Advertisement

Unifying Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

  • Michael BarrieEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 84)

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.

Keywords

BPS Dynamic antisymmetry Linearization 

References

  1. Abels, Klaus. 2003. “Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
  2. Abney, Stephen. 1987. “The English Noun Phrase and its Sentential Aspect.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996. “The Structural Determination of Case and Agreement.” Linguistic Inquiry 27 (1):1–68.Google Scholar
  7. Boeckx, Cedric. 1999. Relativizing Spell-Out. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  8. Bošković, Željko. 2002, “Clitics as Nonbranching Elements and the Linear Correspondence Axiom.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (2):329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bošković, Željko. 2005. “On the Locality of Left Branch Extraction and the Structure of NP.” Studia Linguistica 59 (1):1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cable, Seth. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement and Pied-Piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On Phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, edited by P. Oltero, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Collins, Chris. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Collins, Chris. 2005. “A Smuggling Approach to the Passive in English.” Syntax 8 (2):81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. “Decomposing Pronouns.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (3):409–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Epstein, Samuel, Erich Groat, Ruriko Kawashima, and Hisatsugo Kitahara. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Frantz, Donald G. 1991. Blackfoot Grammar. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  29. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. Guimarães, Maximiliano. 2000. “In Defense of Vacuous Projections in Bare Phrase Structure.” University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 9:90–115.Google Scholar
  31. Hale, Ken, and Samuel J. Keyser. 2003. A Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. “Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Kayne, Richard. 1989. “Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing.” In The Null Subject Parameter, edited by Osvaldo Jaeggli, and Ken Safir, 239–61. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kayne, Richard. 1991. “Romance Clitics, Verb Movement, and PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (4):647–86.Google Scholar
  38. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kayne, Richard. 2003. “Antisymmetry and Japanese.” English Linguistics 20:1–40.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  41. Kayne, Richard. 2009. “Antisymmetry and the Lexicon.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8 (1):1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. “Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. Lebeaux, David. 1988. “Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar.” PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amhers, MA.Google Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Murray, John, and Sarah Smyth. 1999. Basic Russian: A Grammar and Workbook. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nunes, Jairo, and Juan Uriagereka. 2000. “Cyclicity and Extraction Domains.” Syntax 3 (1):20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oishi, Masayuki. 2003. “When Linearity Meets Bare Phrase Structure.” Current Issues in English Linguistics 2:18–41.Google Scholar
  55. Partee, Barbara H., Alice ter Meulen, and Robert Wall. 1993. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Richards, Marc D. 2008. “Desymmetrization: Parametric Variation at the PF Interface.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53 (2/3):275–300.Google Scholar
  59. 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.Google Scholar
  60. Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering Trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1992. “Adverb Incorporation and the Syntax of Adverbs in Modern Greek.” Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (3):289–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Roberge, Yves. 1990. The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments. Montreal, PQ: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Ross, John. 1967. “Constraints on Variables in Syntax.” PhD diss., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht; 21. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Spencer, Andrew. 1995. “Incorporation in Chukchi.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 71 (3):439–89.Google Scholar
  69. Stepanov, Arthur. 2001a. “Cyclic Domains in Syntactic Theory.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
  70. 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.Google Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stroik, Thomas S. 2009. Locality in Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  73. Strozer, Judith. 1976. “Clitics in Spanish.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  74. Toyoshima, Takashi. 2000. “Head-To-Spec Movement and Dynamic Economy.” PhD diss., Cornell University: Ithaha, NY.Google Scholar
  75. Travis, Lisa de Mena, and Greg LaMontagne. 1992. “The Case Filter and Licensing of Empty K.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37 (2):157–74.Google Scholar
  76. Truswell, Robert. 2007. “Extraction from Adjuncts and the Structure of Events.” Lingua 117 (8):1355–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995a. “Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance.” Linguistic Inquiry 26 (1):79–123.Google Scholar
  78. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995b. “An F Position in Western Romance.” In Discourse Configurational Languages, edited by Kiss É. Katalin, 153–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. “Multiple Spell Out.” In Working Minimalism, edited by Samuel Epstein, and Norbert Hornstein, 251–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  80. Wiltschko, Martina. 2004. “Expletive Categorical Information: A Case Study of Number Marking in Halkomelem Salish.” In Northeast Linguistics Society (NELS). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  81. Wiltschko, Martina. 2009. “√Root Incorporation: Evidence from Lexical Suffixes in Halkomelem Salish.” Lingua 119 (2):199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wurmbrand, Susi. 1998. “Infinitives.” PhD diss., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations