Abstract
This work aims to enhance the theory of Dynamic Asymmetry by including symmetric head-head structures, the inevitable first step of any derivation (the “ignition” problem). The symmetry-breaking “repair” options available give rise to basic head-initial and head-final word orders. One of the consequences of this approach is that all word-order parameters reduce to head movement options. We take this to be a conceptual advance for the theory of word order variation. This approach and the empirical data discussed here also provide us with a unique opportunity to consider the role of labelling and linearization in the architecture of universal grammar.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Here we follow Chomsky (2013) in using the symbol α as a placeholder to refer to a syntactic object which is yet to be labelled.
Here we are assuming the standard definition of c-command from Reinhart (1983): (i) α c-commands β if and only if the first branching node γ dominating α dominates β. By this definition, the lower occurrence of X and Root clearly c-command one another. For asymmetric c-command to obtain, one of α or β must have internal structure, but that is not case here by assumption: we are dealing with externally merged elements. Given Kayne’s (1994: 16) category-based definition of c-command neither X nor Root asymmetrically c-commands the other and so the structure is equally unlinearisable. Kayne’s definition of c-command runs as follows: (ii) X c-commands Y iff X and Y are categories and every category that dominates X dominates Y. In (4c), as given, no category dominates either Xmin or Root; moreover, Xmin is not a category, but a segment, and Root is not a category as it has no categorial features. Alternatively, since Kayne’s definition of c-command is based on the distinction between segments and categories, we could postulate that this distinction does not apply to heads. In that case, once again the structure in (8) would be unlinearisable since the lower copy of X would symmetrically c-command Root. See also fn. 7.
A reviewer points out that movement of the Root may be incompatible with the idea that Roots are not syntactic objects. Following what we take to be the standard view in Bare Phrase Structure, we assume Roots are syntactic objects, since they are visible to Merge; however, they are inert for many syntactic operations since they lack formal features.
Here we must assume Reinhart’s notion of c-command rather than Kayne’s (see fn. 5). If not, by Kayne’s definition of c-command here, with β = X, Y = Root does not c-command X and so linearization becomes impossible. This problem does not arise, however, if we adopt the suggestion in fn. 5 that the segment-copy distinction does not hold for heads. In order to prevent the intermediate X c-commanding Root, giving an ordering paradox, we would have to add the specification “every category distinct from X that dominates X dominates Y” to Kayne’s definition in fn. 5.
Since we assume that movement is not driven by feature-checking, Abels’ (2003) argument against this kind of movement dissolves. This conclusion does not imply that there is no anti-locality constraint; it implies that complement-to-specifier movement is not necessarily too local (essentially stipulated by Biberauer et al. 2014) and that feature-driven anti-locality is not relevant to cases of movement not driven by features, which is what we are concerned with here.
A reviewer points out that if the Root Y has categorial features, then movement of Y will result as head-movement since Y will then label β (this being a derived head-complement structure, with the non-minimal projection of X the complement of the moved Y). So Y-movement gives rise to a head-initial structure. This is not rollup since Xmin is not the head of the derived category; only when the acategorial Root raises do we have this result. The reviewer is correct to point this out, but it doesn’t alter the point that head-movement and Root-movement give rise to the different outcomes we describe.
For non-root cases of (4c), see the discussion in Moro (2000: 84–92) and references given there. In a nutshell, the cases considered there include clitics. One interesting case for example is the “locative clitic” lì (‘there’) which involves movement. Italian dialects offer both possibilities to solve the POS: in northern Italian dialects such as Pavese (Lombardy) we have lì lü (‘there he’; ‘he’ with a strong deictic force as in ‘that person over there’) whereas in Massa (Tuscany) we have the opposite type lu lì (‘he there’; ‘he’ with the same deictic interpretation).
The question arises as to how far we can replace feature-driven movement with DA-driven movement. This is not the place to develop a general theory of movement, but we see this prospect as a desirable outcome of the current proposals. For a DA-driven account of wh-movement, see Moro (2000: 49–61) and the extended discussion of this account for was-für split constructions in Ott (2015).
By “harmonic” we mean that all head-complement pairs show the same linear order, regardless of category. This is essentially the sense of word-order harmony that originates in Greenberg (1963) and is formulated in terms of heads and complements in Hawkins (1983); see also Biberauer and Sheehan (2013).
In principle, the “flip” from Move X to Move Y or vice versa is free. This means that the disharmonic orders that arise can be either head-final over head-initial or head-initial over head-final. However, the Final-Over-Final Condition of Sheehan et al. (2017) rules out the former option. FOFC can be informally stated as follows: A head-final phrase XP cannot immediately dominate a head-initial phrase YP (in a given local domain). FOFC itself does not follow from the mechanisms under consideration here; the proposals here are entirely independent of this generalisation and whatever it may follow from (see Biberauer et al. 2014; Erlewine 2017; Sheehan et al. 2017; Roberts 2019: 161; and Zeijlstra 2022 for different proposals in this regard). Moreover, if FOFC turns out to be incorrect (more precisely, if it emerges that it is really just a tendency with exceptions), this would not alter the proposals being made here.
We formulate the discussion here in terms of probes and goals since we are reporting the earlier discussions of Ledgeway and Roberts, which were formulated in those terms. Given (5a), we do not regard probe-goal relations as movement triggers (which would entail a further “EPP stipulation,” contra a DA approach). But this does not mean that probe-goal Agree does not exist at all, a point on which we remain neutral here.
As for a comprehensive taxonomy of syntactic objects and the possibility to derive them from more abstract features, see Moro (2018) and references cited there. The idea is that syntactic objects can be generated by combining two opposite values: +/− atomic vs. +/− encapsulated, where “+ atomic element” means that no part of the element can be targeted by Internal Merge and “+ encapsulable element” means that it can be merged to an XP without projecting (the − values obviously represent the opposite). The systematic combination of these values generates a matrix where: −atomic, +encapsulable are XPs; +atomic, −encapsulable are X°; −atomic, −encapsulable are Bare Small Clauses, namely XP XP constructions; finally, +atomic, +encapsulable are expletives, such as there.
An anonymous reviewer points out that a version of this generalization, and a possible associated POS, may arise in Cinque’s (2005) account of Greenberg’s Universal 20. This may be correct, but a full consideration of Universal 20 and Cinque’s important generalization that any category moving within DP must contain the lexical N would go beyond the aims of this short paper. See Cinque (2013) for an extension of this generalization to movements within the clause. We hope to address these questions in future work.
Note that FOFC is relevant here, in that if a system opts for the head-movement option in (11) at the lowest structural level it cannot “flip” to rollup at higher levels, on pain of violating FOFC. On the other hand, a system opting for rollup at the lowest level can “flip” to head-movement at higher levels, giving various permitted forms of disharmonic orders (and, presumably, mixed head- and dependent-marking).
There may be a further option of rescuing the symmetrical structure by moving the VP to a higher position without verb-movement, much as it happens in causatives in Italian such as in … far [α[VPlavare la macchina] a [Gianni t] (‘make clean the car to Gianni’; ‘make Gianni clean the car’) according to the analysis proposed in Guasti and Moro (2001). This may be a motivation for smuggling derivations in general, including in passives in many languages; see Collins (2005) and the papers in Belletti and Collins (2020).
Neither does rollup of the IA create a POS since we assume it is adjunction. VP is labelled as such since it is a head-complement construction and the raised IA asymmetrically c-commands V and so is linearised so as to precede it. See fn. 5 for discussion of Kayne’s definition of c-command, along with the distinction between segments and categories.
This entails that the structure of VP shown in (21) is simplified. What we have called “V” here is in fact a complex structure of the form in (9). In turn this implies that there are two v’s: one forming the “V” head and the other, as shown in (21) introducing the EA.
Of course, the analysis of voice alternations remains open (but see Kallulli and Roberts 2022 for a new proposal). In any case, a theory of predication is needed: a proposal which is consistent with the DA analysis is put forward in Moro (2019): predication is encoded in grammar via a symmetric XP XP relation, implying that predication always triggers movement. This issue is independent of the possibility of raising the IA over the EA in languages which allow VP movement, such as in Italian postverbal subject constructions like: [VP legge un libro] … [SC Gianni t]] (reads a book Gianni; “Gianni reads a book”). See also fn. 18.
References
Abe, Jun. 2016. Dynamic antisymmetry for labelling. Lingua 174: 1–15.
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 193–231.
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2006. The subject-in-situ generalization revisited. In Interfaces + recursion = language?, eds. Hans-Martin Gärtner and Uli Sauerland, 31–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barrie, Michael. 2011a. Dynamic antisymmetry and the syntax of noun incorporation, Vol. 84. Dordrecht: Springer.
Barrie, Michael. 2011b. Unifying antisymmetry and bare phrase structure. In Dynamic antisymmetry and the syntax of noun incorporation, Vol. 84, 53–91. Dordrecht: Springer.
Barrie, Michael. 2006. Dynamic antisymmetry and the syntax of noun incorporation. PhD diss., University of Toronto.
Belletti, Adriana. 2017. Labeling (Romance) causatives. In Elements of comparative syntax: Theory and description, eds. Enoch O. Aboh, Eric Haeberli, Genoveva Puskás, and Manuela Schönenberger, 13–46. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Belletti, Adriana, and Chris Collins. 2020. Smuggling in syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biberauer, Theresa, and Michelle Sheehan. 2013. Introduction. In Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word order, eds. Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan, 1–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, and Ian Roberts. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 169–225.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Phi theory, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bury, Dirk. 2003. Phrase structure and derived heads. PhD diss., UCL.
Carnie, Andrew, and Eithne Guilfoyle, eds. 2000. The syntax of verb-initial languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare phrase structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 3, ed. Adriana Belletti, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean–Roger Vergnaud, eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–167. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noah. 2012. Poverty of the stimulus: Willingness to be puzzled. In Rich languages from poor inputs, eds. Massimo Piattelli Palmarini and Robert C. Berwick, 61–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015a. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Structures, strategies and beyond. Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, eds. Elisa Di Domenico, Simona Matteini, and Cornelia Hamann, 1–16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015b. Some core contested concepts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44(1): 91–104.
Chomsky, Noam, and Andrea Moro. 2023. The secrets of words. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam, Daniel Seely, Robert C. Berwick, Sandiway Fong, M. A. C. Huijbregts, Hisatsugu Kitahara, Andrew McInnerney, and Yushi Sugimoto. 2023. Merge and the strong minimalist thesis. Elements in generative syntax series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–332.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2013. Deriving word order types: A change of perspective. In Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word order, eds. Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan, 47–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2020. The syntax of relative clauses: A unified analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2023. On linearization: Toward a restrictive theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Citko, Barbara. 2005. On the nature of merge: External merge, internal merge, and parallel merge. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 475–496.
Citko, Barbara. 2008a. Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118(3): 261–295.
Citko, Barbara. 2008b. Missing labels. Lingua 118(7): 907–944.
Citko, Barbara. 2011. Symmetry in syntax: Merge, move and labels, Vol. 129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Robin, and Ian Roberts. 1993. A computational approach to language learnability and language change. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 299–345.
Clemens, Lauren, and Jessica Coon. 2018. Deriving verb-initial word order in Mayan. Language 94: 237–280.
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8: 81–120.
Coon, Jessica. 2013. Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coon, Jessica, Diane Massam, and Lisa Travis, eds. 2017. The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
den Dikken, Marcel. 1997. Predicate inversion in DP. In Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase, eds. Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder, 177–214. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
den Dikken, Marcel, and Pornsiri Singhapreecha. 2004. Complex noun phrases and linkers. Syntax 7(1): 1–54.
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 2005. Asymmetry in morphology. Linguistic inquiry monograph series. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Donati, Caterina. 2006. On wh-head-movement. In Wh-movement: Moving on, eds. Lisa Cheng and Norbert Corver, 21–46. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Erlewine, Michael Y. 2017. Low sentence final particle in Mandarin Chinese and the FOFC. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 26: 37–75.
Ernout, A., and F. Thomas. 1953. Syntaxe latine, II edition. Paris: Editions Klincksieck.
Gallego, Ángel, and Noam Chomsky. 2020. The faculty of language: A biological object, a window into the mind, and a bridge across disciplines. Revista de la Sociedad Española de Lingüistica.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of language, ed. Joseph H. Greenberg, 58–90. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Guasti, Maria Teresa, and Andrea Moro. 2001. Romance causatives and dynamic antisymmetry. In Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, eds. Guglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi. Vol. 59 of North-Holland linguistic series: Linguistic variations, 173–188. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Haider, Hubert. 2013. Symmetry breaking in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kallulli, Dalina, and Ian Roberts. 2022. On voice. Talk given at the Romance linguistics online seminar, Cambridge/Newcastle.
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 2008. The antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8(1): 1–32.
Kayne, Richard S. 2013. Why are there no directionality parameters? In Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word orders, eds. Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan, 219–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 2019. Notes on expletive there. The Linguistic Review 37(2): 209–230.
Kayne, Richard S. 2022. Temporal/linear order, antisymmetry and externalization. Ms., New York University/University of Arizona.
Kayne, Richard S., and Andrea Moro. 2022. A note on zero and silent negation. Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt 24 (Festschrift in honor of Cecilia Poletto’s 60th birthday Vol. 1) 24: 237–247.
Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The syntax of verbs: From verb movement rules in the Kru languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
Ledgeway, Adam. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lohndal, Terje. 2006. The phrase structure of the copula. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 78: 37–75.
Magrassi, Lorenzo, Giuseppe Aromataris, Alessandro Cabrini, Valerio Annovazzi-Lodi, and Andrea Moro. 2015. Sound representation in higher language areas during language generation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(6): 1868–1873.
Mahajan, Anoop. 1994. Universal Grammar and the typology of ergative languages. Ms., UCLA.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, eds. Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark, and Alexander Williams, 201–225. University of Pennsylvania, Penn Linguistics Club.
Martinet, André. 1955. Economie des changements phonétiques. Bern: A. Frank.
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 153–197.
Massam, Diane. 2005. Predicate fronting and lexical category in Niuean. In Verb first: Studies in predicate initial languages, eds. Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Sheila Dooley-Colburg, 227–242. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mocci, Davide, and Tiziana Pontillo. 2019. Predication in Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.1.56. Syntactic analysis of a karmadhāraya compound. Aevum 93(1): 3–38.
Moro, Andrea. 1997a. Dynamic antisymmetry: Movement as a symmetry-breaking phenomenon. Studia Linguistica 51: 50–76.
Moro, Andrea. 1997b. The raising of predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Moro, Andrea. 2004. Linear compression as a trigger for movement. In Triggers, eds. Anne Breitbarth and Henk C. van Riemsdijk, 387–429. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Moro, Andrea. 2009. Rethinking symmetry: A note on labeling and the EPP. Snippets 19: 17–18.
Moro, Andrea. 2010. Breve storia del verbo “essere”. Milano: Adelphi. [English translation, 2017. A short history of “be”. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]
Moro, Andrea. 2011. The equilibrium of human syntax: Symmetries in the brain. Leading linguists series. New York: Routledge.
Moro, Andrea. 2016. Impossible languages. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Moro, Andrea. 2018. The matrix: Merge and the typology of syntactic categories. In Syntactic architecture and its consequences II: Between syntax and morphology, eds. András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie Douglas, and Sten Vikner, 81–92. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Moro, Andrea. 2019. The geometry of predication: A configurational derivation of the defining properties of clause structure. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society B 375, 20190310.
Muysken, Pieter. 1982. Parametrizing the notion ‘head’. Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 57–75.
Nichols, Joanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62: 56–119.
Nichols, Joanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ott, Dennis. 2009. Stylistic fronting as remnant movement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 83: 141–178.
Ott, Dennis. 2012. Local instability: Split topicalization and quantifier float in German, Vol. 544. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ott, Dennis. 2015. Symmetric merge and local instability: Evidence from split topics. Syntax 18(2): 157–200.
Pearson, Matthew. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A’-element. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 381–457.
Pearson, Matthew. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A minimalist approach. PhD diss., UCLA.
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007. Copular sentences in Russian: A theory of intra-clausal relations, Vol. 70. Berlin: Springer.
Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The higher functional field: Evidence from the northern Italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees, Vol. 56. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2013. Locality. Lingua 130: 169–186.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2015. Notes on labelling and subject position. In Structures, strategies and beyond. Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, eds. Elisa Di Domenico, Simona Matteini, and Cornelia Hamann. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pulishing Company.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2016. Labeling, maximality and the head-phrase distinction. The Linguistic Review 33(1): 103–127.
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics and defective goals, Vol. 59. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Roberts, Ian. 2012. Macroparameters and minimalism: A programme for comparative research. In Parameter theory and linguistic change, eds. Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar, 320–334. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, Ian. 2019. Parameter hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, Ian. 2020. Smuggling, ergativity and the final over final condition. In Smuggling in syntax, eds. Adriana Belletti and Chris Collins, 318–352. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, Ian. 2021. Dyachronic syntax, 2nd edn. OUP.
Schifano, Norma. 2018. Verb movement in Romance: A comparative study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sheehan, Michelle. 2013. Explaining the final-over-final constraint. In Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word order, eds. Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan, 407–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sheehan, Michelle, Theresa Biberauer, Ian Roberts, and Anders Holmberg. 2017. The final-over-final condition: A syntactic universal. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Shlonsky, Ur, and Luigi Rizzi. 2018. Criterial freezing in small clauses and the cartography of copular constructions. In Freezing: Theoretical approaches and empirical domains, eds. Jutta Hartmann, Marion Jäger, Andreas Kehl, Andreas Konietzko, and Susanne Winkler, 29–65. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Song, Jae Jung. 2014. Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax, 2nd edn. London: Longman.
Taraldsen, Tarald. 2017. Remarks on the relation between case-alignment and constituent order. In The Oxford handbook of ergativity, eds. Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa Travis, 332–354. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD diss., MIT.
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the determiner phrase. New York: Garland Publishing.
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2022. FOFC and what left-right asymmetry may tell us about syntactic structure building. Journal of Linguistics 59: 179–213.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2011. Structure and order: Asymmetric merge. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 96–118. Online edition, Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.013.0005.
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at Linearise Constituents Across Domains Congress at the “Bled Institute ⋅ Blejski inštitut” in Bled Slovenia in 2020, at 46th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa at the University of Siena in 2021, at Syntax Lab at Cambridge University in 2021, at the Seminars in Linguistics at the University of Florence in 2022, in SynSalon at the University of Arizona in 2021. We are grateful to the audiences at these presentations for many insightful comments and questions as well as to two anonymous reviewers and to the very generous attention of Hedde Zeijlstra for detailed comment and criticism while managing the submission of this paper. All errors remain our own responsibility.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Moro, A., Roberts, I. The duality of syntax: Unstable structures, labelling and linearisation. Nat Lang Linguist Theory (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09588-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09588-z