Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modularity, Phi-Features, and Repairs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of Language

Part of the book series: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory ((SNLT,volume 81))

  • 604 Accesses

Abstract

Chapter 1 introduces the work. It presents the modular architecture of cognition, and the organization of the language faculty into the modules of syntax and its interfacing systems of realization (PF) and interpretation (LF). Phi-features are a common alphabet shared by these systems, permitting investigation of their distinctive characteristics and of their interactions. Among the phi-features of syntax, some are illegible to its interfacing systems: the uninterpretable phi-features of agreement dependencies. The chapter examines the nature of (un)intepretability, agreement, and syntactic versus morphological phi-phenomena. Syntactic features uninterpretable to PF/LF must be eliminated through the formation of syntactic dependencies. This requirement is extended to the new type of dependency studied in this work: last-resort phi-Agree to repair illegible syntactic structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Gregory (1997) reviews this perspective on illusions, including the classical explanation of the Müller-Lyer illusion; see Palmer (1999: 7.1.2), Eagleman (2001) for supplementary and complementary overviews.

  2. 2.

    I speak of PF and LF as two modules. Each may involve discrete modules, for instance realizational morphophology and phonology at PF, thematic and quantificational components at LF. Similarly left open is their generative or interpretive character. Chapter 2.1 returns to these issues at PF; see further Chomsky (1995: 4.1, 2000a: 3.1), Jackendoff (2002).

  3. 3.

    Inertness of agreement for binding has been shown for English (Den Dikken 1995a; Lasnik 1999), Icelandic (Jónsson 1996: 206), Italian (Cardinaletti 1997: 526 note 7; Chomsky 2000a: 147 note 71), and Tsez (Polinsky and Potsdam 2001: 620, 2006: 178), which differ in pro-drop, expletives, and the definiteness effect. A similarly wide swath is cut by the invisibility of agreement for floating quantifiers (Rezac 2010b). Chomsky (1995: 272–276) and Cardinaletti (1997) had proposed that agreement suffices to control PRO, but the correlation has not held up in the core languages for which it was claimed, e.g. Lasnik (1999), Lasnik and Hendrick (2003) for English, Perlmutter (1983: 143–150) for Italian and Northern Italian dialects, Legendre (1990: 116–124) for French (see Rezac 2004a: 226–228 for an overview). From the behaviour of agreement must be sharply distinguished the behaviour of the silent pronouns of pro-drop systems, whose agreement can be only examined as such when the position of pro is known.

  4. 4.

    The mechanism that does so in Chapter 5 will be phi-feature relativized locality.

  5. 5.

    As with agreement, the issue is not the possibility of a semantics for case that happens to have no detectable consequences, for instance as arity-reducers, combined with a suitable semantics for raising and ECM verbs (see Gutierrez-Rexach 2000).

  6. 6.

    Marantz's (2000) proposal is made principally on grounds other than the interpretive inertness of phi-agreement and Case, although it follows, and is picked up on by work such as Bobaljik (2008), Kratzer (2009). These grounds are rather the apparent divorce of A-movement and subject licensing from phi-agreement and Case (Sigurðsson 1991, 2002, Freidin and Sprouse 1991, Schütze 1993, 1997, Frampton and Gutmann 1999, Chomsky 2000a, Harley 1995), and the character of ‘dependent’ Case that appears not to fit the profile of syntactic dependencies (see Section 5.5). Marantz's distinctively nonsyntactic morphology is not to be identified with the possibility that regular syntactic computation continues after the spell-out to LF, before or after Vocabulary Insertion (Sauerland and Elbourne 2002; Embick and Noyer 2001, 2007).

  7. 7.

    Recent work already suggests that phi-Agree may matter for the syntactic licensing of sig/se-type anaphora, in contrast to the interpretive licensing needed in (19), (20) (Reuland 2006, Chomsky 2008: 142, section 6.3; cf. perhaps Lavine and Freidin 2002: 280 note 33, Bailyn 2004: 18–22 esp. note 22). Other apparent effects of agreement are presently formulable in terms of associated overt or covert movement, which is not to say that it is the right analysis; e.g. the suspension of anti-agreement for anaphora binding (Richards 2001: 147ff.), the correlation of participle agreement with old-new information (Adger 1994; Déprez 1998).

  8. 8.

    The account is that of Chomsky (2000a, 2001: 3–5, et seq.), but little changed from Chomsky (1995), save for absence of movement of interpretable content to check uninterpretable features, and the construal of uninterpretable features as unvalued, which renders them illegible to PF as well as LF. Chomsky uses interpretability in the sense of both legibility to PF/LF (2000a: 95) and legibility to LF specifically (2000a: 102, 2001: 3). I have passed lightly over the possible motivation of phi-agreement and Case at PF; Section 5.9 returns to it.

References

  • Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2003. Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 681–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2007. Morphology ≠ syntax. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 325–352. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adger, David. 1994. Functional heads and interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexopoulou, Theodora, and Frank Keller. 2007. Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83: 110–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailyn, John Frederick. 2004. Generalized inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, Michael. 1988. A situated theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, H. Clark. 2005. Enzymatic computation and cognitive modularity. Mind and Language 20: 259–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, H. Clark, and Robert Kurzban. 2006. Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review 113: 628–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, David. 2003. Person-hierarchies and the origin of asymmetries in Totonac verbal paradigms. Linguistic Atlantica 23: 35–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bever, Thomas G. 2009. Remarks on the individual basis for linguistic structures. In Of minds and language, ed. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Juan Uriagereka, and Pello Salaburu, 278–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, Steven, and Ewan E. Klein. 1994. Phonological analysis in typed feature systems. Computational Linguistics 20: 455–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where's phi? In Phi theory, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan Joan, and Sam A. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63: 741–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, Michael. 1995. Lexico-logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinaletti, Anna. 1997. Agreement and control in expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 521–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michael Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers, Peter, Stephen Laurence, and Stephen Stich, ed. 2005. The innate mind, vol. 1: Structure and contents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers, Peter, Stephen Laurence, and Stephen Stich, ed. 2007. The innate mind, vol. 3: Foundations and the future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1998. Phonological constraints on morphological rules. In The handbook of morphology, ed. Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 144–148. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000a. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000b. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Christopher. 1997. Local economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, Max. 1999. Modularity and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3: 115–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, Greville. 2003. Agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 101: 155–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell, Gary. S., and Reich, Peter A. 1981. Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20: 611–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Den Dikken, Marcel. 1995a. Binding, expletives, and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 347–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Dikken, Marcel. 2001. ‘Pluringulars’, pronouns and quirky agreement. In The Linguistic Review 18: 19–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Déprez, Viviane. 1998. Semantic effects of agreement: The case of French past participle agreement. Probus 10: 1–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1986. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagleman, David M. 2001. Visual illusions and neurobiology. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2: 920–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, Fernanda, and Benjamin Swets. 2005. The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause ‘island’ contexts. In Twenty-first century psycholinguistics, ed. Anne Cutler, 263–278. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, Jerry A. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frampton, John, and Sam Gutmann. 1999. Cyclic computation, a computationally efficient minimalist syntax. Syntax 2: 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freidin, Robert and Rex A. Sprouse. 1991. Lexical case phenomena. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 392–416. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuß, Eric. 2005. The rise of agreement. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • García, Erica C. 2001. The cognitive implications of unlike grammars: variable clitic-clustering in Spanish vs. Italian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 102: 389–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, Richard. Knowledge in perception and illusion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 352: 1121–1127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, Zenzi M., and Victor S. Ferreira. 2006. Properties of spoken language production. In Handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. Matthew J. Traxler and Morton A. Gernsbacher, 21–60. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groat, Erich. 1997. A derivational program for syntactic theory. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez-Rexach, Javier. 2000. The formal semantics of clitic doubling. Journal of Semantics 16: 315–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Jeffrey. 1991. Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. In Paradigms: The economy of inflection, ed. Frans Plank, 75–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. Pragmatic skewing in 1↔2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64: 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, Pauline. 1997. Where (if anywhere) is transderivationality located? In The limits of syntax, ed. Peter Culicover and Louise McNally, 303–336. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, Case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 39–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, David E. and Shalom Lappin. 1999. Local constraints vs. economy. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jónsson, Johannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1979. Canonical ergativity and Daghestan languages. In Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, ed. Frans Plank, 61–77. London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Yookyung, and Stanley Peters. 1998. Semantic and pragmatic context-dependence: The case of reciprocals. In Is the best good enough?, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 221–249. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, John, and Judith Aissen. 1971. I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 241–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 187–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 75–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuno, Susumu. 2005. Empathy and direct discourse perspectives. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 315–343. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, Howard, and Randall Hendrick. 2003. Steps toward a minimal theory of anaphora. In Minimal syntax, ed. Randall Hendrick, 124–151. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, Howard, and Nicholas Sobin. 2000. The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 343–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavine, James and Robert Freidin. 2002. The subject of defective Tense in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 9: 253–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, Geraldine. 1990. Inversion with certain French experiencer verbs. Language 65: 752–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2005. Deixis. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 2000 [1991]. Case and licensing. In Arguments and Case, ed. Eric Reuland, 11–30. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marr, David. 1982. Vision. San Fransico: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J. 1982. Prosodic structure and expletive infixation. Language 58: 574–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Agreement. In Universals of human language, vol. 4: Syntax, in Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson and Edith A. Moravcsik, 331–374. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, Stephen E. 1999. Vision science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, David M. 1983. Personal vs. impersonal constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 141–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the best good enough?, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 337–384. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Colin, Matt Wagers, and Ellen Lau. forthcoming. Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time comprehension. In Language and linguistics compass. On-line: www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/linguistics/.

  • Pinker, Steven. 1994. The language instinct. New York: Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 583–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potts, Christopher. 2002. Comparative economy conditions in natural language syntax. Paper presented at the North American Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information, Workshop on Model-Theoretic Syntax, Stanford, CA: Stanford University, June 28, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Zenon. 1999. Is vision continuous with cognition? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 341–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raftopoulos, Athanassios. 2001. Is perception informationally encapsulted? The issue of the theory-ladenness of perception. Cognitive Science 25: 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface strategies. OTS Working Papers TL-95-002. Utrecht: Utrecht University/OTS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezac, Milan. 2004a. Elements of cyclic syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Toronto, ON: University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezac, Milan. 2010b. Phi-Agree vs. movement: Evidence from floating quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 496–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezac, Milan. 2010c. Dative-locative syncretisms in Romance clitics and the relationship between syntax and morphology. Ms., UMR 7023 CNRS Université de Paris 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, ed. Lisa Cheng and Norbert Corver, 97–134. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safir, Kenneth. 1984. Multiple variable binding. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 603–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safir, Kenneth. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 663–689

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, Uli, and Paul Elbourne. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, Carson T. 1993. Towards a Minimalist account of quirky Case and licensing in Icelandic. In Papers on Case and agreement 2, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 321–375. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, Case, and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1991. Icelandic Case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, Halldor Ármann. 2002. To be an oblique subject: Icelandic vs. Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 691–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, Dan. 2002. In defense of massive modularity. In Language, brain and cognitive development, ed. Emannuel Dupoux, 47–57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson (ed). 2007. Person reference in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasmowski, Liliane. 1985. Faire infinitif. In Les constructions de la phrase française, ed. Ludo Melis, Liliane Tasmowski, Paul Verluyten, and Dominique Willems, 223–365. Gent: Communication and Cognition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, Jesse. 2005. Prepositions and complement selection. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on the linguistic dimensions of prepositions and their use in computational linguistics formalisms and applications, ed. Aline Villavicencio and Valia Kordoni, 11–19. University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, Stephen, and Larisa Zlatić. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language 76: 799–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Yoad. 2002. Atoms and sets: A characterization of semantic number. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 493–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Charles. 1997. Minimal computation. M.Sc. thesis, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Paris 8, 93526, Saint Denis Cedex, France

    Milan Rezac

Authors
  1. Milan Rezac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milan Rezac .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rezac, M. (2010). Modularity, Phi-Features, and Repairs. In: Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of Language. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 81. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9698-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation