito, Mamoru & Keiko Murasugi. 1999. Subject predication within IP and DP. In Keith Johnson & Ian Roberts (eds.), Beyond principles and parameters, 167–188. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • van Urk, Coppe & Norvin Richards. 2015. Two components of long-distance extraction: Successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46. 113–155.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling & Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3. 441–483.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-12-05

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-2015-0015.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in