Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- Part II Interfaces
- 7 Linearizing Chains at LF
- 8 On the Rationality of Grammar
- 9 The Warped Forge
- 10 Limiting Semantic Types
- 11 Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
- 12 Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
- 13 Neurology and Experience: The Language Organ and Externalization
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
7 - Linearizing Chains at LF
from Part II - Interfaces
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2018
By
Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- Part II Interfaces
- 7 Linearizing Chains at LF
- 8 On the Rationality of Grammar
- 9 The Warped Forge
- 10 Limiting Semantic Types
- 11 Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
- 12 Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
- 13 Neurology and Experience: The Language Organ and Externalization
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
Summary
Under the copy theory (Chomsky 1993), a nontrivial chain encodes a relation among nondistinct copies of a given syntactic object. Interestingly, it is not the case that all the copies are fully interpreted at LF or PF. Chomsky (1993) has argued that reconstruction effects or lack thereof arise as a byproduct of applications of deletion within chains at LF. In turn, Nunes (2004) has proposed that nondistinct copies induce violations of the asymmetry and irreflexivity conditions on linear order, preventing structures containing nontrivial chains from being linearized at PF; these problems can however be remedied through deletion within chains. In this paper I explore the hypothesis that deletion within chains at LF is also triggered by linearization in the sense that it obliterates the violations of the asymmetry and irreflexivity conditions on linear order induced by the “repeated” material within different chain links. Based on various empirical phenomena, I argue that differences between chain outputs at PF and LF are determined by distinct convergence requirements imposed by the interfaces, whereas their similarities (e.g. their general format) follow from economy considerations.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences , pp. 139 - 163Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Barbiers, Sjef, Koeneman, Olaf, and Lekakou, Marika 2010. “Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains,” Journal of Linguistics 46: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko 2001. On the nature of the syntax–phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko 2002. “On multiple wh-fronting,” Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1993. “A minimalist program for linguistic theory,” in Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, pp. 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1995. “Categories and transformations,” in The minimalist program, pp. 219–394. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert and Nunes, Jairo (eds.) 2007. The copy theory of movement. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Wiltschko, Martina 2002. “Decomposing pronouns,” Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotlačil, Jakub 2008. “Across-the-board extraction and clitic omission in Czech,” in Antonenko, A., Bailyn, J., and Bethin, C. (eds.), Proceedings of formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 16: The Stony Brook Meeting, pp. 134–150. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene 1982. “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases,” doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert and Nunes, Jairo 2008. “Adjunction, labeling, and bare phrase structure,” Biolinguistics 2: 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard 1999. “Chains of arguments,” in David Epstein, Samuel and Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Working minimalism, pp. 189–215. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David 1991. “Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation,” in Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Syntax and semantics 25: Perspective on phrase structure: heads and licensing, pp. 209–239. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey and Idsardi, William 1997. “Chains and phono-logical form,” UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 109–125.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger and Uriagereka, Juan 2014. “Chains in minimalism,” in Kosta, Peter, Franks, Steven L., Radeva-Bork, Teodora, and Schürcks, Lilia (eds.), Minimalism and beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces, pp. 169–194. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan 1993. “Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures,” doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan 1994. “A minimalist account of reconstruction asymmetries,” in Gonzàlez, Mercé (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 24, pp. 397–410. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
Niinuma, Fumikazu 2010. “Across-the-board and parasitic gap constructions in Romanian,” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo 1995. “The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program,” doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo 1999. “Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links,” in David Epstein, Samuel and Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Working minimalism, pp. 217–249. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo 2011. “The copy theory,” in Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, pp. 143–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo 2012. “Sideward movement: Triggers, timing, and outputs,” in Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam and Valmala, Vidal (eds.), Ways of structure building, pp. 114–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo and Uriagereka, Juan 2000. “Cyclicity and extraction domains,” Syntax 3: 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudin, Catherine, Kramer, Christina, Billings, Loren, and Baerman, Matthew 1999. “Macedonian and Bulgarian li questions: Beyond syntax,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 541–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoms, Gary 2010. “Syntactic reconstruction and scope economy,” paper delivered at GLOW 33, University of Wrocław, 14/4/2010.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan 1999. “Multiple Spell-Out,” in David Epstein, Samuel and Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Working minimalism, pp. 251–282. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin 1989/1990. “The ATB theory of parasitic gaps,” The Linguistic Review 6: 265–279.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by