Derivational architecture of CHL
In this chapter we explore certain aspects of the derivational model proposed in DASR, the general model being presupposed up to this point. We put in place ‘conceptual’ and technical details that will allow a more complete examination of a range of important data. We are particularly concerned with our hypothesis (some-what different from that in DASR; see below) that LF and PF necessarily evaluate linguistic entities at every point in the derivation. Thus, if X and Y are merged creating C, then C is necessarily input to both LF and PF, which are purely interpretive and interpret as much of C as possible, while C may serve as input to subsequent derivational operations. Explanatory and empirical consequences of this view are considered, with primary focus on certain existential constructions; and more generally, on the nature of ‘violations’ in the syntax; in particular, we show that ‘violation’ has a very different status than in GB. In any phasal system, a violation at one point in a derivation does not necessarily ‘endure’ in later points. Crucially, in our framework, this is different from there being (the GB notion of) ‘repair’ or ‘salvation’. As we will show, the notion of salvation, repair, or ‘overcoming an earlier violation’ are not properties of the step-by-step derivational system that we propose, as we will explain below.
Existentials, Case and the derivation
We begin with a question: Why is there present in a simple existential construction such as (1)?
In this chapter, we consider further challenges to our proposed elimination of A-chains, the EPP, and at least some cases of successive cyclic A-movement. The data examined here all involve evidence that a DP has moved through the spec of a non-control infinitival to position. Since the spec of non-control to is not a Case-checking position, it can't be that movement is motivated by Case. The EPP, then, is implicated in such cases.
We will first review, in Section 2, the basic phenomena to be dealt with. Next, we consider one recent analysis of it, that of Bošković (2002). Like our own, Bošković's approach rejects the EPP. But, interestingly, Bošković's approach may not be compatible with our hypothesis that there are no A-chains, and it is not compatible with our contention that there is no movement to, or through, spec of this non-control to. After reviewing Bošković, we consider potential problems with his analysis, in Section 3. In Section 4 we consider, rather speculatively, a set of alternative proposals that reject the EPP and that also reject successive cyclic A-movement, while accounting for core data with independently motivated mechanisms. Finally, in Section 5 we briefly consider some of the arguments (not dealt with in earlier discussion) for the EPP based on work by Lasnik, in a series of important recent papers.
Evidence for successive cyclic A-movement as evidence for the EPP
We argued in Chapters 2 and 3 above that raising to has no formal checking features.
… understanding always involves the notion of composition. This notion can enter in one of two ways. If the thing understood be composite, the understanding of it can be in reference to its factors, and to their ways of interweaving so as to form that total thing. This mode of comprehension makes evident why the thing is what it is. The second mode of understanding is to treat the thing as a unity, whether or not it is capable of analysis, and to obtain evidence as to its capacity for affecting its environment. The first mode may be called the internal understanding, and the second mode is the external understanding. … The two modes are reciprocal; either presupposes the other. The first mode conceives the thing as an outcome, the second mode conceives it as a causal factor. … It is true that nothing is finally understood until its reference to process has been made evident. (pp. 45–6)
Process and individuality require each other. In separation all meaning evaporates. The form of process … derives its character from the individuals involved, and the characters of the individuals can only be understood in terms of the process in which they are implicated. (p. 97)
The whole understanding of the world consists in the analysis of process in terms of the identities and diversities of the individuals involved. (p. 98)
Chapters 2 and 3 of this book are based in part on a manuscript written and circulated in 1999 and presented at the 1999 LSA Summer Institute Workshop on Grammatical Functions, ‘SPEC-ifying the GF “Subject”: Eliminating A-chains and the EPP within a Derivational Model'.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.