We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter 5 is devoted specifically to the history of the head-complement parameter. The first explicit proposals in this respect are found in Graffi (1980), Stowell (1981), and Travis (1984). Then, attention is focused on Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom and its contribution to the crisis of the head-complement parameter. After considering Chomsky’s (1995a, 1995b) Bare Phrase Structure theory, the discussion turns to the two current main hypotheses about head directionality: on the one hand, that linearization applies in the PF component, as proposed by Richards (2004, 2008); on the other hand, that linear order is determined within narrow syntax, as put forth by Biberauer and Roberts (2015) and Roberts (2019). The chapter ends with a review of Donati and Branchini’s (2013) experimental perspective on linearization, which supports the idea that linear order is part of externalization rather than narrow syntax.
Chapter 6 draws the conclusions of the historical review conducted in the previous chapters and critically reconsiders the notion of parameter, reevaluating both its role in Generative Grammar and its theoretical status. First, concerning Linearization parameters like the ones responsible for overt vs. covert wh-movement and head directionality, it is argued that linguistic variation can be attributed to PF-interface conditions having a disambiguating effect on a specific set of syntactic representations which cannot meet bare output conditions. Second, considering Roberts’s (2019) reformulation of argument-drop, verb movement, and V2 as instances of head movement, it is argued that Chomsky’s (2021a) extra-syntactic account of head movement suggests the possibility of developing a unified theory overcoming the duality between the ‘syntactic parameters’ accounting for the emergence of null arguments and verb movement on one side and Linearization parameters on the other. Lastly, the possibility that variation can arise in the narrow syntax is also considered, followed by some final remarks on the latest views on parametric variation in connection with current minimalist assumptions.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.