Order in Phrase Structure and Movement

Abstract

This article proposes the following mechanism of Merge, modifying and incorporating the effect of the head parameter: K = {γ, 〈α, β〉}, where γ ε {α, β} a. γ = α: head-initial, left-headed b. γ = β: head-final, right-headed It is argued that under the parameterized version of Merge, traditional “adjunction” operations (scrambling and heavy NP shift) are characterized as substitution in the sense that they always accompany the projection of the target, whereas traditional “substitution” operations (wh-movement and NP-movement) are analyzed as genuine adjunction. It is then shown that numerous empirical consequences follow from this theory of phrase structure and movement, including (a) the nature and distribution of optional movements, (b) an elegant account of some peculiar properties of specifiers, and (c) a new unification of adjunct and subject condition effects, with a natural explanation of the parametric variation associated with the latter effect.

On Extraposition From Np Constructions: A Phase-Based Account

“…That is to say, our supplementary mechanism in (23) assumes that the merger is essentially an asymmetric operation which is sensitive to the featural contents of merged elements. The central notion behind this mechanism lies in Saito and Fukui (1998). This study claims that, according to the traditional Head Parameter, elements move leftward in English if they involve uFs, whereas they move rightward if they do not.…”

“…This study claims that, according to the traditional Head Parameter, elements move leftward in English if they involve uFs, whereas they move rightward if they do not. Our analysis based on (23), although framed in the Phase Theory, adopts the essence of Saito and Fukui (1998), in that extraposed elements in ExNPs, in which AFs/uFs are not involved, are derived by the rightward merger. With (23), the sentences in (18) and (19) are correctly excluded, since the wh-phrase (what) in (18) is supposed to have AF while the PP (of this article) in (19) is not.…”

A Minimalist Analysis of English Topicalization: A Phase-Based Cartographic Complementizer Phrase (CP) Perspective

“…This analysis assumes that the CP, which is inherently composed of two kinds of syntactic unit (i.e., ForceP-Fin(ite)P and Top(ic)P-Foc(us)P), is split whenever discourse-related elements are merged in the clausal periphery. The resultant configuration is illustrated in (4 This analysis, however, in which these four projections are supposed to be inherently endowed with a movement-agreement property, should be assessed under the minimalist concept of a maximally simplified language ability. To put it simply, each projection in (4) should be circumstantially asked whether it can behave as a central locus for the derivation like a phase.…”

Some Remarks on the Lexical Nature of Restructuring Predicates (G. Cinque, Restructuring and Functional Heads: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 4)

“…This suggests that the optionality of object preposing is reduced to the optionality of an adjunction operation. Without discussing the details of how such an operation is licensed, let us assume for the present purposes that the optionality of adjunction is permitted by UG (see Saito and Fukui (1998) for discussion), and that adjoining to a syntactic object is permitted only when the latter is not closed off by agreement (see Fukui (1986Fukui ( , 1995), i.e. only when the object's edge feature remains undeleted (Chomsky (2006)).…”