Abstract
This chapter discusses the challenges involved in unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure (BPS) and develops a proposal that captures the insights of both theories. There are two problems in formulating a theory of phrase structure which retains the core properties of both Antisymmetry and BPS. The first has to do with the theoretical framework in which Antisymmetry was developed, namely X-Bar Theory. Kayne’s original formulation does not translate into BPS in a straightforward way. As will become clear, choices have to be made about how to reformulate the LCA under BPS. I will consider various proposals for this as I proceed. The second problem deals with a particular aspect of BPS that seems irreconcilable with Antisymmetry, namely the initial merger of two heads. When two heads are merged at the outset of a derivation, they c-command each other, in violation of the LCA. I refer to this as the Initial Merger Problem.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Other researchers have actively relied on non-branching specifiers and complements. Bošković (2002), for instance, proposes that syntactic clitics are obligatorily non-branching elements that appear as either the specifier or complement of a functional projection.
- 2.
See Uriagereka (1995a, 1995b) for arguments for a functional projection, FP, which hosts clitics in western Romance. There is also a large literature that suggests that pronominal clitics in Romance are base-generated in their surface position (Burzio 1986; Jaeggli 1986; Strozer 1976; Roberge 1990), thus obviating the problem.
- 3.
Note that the facts are not as simple as they’re made out to be here. There are different kinds of pronouns in Romance, some of which behave as clitics as mentioned here, others of which can function independently. Both kinds have different distributions. Obviously, a full-scale study of the linearization of pronominal elements in Romance is beyond the scope of this monograph. See Moro (2000) for discussion.
- 4.
Alexiadou (p. 3) notes that the -a morpheme is an adverbial marker in Greek (akin to -ly in English). She does not explicitly mention the function of the -o marker in the incorporated forms.
- 5.
Note that Self-Merge is just a label of convenience. Guimarães does not intend for the term to refer to an operation distinct from Merge.
- 6.
This axiom states that if a given element appears more than once in the same set, then this set is equivalent to an otherwise identical set in which the element in question appears only once.
- 7.
Recently, however, Chomsky (2008) assumes that not only is Merge free, but that Move is free, too. If so, some other restriction on Self-Merge would have to exist. Furthermore, Chomsky suggests that Merge does not take place to satisfy unvalued features, since these can be valued long-distance by Agree. Rather, Merge takes place to satisfy a poorly understood Edge Feature (EF). Assumedly, EF cannot be satisfied by Self-Merge, however. See Kayne (2009a) for further discussion.
- 8.
I discuss the Blackfoot facts in more detail in Chapter 5.
- 9.
That Z asymmetrically c-commands X is not entirely obvious. First, it is clear that X does not c-command Z since it is not the case that every category that dominates X also dominates Z. Specifically, XP dominates X but does not dominate Z since not every segment of XP dominates Z. Now, in order to see how Z c-commands X we must realize that the condition that every category that dominates Z also dominate X is vacuously satisfied since there are no categories that dominate Z. The discussion below elaborates this point.
- 10.
Recall that for Kayne (1994), c-command is a relation that holds only among non-terminals, not among the lexical heads themselves.
- 11.
Note that we cannot simply treat AP as an atomic element (i.e., treat it as though it were a head) because it’s in a symmetric c-command relation with d. The resolution of symmetric c-command is discussed below.
- 12.
Another approach to these adjuncts which is commonly (and tacitly) assumed is that they are not subject to the LCA and are right-adjoined in the traditional manner. Under Nunes and Uriagereka’s approach, such adjuncts are still not linearizable with the rest of the structure, so the following discussion still holds.
- 13.
Note that I have followed a traditional analysis that uses head movement since a remnant movement or PF head movement account of these facts is beyond the scope of this monograph.
- 14.
See also Sheehan (2009) for additional arguments against Nunes and Uriagereka.
- 15.
One could conceivably argue that both analyses above are possible and that somehow the choice is made that will give rise to a convergent derivation. It is possible to show that extraction from both positions can happen simultaneously. Consider the following sentence.
-
i.
Which room j was John i spoken to t i in t j ?
This sentence, while slightly odd, is still acceptable. Ultimately, one of the two PPs from which the nominal is sub-extracted must appear in a specifier position.
-
i.
- 16.
Stepanov also argues that adjuncts are added to the derivation post-cyclically (following Lebeaux 1988; Speas 1990). By the time the adjunct is added post-cyclically, it is too late for one of its sub-constituents to be extracted and raised to the specifier of a higher probe. By then, the probe and goal are in separate phases.
- 17.
The judgments aren’t as clear cut as one would hope. Many examples are significantly degraded, although still not as ungrammatical as the stage-level counterparts.
-
i.
?* What are books about interesting?
-
ii.
?* What is a book about interesting?
-
iii.
* What is a book about on the table?
-
iv.
What is there a book about on the table?
I am not sure what accounts for the degraded status of i. and ii., perhaps the type of DP plays a role; however, the generalization still holds that extraction from subjects of individual-level predicates is less degraded than extraction from subjects of stage-level predicates.
-
i.
- 18.
It has often been argued that complement-to-specifier raising within the same projection is ruled out (Abels 2003; Grohmann 2003; Pesetsky and Torrego 2001). Kayne (2004), in particular, rules this type of movement out based on feature checking as follows. Since phrases move to check features, it follows that movement can take place only to a new feature checking position. Thus, any phrase that checks its features in the complement of a head, H, will have no further features to check against H in SpecHP. Since I propose that b in 46 moves to SpecAP not to check a feature, but to eliminate a point of symmetry, I assume this movement is not problematic. This proposal is consistent with a view of syntax in which complement-to-specifier movement for feature checking is ruled out. See also Matushansky (2006) and Toyoshima (2000).
- 19.
Another option, of course, is to raise b to SpecCP. I discuss this option below.
- 20.
Moro (2000) suggested that empty heads other than traces (such as pro) do not need to be linearized. He also conjectured that the amount of movement in a given language should be inversely proportional to the relative number and distribution of empty categories in the language, which is in line with the proposal here.
- 21.
If we adopt Alexiadou (2002), (alienable) possessors are introduced in the specifier of a functional projection below DP, thus obviating this discussion, since the verb in this case necessarily asymmetrically c-commands the possessor.
- 22.
Assuming a split CP (Rizzi 1997), in which the wh-phrase appears in the specifier of a functional projection lower than ForceP obviates this discussion.
- 23.
This is also strongly suggested by Ross’ (1967) discussion on relative clauses where multiple outcomes are permitted:
-
i.
These are the reports that the government prescribes the height of the lettering on the covers of.
-
ii.
These are the reports, the covers of which the government prescribed the height of the lettering on.
-
iii.
These are the reports, the lettering on the covers of which the government prescribes the height of.
-
iv.
These are the reports, the height of the lettering on the covers of which the government prescribes.
-
i.
- 24.
Note that Ross (1967) accounted for some of these effects with the Left Branch Condition. Consider the following examples.
-
i.
* How is she [t tall]?
-
ii.
* Which did you steal [t book]?
In both cases, the left side of the constituent has been extracted. There are languages in which constructions such as these are grammatical (see Bošković 2005; Moro 2000). Thus, a general prohibition as proposed by Ross is too strong. See the authors cited for explanations of Left Branch Condition effects.
-
i.
- 25.
See Cable (2010) for detailed discussion about pied-piping and more examples of phrases of varying sizes undergoing this process.
- 26.
This statement sounds more compatible with a theory of feature checking that relies on Greed rather than on Attract. One can think of it as a way of saying that b has some feature that will enter into an Agree relation later in the derivation. In the case considered here, the “unfulfilled requirement” is for a pronominal clitic in Romance to appear in the IP domain – a fact not quite clearly understood, but commonly accepted. See also Stroik (2009) for a related proposal.
- 27.
Still unexplained are the cases where clitic climbing does not take place:
-
iii.
Posso vederlo.
can.1sg see.inf.cl.3.sg
‘I can see it.’
-
iii.
- 28.
Under a non-dynamic view of Antisymmetry, the LCA would simply rule such structures out, but then noun incorporation would remain mysterious under this view.
- 29.
- 30.
Thanks to Tanya Slavin for providing this example.
- 31.
Although I cannot offer an alternative account of the asymmetry that Babyonyshev discusses, I do note similar facts in English. This parallelism invites a unified analysis that cannot be offered by Antisymmetry (Dynamic or otherwise). The last example below underscores this fact, since whatever structural fact would rule i. out should also rule iv. out.
-
iv.
*? the humiliation of you
-
v.
the humiliation of you and your brothers
-
vi.
the humiliation of you, John Peterson
-
vii.
the picture of you
-
iv.
- 32.
See Harley (2004) for an explicit analysis of conflation.
- 33.
Traditionally in DM roots are inserted in the overt syntax (as shown in 79) while various allomorphs are inserted at PF (Embick and Noyer 2007). In subsequent chapters I discuss data where it is argued that complex roots that carry grammatical information, such as mice, are found. Under this view, the form mice is inserted in the nP node. This is clearly problematic for the standard view of DM; however, this issue is not pursued further here.
- 34.
See N. Richards (2010) who comes to the same conclusion regarding overt and covert material, but for different reasons.
References
Abels, Klaus. 2003. “Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Abney, Stephen. 1987. “The English Noun Phrase and its Sentential Aspect.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2002. “Some Notes on the Structure of Alienable and Inalienable Possessors.” In From NP to DP, edited by Martine Coene, and Yves d’Hulst, 167–189. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Babyonyshev, Maria. 2004. “Deriving the Restrictions on Pronominal Complements of Nouns.” In Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, edited by Ji-Yung Kim, Yury A. Lander, and Barbara Partee, 263–278. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996. “The Structural Determination of Case and Agreement.” Linguistic Inquiry 27 (1):1–68.
Boeckx, Cedric. 1999. Relativizing Spell-Out. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.
Bošković, Željko. 2002, “Clitics as Nonbranching Elements and the Linear Correspondence Axiom.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (2):329–340.
Bošković, Željko. 2005. “On the Locality of Left Branch Extraction and the Structure of NP.” Studia Linguistica 59 (1):1–45.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Cable, Seth. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement and Pied-Piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by Ken Hale, and Samuel J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. “Bare Phrase Structure.” In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory, edited by Gert Webelhuth, 383–439. Generative Syntax. Oxford; 1. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by Roger Martin, D. Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On Phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, edited by P. Oltero, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collins, Chris. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collins, Chris. 2005. “A Smuggling Approach to the Passive in English.” Syntax 8 (2):81–120.
Costa, João. 1997. “Positions for Subjects in European Portuguese.” In The Procedings of the 15th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Brian Agbayani, and Sze-Wing Tang, 49–63. Stanford: CSLI.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. “Decomposing Pronouns.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (3):409–42.
Embick, David, and Robert Rolf Noyer. 2007. “Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, edited by Gillian Ramchand, and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Epstein, Samuel, Erich Groat, Ruriko Kawashima, and Hisatsugo Kitahara. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frantz, Donald G. 1991. Blackfoot Grammar. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Guimarães, Maximiliano. 2000. “In Defense of Vacuous Projections in Bare Phrase Structure.” University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 9:90–115.
Hale, Ken, and Samuel J. Keyser. 2003. A Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistic in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by Kenneth Hale, and Samuel J. Keyser, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harley, Heidi. 2004. “Merge, Conflation and Head Movement: The First Sister Principle revisited” In NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 239–54. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. “Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. “Three Issues in the Theory of Clitics: Case, Doubled NPs, and Extraction.” In Syntax and Semantics: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, edited by Hagit Borer. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Kayne, Richard. 1989. “Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing.” In The Null Subject Parameter, edited by Osvaldo Jaeggli, and Ken Safir, 239–61. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Kayne, Richard. 1991. “Romance Clitics, Verb Movement, and PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (4):647–86.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard. 2003. “Antisymmetry and Japanese.” English Linguistics 20:1–40.
Kayne, Richard. 2004. “Some Notes on Comparative Syntax: With Special Reference to English and French.” In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, edited by Adriana Belletti, 277–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, Richard. 2009. “Antisymmetry and the Lexicon.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8 (1):1–31.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. “Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. “Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates.” In The Generic Book, edited by Gregory N. Carlson, and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 125–75. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Larson, Richard K. 2004. “Sentence Final Adverbs and ‘Scope’.” In Proceedings of NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 23–43. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
Lasnik, Howard. 1981. “Restricting the Theory of Transformations: A Case Study.” In Explanations in Linguistics, edited by Norbert Hornstein, and David W. Lightfoot, 152–73. London: Longmans.
Lasnik, Howard. 1995. “Last Resort and Attract F.” In The Sixth Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America, edited by Gabriele Hardison, D., and R. Westmoreland. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Lebeaux, David. 1988. “Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar.” PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amhers, MA.
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 Linguistics 4 (2):201–25.
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. “Head Movement in Linguistic Theory.” Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1):69–109. doi:10.1162/002438906775321184%U http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/002438906775321184
Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Murray, John, and Sarah Smyth. 1999. Basic Russian: A Grammar and Workbook. London: Routledge.
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nunes, Jairo, and Juan Uriagereka. 2000. “Cyclicity and Extraction Domains.” Syntax 3 (1):20–43.
Oishi, Masayuki. 2003. “When Linearity Meets Bare Phrase Structure.” Current Issues in English Linguistics 2:18–41.
Partee, Barbara H., Alice ter Meulen, and Robert Wall. 1993. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. “T-To-C Movement: Causes and Consequences.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 355–426. Current Studies in Linguistics. (CSLing). Cambridge, MA; 36. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rezac, Milan. 2006. “The Interaction of Th/Ex and Locative Inversion.” Linguistic Inquiry 37 (4):685–97. doi:10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.685.
Richards, Marc D. 2008. “Desymmetrization: Parametric Variation at the PF Interface.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53 (2/3):275–300.
Richards, Norvin. 2001. “A Distinctness Condition on Linearization.” In 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Karine Megerdoomian, 470–483. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering Trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1992. “Adverb Incorporation and the Syntax of Adverbs in Modern Greek.” Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (3):289–331.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In Elements of Grammar: A Handbook in Generative Syntax, edited by Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Roberge, Yves. 1990. The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments. Montreal, PQ: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ross, John. 1967. “Constraints on Variables in Syntax.” PhD diss., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sheehan, Michelle. 2009. “Labelling, Multiple Spell-Out and the Final-over-Final Constraint.” In Incontro di Grammatica Generativa XXXV, edited by V. Moscati, and E. Servidio. Siena: University of Siena Working Papers in Linguistics.
Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht; 21. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Spencer, Andrew. 1995. “Incorporation in Chukchi.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 71 (3):439–89.
Stepanov, Arthur. 2001a. “Cyclic Domains in Syntactic Theory.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Stepanov, Arthur. 2001b. “The End of CED?” In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Karine Megerdoomian, and Leora Bar-el. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Stepanov, Arthur. 2007. “The End of CED? Minimalism and Extraction Domains.” Syntax 10 (1):80–126. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00094.x.
Stroik, Thomas S. 2009. Locality in Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Strozer, Judith. 1976. “Clitics in Spanish.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Toyoshima, Takashi. 2000. “Head-To-Spec Movement and Dynamic Economy.” PhD diss., Cornell University: Ithaha, NY.
Travis, Lisa de Mena, and Greg LaMontagne. 1992. “The Case Filter and Licensing of Empty K.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37 (2):157–74.
Truswell, Robert. 2007. “Extraction from Adjuncts and the Structure of Events.” Lingua 117 (8):1355–77.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995a. “Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance.” Linguistic Inquiry 26 (1):79–123.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1995b. “An F Position in Western Romance.” In Discourse Configurational Languages, edited by Kiss É. Katalin, 153–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. “Multiple Spell Out.” In Working Minimalism, edited by Samuel Epstein, and Norbert Hornstein, 251–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2004. “Expletive Categorical Information: A Case Study of Number Marking in Halkomelem Salish.” In Northeast Linguistics Society (NELS). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2009. “√Root Incorporation: Evidence from Lexical Suffixes in Halkomelem Salish.” Lingua 119 (2):199–223.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 1998. “Infinitives.” PhD diss., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barrie, M. (2011). Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure. In: Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 84. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1569-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1570-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)