7(±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right cristiano chesi...

7(7(±±2) reasons for building phrase 2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from structures top-down from left to rightleft to right

Cristiano Chesi

[email protected]

CISCL - University of Siena

http:// www.ciscl.unisi.it

Nanzan University, 20 February 2007

Siena, 13 February 2007

7 (7 (±2±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - ) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right - C. ChesiC. Chesi

Overview of a (directional) Minimalist Grammar

7(±2) arguments for a preferential directionality

FORMAL

1. (Un)motivated intermediate steps and successive cyclicity

2. Growing complexity

EMPIRICAL

3. Strong islands as nested phases

4. Extractions from strong islands: parasitic gaps and connectedness

5. Criterial Vs. S-selected targets for movement

6. Intermediate Constituency

7. Preference for move

8. Clause boundedness: Scrambling Vs. Heavy NP-shift

9. QR, Lefteness and the right-roof-constraint

OutlineOutline


A preliminary opposition: Derivations Vs. RepresentationsA preliminary opposition: Derivations Vs. Representations

Representational Derivationalpartial: only the relevant element (a segment, at best) of the “chain” is accessed at any step:step 1: x; step 2: tx0 (x = tx0);

... step n: txn (txn-1 = txn);

unique and complete: all instances present in the sentence appear in the chain:<x, tx0, tx1 ... txn-1, txn>

Completeness of the Structural Description (SD)

strictly defined: unless we define extra backtracking options, postulating a wrong movement would prevent the derivation from retrieving correct SDs

irrelevant: any order would postulate the same traces and discard ungrammatical options

Principle/rules ordering

relative: any relational property is valid only within a relevant lapse of time τn (at τn: <txn, txn-

1>), then further operation (valid at τn+1) would not have access anymore to the single constituents that established this relation

absolute: any relational property among elements in the chain is valid within a single SD

Relation among elements

constraints on operation application (such as shortest move)

filters on the unique resulting representation (e.g. case filter)

Nature of the constraints

rigid order predicted (potentially, this could have direct implications for processing)

NoneProcessing implications


Stabler’s (1997) formalization of a Minimalist Grammars, MG (Chomsky 1995) as a 4-tuple {V, Cat, Lex, F} such that:

V is a finite set of non-syntactic features, (P I) where

P are phonetic features and I are semantic ones;

Cat is a finite set of syntactic features,

Cat = (base select licensors licensees) where

base are standard categories {comp, tense, verb, noun ...},

select specify a selection requirement {=x | x base}

licensees force phrasal movement {-wh, -case ...},

licensors satisfy licensee requirements {+wh, +case ...}

Lex is a finite set of expressions built from V and Cat (the lexicon);

F is a set of two partial functions from tuples of expressions to expressions {merge, move};

(Top-to-bottom) Minimalist Grammars: formalism(Top-to-bottom) Minimalist Grammars: formalism


Example of a toy Minimalist Grammar:

V = P = {/what/, /did/, /you/, /see/},

I = {[what], [did], [you], [see]}

Cat = base = {D, N, V, T, C}

select = {=D, =N, =V, =T, =C}

licensors {+wh},

licensees {-wh}

Lex = { [-wh D what], [=V T did], [D you], [=D =D V see], [=T +wh C ] }

F = {merge, move} such that:

merge (X, Y) = [X X Y]

(if and only if [=F X] and [F Y])

move (X, Y) = [[X Y X] W, tY]

(if [+g X] and [-g Y] with W possibly null, without any selecting/selector feature g in W)

(Top-to-bottom) Minimalist Grammars: formalism(Top-to-bottom) Minimalist Grammars: formalism


1. merge ([=D =D V see], [-wh D what]) → [see =D V see, -wh what]

2. merge ([D you], [=D V see, -wh what]) → [see you, [see V see, -wh what ]]

3. merge ([=V T did], [see you, [see V see, -wh what ]]) →

([did T did, [see you, [see see, -wh what ]]]

4. merge ([=T +wh C ], [did T did, [see you, [see see, -wh what ]]]) →

([C +wh C , [did did, [see you, [see see, -wh what ]]]])

5. move ([C +wh C , [did did, [see you, [see see, -wh what ]]]]) →

[C What C , [did did, [see you, [see see, twhat ]]]]

[=D =D V see] [-wh D what]

[=D V see][D you]

[V see][=V T did]

[T did]

[=T +wh C ]

[+wh C ]

[C ]

[-wh what]

(Top-to-bottom) Minimalist Grammars: derivation(Top-to-bottom) Minimalist Grammars: derivation


Competence

Features Structures(semantic + syntactic/abstract + phonetic features → lexicon )

Structure Building Operations (merge, move, phase)

Performance tasks

Parsing Generation

Flexibility (interface conditions)

Universals ParameterizationEconomy conditions

Top-down Minimalist Grammar Top-down Minimalist Grammar ((ChesiChesi 2004)2004)


Performance tasks

Parsing Generation

Parsing problemgiven a grammar G, a finite set of phonological features (grouped by words) and a precedence total order among them, find the relevant set of lexical items Lex, compatible with and the set of dominance relations D among features associated to in Lex, if possible, if not reject the input.

Generation problem given a grammar G, a finite set of semantic features and a finite set of dominance relations D among them, find the relevant set of lexical items Lex and the correct linearization among features associated to in

Lex, if possible, if not reject the input



Competence



Performance tasks

Parsing Generation

Flexibility




ndexessemantic_i

phonemes

e celerativc, Neg ..., epistemievaluative

surewh,neg,mea

Top

,Case

, ... Asp... T C, Mood, Foc, ...Force, Top

. Materiale,Length..nal... Sizinal,CardiK... D,Ord

licensorsbase

VN

completivepastspeech_act

I

P V

Mod

... Q

Topic

...A

sintervener

V

N licensors

select

, base

cat



Competence



Performance tasks

Parsing Generation

Flexibility




Universals

Linearization Principle (inspired by LCA, Kayne 1994)if A < B, then either a. <A, B> if B is a complement of A (that is, A selects B), or b. <B, A> if B is a functional projection of A

B

C

B

B

AY

CB

X

A

precedence: <A, B, C>

dominance:X → A YY → B C

I(dentifiers) = {A,B,C}(immediate) P(recedence) = {<A,B>, <B,C>}(immediate) D(dominance) = {B<A, B<C}

Long Distance Relationtwo non-empty elements enter a long distance relation (thus forming a discontinuous constituency relation) when a dominance relation but no precedence relation is defined between them.

Structural Description



Competence



Performance tasks

Parsing Generation

Flexibility





MERGE

binary function (sensitive to temporal order) taking two features structures and unifying them.

PHASE PROJECTION

is the minimal set of dominance relations introduced in the SD based on the expectations triggered by each select feature of the currently processed lexical items

MOVE

top-down oriented function which stores an un-selected element in a memory buffer and re-merges it at the point of the computation where the element is selected



MOVE

Linearization Principle (inspired by Kayne’s LCA) if A immediately dominates B, then either a. <A, B> if A selects B as an argument, or b. <B, A> if B is in a functional specification of A

e.g. “the boy kissed the girl”

PHASE

the boy

<the boy>kissed [=o kiss]

[=s =o kiss]

[+T kiss]

[=s =o kiss]

Memory Bufferthe boyMemory Buffer

Vhead

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

Selected Phase(s)

(select features)

...(left

periphery)

...

F1

FnFunctionalSequence

(licensor features)

the girl



Sequential Phase Nested PhaseVs.

Fn

Slast

head

Memory Buffer

F1

S1

Memory Buffer

Memory Buffer

Fn

Slast

head

F1

S1

Memory Buffer

Success Condition: the memory buffer must be empty at the end of the phase orelse its content is inherited by the memory buffer of the next sequential phase (if any)



In a nut shell:

1. Every computation is a top-down derivation divided into phases.

2. A phase gets closed when the last selected complement of its head is processed; this last projected complement constitutes the next sequential phase.

3. All unselected constituents are instead nested phases: they are processed while the superordinate phase has not been closed yet.

4. The Move operation stores an unselected element found before (i.e. on the left of) the head position in the local memory buffer of the current phase, and discharges it in a selected position if possible; if not, when the phase is closed the content of the memory buffer is inherited by that of the next sequential phase.



Whoi do you believe [ti that everybody admires ti]?

Every intermediate step in a bottom-to-top derivation has to be triggered blindly by purely Formal Features (FFs). Crucially movement cannot touch the relevant wh- feature which triggers the last step of the wh- chain:

1. [+FF C] everybody admires [-FF -WH who]?

2. [[-WH who] C] everybody admires?

Argument 1 - Argument 1 - Teleological movement & successive cyclicityTeleological movement & successive cyclicity

From bottom to top


How many -FF should a wh- element bear to trigger recursive successive cyclic movement?

a. 1 feature 1 move (deletion)... but then recursive successive cyclicity would need an infinite number of formal features (this is in contrast with the finitary nature of the lexicon)

b. 1 feature many moves (no deletion)... but then you will always send an “uninterpretable” feature to LF

From bottom to top



Whoi do you believe [twho that everybody admires twho]?

Who

believe

do

you

you = 2nd Nested Phase (DP)

Matrix Phase (CP)

Memory Buffer (Matrix Phase, CP)

who = 1st Nested Phase (DP)

who

you V

Sel.

Lic.

<you>

<who>

that

everybody

admires

who

<who>

that = Selected Phase (CP)

Top-down



(1) a. [Dare-ga [John-ga Bill-ni atta to] omotteimasu ka]?

who-NOM J.-NOM B.-DAT met that think Q

'Who thinks that John met Bill?'

b. [[John-ga Bill-ni atta to]1 [dare-ga t1 omotteimasu ka]]?

J.-NOM B.-DAT met that who-NOM think Q

'Who thinks that John met Bill?'

atta to

omotteimasu

A note on Japanese: successive cyclicity



(2) a. [CP Dare-nii anata-wa [CP Mary-ga [CP John-ga [CP Sue-ga ti atta to] itta to] shinnjiteiru to]

who-DAT you-TOP M.-NOM J.-NOM S.-NOM met that said that believe that

omotteimasu ka]?

think Q

‘Who do you think that Mary believes that John said that Sue met?’

b. [CP Bill-ni anata-wa [CP Mary-ga [CP John-ga [CP Sue-ga ti atta to] itta to] shinnjiteiru to] omotteimasu ka]?

c. [CP Bill-ni-wa Sarah-ga [CP Mary-ga [CP John-ga [CP Sue-ga ti atta to] itta to] shinnjiteiru to] omotteimasu].

‘Bill, Sarah thinks that Mary believes that John said that Sue met’

A note on Japanese: (apparent) successive cyclicity



(1) c. [CP Bill-ni-wa Sarah-ga [CP Mary-ga [CP John-ga [CP Sue-ga ti atta to] itta to] shinnjiteiru to] omotteimasu]

‘Bill, Sarah thinks that Mary believes that John said that Sue met’

Bill-ni-wa

Nested Phases (CPs)

B.-ni

Matrix Phase (CP)

V

...-ga

...-ga

omotteimasu

A note on Japanese: (apparent) successive cyclicity


Sue-ga atta to

B.-ni

Sarah-ga

S.-ga

S.-ga


Top-downBottom-to-top Vs.

head

Slast

head

k = elements in a phase

possible relations per phase = 2k-1

edge

n = number of nested phases

possible relations per phase = 2n(k-1)

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 1Fx

Phase 2

Phase 2

Argument 2 - Argument 2 - Growing complexityGrowing complexity


Who

become

did

close friends of e

G1 = 2nd Nested Phase (DP)

V

Matrix Phase (CP)

Sel.

Lic.



who

G1

<who>

<G1>

<who>

famous

Left-branching islands:

*Whoi did [close friends of ei] become famous ?

Argument 3 - Argument 3 - Nested phases are islandsNested phases are islands


(3) a. Nani-oi [John-ga [CP Mary-ga ti katta to] omotteru] no?

what-ACC J. -NOM M. -NOM bought that think Q?

‘Whati , John thinks that Mary bought ti ?’

b. ??Nani-oi [John-ga [NP [IP ej ti katta] hitoj ]-o sagasiteru] no?

what-ACC John-NOM bought person-ACC looking-for Q?

‘Whati , John is looking for [the person that bought ti ]?’

c. ?Nani-oi [John-ga [PP Mary-ga ti katta kara] okotteru] no?

what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought since angry Q?

‘Whati , John is angry [because Mary bought ti]?’

(Saito & Fukui 1998)

A note on Japanese: complex NPs and adjuncts behave like islands...



A note on Japanese: ... but no asymmetry seems to exist between extraction from a subject or an object!

(4) a. ?Nani-oi [John-ga [NP [IP Mary-ga ti katta] koto]-o mondai-ni siteru] no.

what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought fact-ACC problem-into making Q

‘Whati , John is making an issue out of [the fact that Mary bought ti ].’

b. ?Nani-oi [John-ga [CP [NP [IP Mary-ga ti katta] koto]-ga mondai-da to] omotteru] no.

what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought fact-NOM problem-is that think Q

‘Whati , John thinks that [the fact that Mary bought ti ] is a problem.’




Memory Buffer

head

F1

[=ga Fn ]

prediction: case-marked preverbal phases could behave

as selected phases

Sequential Phase

Fn

Slast

head

Mem. Buffer

F1

S1

Mem. Bufferhead

(ga)

A note on Japanese: how comes that subjects are not islands?



Memory Buffer

FnClast

head

F1

C1

Nested Phase

Memory Buffer

Fn

Clast

head

F1

C1

prediction: right-hand adjuncts can be nested phases

Right-branching island:

??[Those boring old reports]i , Kim went to lunch [without reading ei].



Memory Buffer

XClast

head

F1

C1

Nested Phase

Memory Buffer

Fn

Clast

head

F1

C1

[=x Fn ]


Right-branching island:

??[Those boring old reports]i , Kim went to lunch [without reading ei].



nani-o

... kara...

Nani-o

okotteru

(3) c. ?Nani-oi [John-ga [PP Mary-ga ti katta kara] okotteru] no?

what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought since angry Q?

‘Whati , John is angry [because Mary bought ti]?’


A note on Japanese: adjuncts are islands (?)



Complex NPs:

(5) ?* [Which book]i did John meet [NP a child [CP who read ei ]]

Which book

meet

did

John

V

Matrix Phase (CP)


Last Selected Phase (DP)

which

J.

<which>J.

a child

who readNested Phase (CP)

which



(5) a. * [Which famous playwright]i did [close friends of ei] become famous ?

b. ? [Which famous playwright]i did [close friends of ei] admire ei ?

(Kayne 1983)

(6) a. * Who did [my talking to ei] bother Hilary ?

b. √ Who did [my talking to ei] bother ei ?

(Pollard & Sag 1994)

(7) a. * Whoi did you consider [friends of ei] angry at Sandy ?

b. √ Whoi did you consider [friends of ei] angry at ei ?

(Pollard & Sag 1994)

Argument 4 - Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness Parasitic gaps and connectedness (Bianchi & Chesi 2006)(Bianchi & Chesi 2006)


• Left branch constituents are islands for extraction

• A legitimate gap on a right branch can “rescue” an illegitimate gap inside a left branch

X

eX

eXeX



A. Y is a g-projection of X iff

i. Y is an ( X' ) projection of X or of a g-projection of X, or

ii. X is a structural governor and Y immediately dominates W and Z, where Z is a maximal projection of a g-projection of X, and W and Z are in a canonical government configuration:

B. W and Z (Z a maximal projection, and W and Z immediately dominated by some Y) are in a canonical government configuration iff

a. V governs NP to its right in the grammar of the language and W precedes Zb. V governs NP to its left in the grammar of the language and Z precedes W

C. The g-projection set G of a category is defined as follows (where governs ):

a. , = a g-projection of G b. G andb'. dominates and does not dominate G

Kayne’s Connectedness Condition (Kayne 1983)



D. Connectedness Condition

Let 1 ... j, j+1 ... n be a maximal set of empty categories in a tree T such that

j, j is locally bound by . Then {} ( Gj) must constitute a subtree of T.

n

nj1

1 - all the maximal projections in the path between the gap and its binder are on a right branch or

2 - a path terminating in a left branch is connected to a legitimate path of right branches



Which famousplaywright

become

did1

close

friends

of

1

1

e

famous

1 1

(5) a. *

1

G1



Which famousplaywright

admire

did1

close

friends

of

1

1

e

e

1 1

2

(5) b.

1

G1



2Which famousplaywright

2

admire

2

did1

close

friends

of

1

1

e

e

2

1 1

G2

22

(5) b.

1

2

G1



who

youbecause

(8) *a person who you admire e because [close friends of e] became famous

admire e

became famous

1

close

friends

1

G1 of

1

e

1

1 1



who

2

youbecause

(8) *a person who you admire e because [close friends of e] became famous

admire

2

e

became famous

1

close

friends

1

G1 of

1

e

1

1 1

2

G2

2

22



Who

admire

did

close friends of e

G1 = 2nd Nested Phase (DP)

V

G = Matrix Phase (CP)

Sel.

Lic.



who

G1 <who><G1>

who

(5.b) ?Whoi did [close friends of ei] admire ei ?

<who>



Who

admire

you

you = Nested Phase

V

G = Matrix Phase


who = Nested Phase

who

you <you> <who> because

close friends of _ became

famous

because = Nested PhaseG1 = Doubly-nested Phase

1

(8) *... Who you admire e because [close friends of e] became famous

who

who

<who>



Summary of the proposed analysis (Bianchi & Chesi 2006)

the Connectedness Condition can be recast in derivational terms, by assuming:

(a) a top-to-bottom derivation divided in phases

(b) a “storage” conception of the Move operation

(c) a distinction between sequential and nested phases (corresponding to branches on the recursive vs. non-recursive side of the tree).

(d) The content of the memory buffer of a phase can only be inherited by the next sequential phase, and not by a nested phase.

(e) Parasitic gaps exploit the possibility of “parasitically” copying the content of the buffer of a matrix phase into the buffer of a nested phase.

(f) Parasitic copying, however, cannot empty the matrix memory buffer, whence the necessity of another (“legitimate”) gap within the matrix phase itself (or within a phase that is sequential to the matrix one).



Problems for Kayne’s account

1 - Connectedness Condition does not subsume right hand adjunct islands... but see (11):

(9) a. ??[Those boring old reports]i , Kim went to lunch [without reading ei].

b. √ [Those boring old reports]i , Kim filed ei [without reading ei].

(10) ?[A person]i that they spoke to ei [because they admire ei]

(11) a. Who did you go to Girona [in order to meet e]? (Pollard & Sag 1994, Haider 2003)

b.This is the blanket that Rebecca refuses to sleep [without e].

c. How many of the book reports did the teacher smile [after reading e]?

2 - Complex NPs block connectedness... but complex subjects do not (13):

(12) ?* Which book did John meet [NP a child [CP who read t]]

(13) a. * A person who [people that talk to ei ] usually have money in mind

b. ? A person who [people that talk to ei ] usually end up fascinated with ei



An attempt to find a solution (Longobardi 1985)

1 - Longobardi strengthens the notion of g-projection, by adding a proper government requirement:

a non properly governed maximal projection is a boundary to the extension of g-projections.

Then, by definition, subjects and adjuncts are not properly governed: thus, the adjunct island is assimilated to the subject island, much as in Huang’s (1982) Condition on Extraction Domains.

2 - He must modify his definition of proper government so that the relative clause counts as properly governed; but then, the Complex NP Island Constraint must be stipulated as a separate constraint on extraction.

Notice that the Complex NP Island Constraint did not follow from Kayne’s original Connectedness Condition since it applies to the right branch (cf. Kayne 1984, n. 5)



Those boring old reports

Kim

1

without

PRO

1

G

(14.a) ??[Those boring old reports]i , Kim went to lunch [without reading ei].

went

tolunch

reading

1

e

1

1 1



2

Those boring old reports

2

2

Kim

1

without

PRO

1e

G

(14.b) [Those boring old reports]i , Kim filed ei [without reading ei].

filed

2

2

reading

1

e

1

1 12



A person

with

who

1

people

that

e

1

1

e

G 1

(15) b. ?

usually

end up

fascinated

to

1

e

1 1talk

1

2



2A person

2

with

2

who

1

people

that

e

1

1

e

2

G 1

(15) b. ?

usually

2

end up

2

fascinated

2

to

1

e

1 1talk

2

2

1



Memory Buffer

FnClast

head

F1

C1

Memory Buffer

Nested Phase

Memory Buffer

Fn

Clast

head

F1

C1

Memory Buffer




Memory Buffer

XClast

head

F1

C1

Memory Buffer

Nested Phase

Memory Buffer

Fn

Clast

head

F1

C1

Memory Buffer

[=x Fn ]




Memory Buffer

X

[=x head]

F1

C1

Nested Phase

Memory Buffer

Fn

Clast

head

F1

C1

Memory Buffer

Fn

C2 prediction: right-hand adjuncts

CAN be nested phases



(16) a. * Who do you like Who do you like books books that criticizethat criticize ??

b. Who likes Who likes books books that criticize that criticize whowho ? ?

(Huang 1982)

How do we allow the wh- element embedded in a complex NP to take wide scope?

Argument 5 - Argument 5 - Criterial Vs. S-selected targets for movementCriterial Vs. S-selected targets for movement


Features on a wh- element:

[ wh D who ]


selected

[=arg head]

criterial


(17) a. *Dare-gai [John-ga sono-hon-o katta ka] ti siritagatteiru

who-NOM J.-NOM that-book-ACC bought Q know-want

‘Who wants to know Q John bought that book?’

b. ?Dono-honoi [Mary-ga [John-ga toshokan-kara ti karidasita ka ] siritagatteiru]

Which book M.-NOM J.-NOM library-from checked-out Q know-want

‘M. wants to know which book J. checked out from the library’

Ban against Vacuous Quantification (Saito 1989, Watanabe 1992):

An operator must bind a variable

(the selected position cannot be out of the scope of the criterial position)

A note on Japanese: marking wh-scope



(18) a.??/* John-wa [Mary-ga nani-o katta ka dooka] Tom-ni tazuneta no?

J.-TOP M.-NOM what-ACC bought whether Tom-DAT asked Q?

‘Whati did John ask Tom whether Mary bought ti’

b. John-wa [Mary-ga nani-o katta ka dooka] dare-ni tazuneta no?

J.-TOP M.-NOM what-ACC bought whether who-DAT asked Q?

‘Whoi did John ask ti whether Mary bought what’

c.??/* John-wa [dare-ga nani-o katta ka dooka] Tom-ni tazuneta no?

J.-TOP who.-ACC what-ACC bought whether who-DAT asked Q?

‘Whati did J. ask Tom whether who bought ti’

(Watanabe 1992)

A note on Japanese: one more wh-



Schematic summary of the data (Watanabe 1992):

a. ?? ... wh1 ... [ ... wh2 ... ka dooka] ... Q

b. ?? ... wh1 ... [ ... wh2 ... wh3 ... ka dooka] ... Q

c. ... [ ... wh1 ... ka dooka] ... wh2 ... Q

d. ... wh1 ... wh2 ... [ ... wh3 ... ka dooka] ... Q

e. ... wh1 ... [ ... wh2 ... ka dooka] ... wh3 ... Q

f. ... [ ... wh1 ... ka dooka] ... wh2 ... wh3 ... Q

g. ... [ ... wh1 ... wh2 ... ka dooka] ... wh3 ... Q

Anti-superiority: A multiple question is well-formed only if there is a wh-phrase which is not c-commanded by the wh-phrase that is moved first

Two-level Movement Hypothesis: one and only one wh-phrase per [+wh] C is affected at the first level of movement, which is subject to subjacency and is responsible for the antecedent-government from Comp.

A note on Japanese: one more wh-




[= H]

Q

+ Q

Q

Q

Q2

Q1

Q1

Q2

H


a. John [[[gives candy] to childreni] in theiri library]

a'. John intended to give candy to children in their library and [give candy to children]i he did ti in their library

a''. *John intended to give candy to children in their library and [to children in their library]i he did give candy ti

layered structure cascade structure

Pesetsky (1995)

give

candy

to childreni in theiri library

in their library

to children

candygive

Argument 6 - Argument 6 - Intermediate constituency Intermediate constituency (Phillips 1996-(Phillips 1996-2002)2002)


Merge right (Phillips 1996:18)new items must be introduced at the right edge of the structure

Prediction 1 (Phillips 2002)A constituency test may refer to only those strings that are constituents at the point in the incremental derivation when the test applies

Prediction 2Contradictions between constituency tests can only arise when those tests apply at different stages in the incremental derivation of a sentence...Prediction 5Constituency changes during the course of a derivation, but mostc-command relations do not. Therefore, tests involving c-command relations should not conflict with one another.



Intermediate constituents (Phillips 1996)

Vgive

Ncandy

V

Vgive

V

V

Ncandy

Vgive

Vgive

V

V

Ncandy

V

Vgive

Pto

P

Nchildren

Vgive

V

V

Ncandy

V

Vgive

PPto children

V

V

Vgive

P

Ntheir library

Pin



Coordination of intermediate constituents (Koisumi 2000, Choi & Yoon 2006)

[[Mary-ga ringo-o 2-tu] to [Nancy-ga banana-o3-bon]] tabeta (koto).

[[M.-NOM apple-ACC 2-CL] and [N.-NOM banana-ACC 3-CL]] ate

Lit. ‘[Mary two apples] and [Nancy three bananas] ate.’

(Mary ate two apples, and Nancy three bananas.)

[[Mary-ga John-ni ringo-o 2-tu] to [Nancy-ga Bob-ni banana-o 3-bon]] ageta (koto).

[[M.-NOM J.-DAT apple-ACC 2-CL] and [N.-NOM B.-DAT banana-ACC 3-CL]] gave

Lit. ‘[Mary two apples to John] and [Nancy three bananas to Bob] gave.’

(Mary gave two apples to John, and Nancy gave three bananas to Bob.)



a. there seems to be a man in the roomb. *there seems a man to be in the roomc. there was heard a rumor [that a man is in the room]

a.i there seems _there to bea.ii there seems _there to be *_there (expletives don’t get theta-roles!)

there seems _there to be a mana.iii there seems to be a man in the room

c. there was heard a rumor [that *_there (moving there from the matrix clause would violate A-movement

restrictions)

Argument 7 - Argument 7 - move preempts merge move preempts merge (Richard 1999-2002)(Richard 1999-2002)


The Top-to-Bottom (Left-to-Right) orientation of the structure building operations Merge (Phillips 1996), Move (Chesi 2004, Bianchi & Chesi 2006) and Phase Projection (Chesi 2004) allows us to capture:

• Successive Cyclicity without look-ahead or unmotivated steps

• characterization of recursive/transparent phases depending on features of the selecting phase-head, in particular:

a. Left branch islands (unless case-marked) are computationally nested phases (selected phases come after the selecting head by L.P.)

b. Right hand adverbials too can be analyzed as computationally nested phases, depending on the structure of the relevant licensor/selecting feature

• (a relevant subset of) Strong Islands effects and the related connectedness effects in a derivational way

• an insight into the (quantification/criterial) scope-related movement (to the right).

• contradictory results for constituency/hierarchy tests (Phillips 1996, 2002)

• structure building operations preferences possibly without (sub-)numerations (Richards 1999, 2002)

ConclusionsConclusions

7(±2) reasons for building phrase structures top-down from left to right cristiano chesi...

Documents