This paper argues that the computational system of Human Language requires a Numeration; however, the Numeration must be compiled throughout a syntactic derivation and not selected prior to the derivation. The consequence of having a derivationally built Numeration is that the Numeration becomes the domain for both the Merge and Remerge operations, thereby obviating the need for the Internal Merge operation. Furthermore, having a derivationally built Numeration makes it possible to design a crash-proof syntax along the lines developed in Stroik’s (2009) Survive-minimalism.
In this paper, I explore the possibility accounting for constructions that appear to instantiate Long-Distance Agreement without appealing to a formal operation of agreement-at-a-distance. The viability of such an account is particularly important in light of recent theoretical developments that suggest a move away from Probe-Goal oriented approaches to movement, and towards viewing movement as a response to formal needs of the moving element itself. Broadly speaking, I consider two possible approaches: (i) agreement is established in a purely local con.guration, followed by the agreeing head (and whatever material ends up intervening between this head and the target nounphrase) moving away, giving the impression of Long-Distance Agreement; and (ii) apparent Long-Distance Agreement is actually an instance of syntactic movement in which the phonological component chooses to pronounce the moved element in its lower position. It is shown that the latter approach fares better with respect to the scopal properties of several constructions, including English expletiveassociate constructions, and so-called Long-Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu and in Basque.
An analysis of German Left Dislocation is proposed which combines the findings in recent work on the construction with a theoretical model of syntactic derivation that dispenses with the existence of the EPP-feature. The findings at stake are basically those in Frey (2000, 2004a), where it is shown that the topical character of left-dislocated structures is the result of movement of the D-pronoun to a middle-field, and not a pre-field, topic projection. The theoretical model adopted is ‘Survive Minimalism’ (Stroik, 2009; Putnam, 2007; Putnam and Stroik, in progress). The core of the proposal is that ‘Merge’ of both the D-pronoun and the left-dislocated XP with C is triggered by the presence of a [+REF] feature on the three heads, as in Stroik’s (2009) account of English wh-constructions with a pair-list reading.
This paper describes how temporal chains are construed in a syntactic structure. The links in T-chains are local T-heads, where every main verb and auxiliary brings its own tense package. The semantic difference between finite and non-finite T-elements consists in the choice of first argument, the speech event S (finite tense) or any preceding verbal event e (non-finite tense). Overt inflectional markings encoding finiteness are a crucial difference between Modern English and Mainland Scandinavian languages (MSc). Middle English, like MSc, encoded finiteness. MSc retained the finiteness distinction but lost the agreement markings; English main verbs lost the finiteness distinction but retained their tense and agreement markings. This development fuelled many syntactic differences between MSc and English, e.g., do-support versus verb-second.
This study provides a Survive-minimalist analysis of two issues related to DP-structures in code-switching (CS) grammars: (i) the relationship between determiners and nouns in a DP where each respective lexical item originates from a separate language and (ii) the linearization of Det(erminers)-Adj(ectives)- N(ouns) in CS-grammars where each respective language contributing a surface order contrasts with the other. Violable constraints that filter the selection possibilities (i.e., the operation Select) of determiners are posited. We contend that a formal feature, definiteness [+ Def], triggers the re-configuration of lexical items to conform to structural requires of a given CS-grammar. That same feature motivates both the det-adj-n and the det-n-adj orderings. The advantages to pursuing this analysis of DP linearity in CS-grammars are that it is: (i) consistent with the desiderata of Survive-minimalism and (ii) does not require features similar to the EPP to exist in the system.
This analysis examines the symmetries of coordinate structures, specifically how they can be generated in a minimalist, crash-proof grammar. I show that a phase-based model with selection of lexical items (LIs) before merge must have a matching operation across conjuncts, but this operation is prohibited by this model’s own constraints. An alternative is presented that uses the Survive principle by which LIs are selected as needed for the merge operations of a coordinate structure. This selection process is guided and assisted by algorithms that map certain features from a leading conjunct to the next conjunct undergoing concatenation. With selection on demand and the mapping of features, coordinate symmetries can be generated that otherwise require global operations spanning all the conjuncts such as across-the-board movement. Additionally, the asymmetries that occur in coordinate structures are accounted for as consequences of additional mergers that do not require coordinate matching across conjuncts. Issues related to the limits of working memory can also be addressed.
Over the years, a number of counter-examples to the hypothesis that ellipsis resolution is mediated via syntactic identity have been identified. However, in the same time evidence which seems to require comparison of syntactic structures in ellipsis resolution has also been unearthed. On top of this empirical puzzle, survive minimalism places an additional theoretical constraint: syntactic structures, once assembled, are opaque to further search or manipulation. In this paper, I show that a simple perspective shift allows us both to view the purported counter-examples as providing glimpses into the nature of the operations which build syntactic structure, and to satisfy the theoretical constraints imposed by survive minimalism’s derivational take on syntactic structure.
The paper pursues two goals. First, it motivates a particular view of the Survive principle. Concretely, it is suggested to interpret the Survive principle as the syntactic instance of a more general push-up mechanism that is responsible for triggering movement induced by type incompatibility on the semantic side. Second, I identify a particular set of properties that the Survive analysis predicts for configurations involving multiple covert movements. These diagnostics, which help to discriminate between survive and Attract based models of dislocation, are argued to be manifest in scope restrictions on double object constructions and inverse linking. The critical factor setting apart the two models consists in the observation that only the Survive principle is able to express ordering restrictions between different types of movements (Case driven movement vs. QR) in a natural way. The resulting analysis also supports the phonological theory of QR.
This paper examines what data from language change can tell us about derivations, and in particular the early part of the derivation where lexical items are selected from the lexicon using the Survive mechanism. It is well-known that in changes often referred to as grammaticalization the features of lexical items are not only lost but reanalyzed from semantic to grammatical. I argue this is due to principles economizing derivations. Unlike many using Survive, I argue that uninterpretable features are in fact necessary.
This paper argues that the computational system of Human Language requires a Numeration; however, the Numeration must be compiled throughout a syntactic derivation and not selected prior to the derivation. The consequence of having a derivationally built Numeration is that the Numeration becomes the domain for both the Merge and Remerge operations, thereby obviating the need for the Internal Merge operation. Furthermore, having a derivationally built Numeration makes it possible to design a crash-proof syntax along the lines developed in Stroik’s (2009) Survive-minimalism.
In this paper, I explore the possibility accounting for constructions that appear to instantiate Long-Distance Agreement without appealing to a formal operation of agreement-at-a-distance. The viability of such an account is particularly important in light of recent theoretical developments that suggest a move away from Probe-Goal oriented approaches to movement, and towards viewing movement as a response to formal needs of the moving element itself. Broadly speaking, I consider two possible approaches: (i) agreement is established in a purely local con.guration, followed by the agreeing head (and whatever material ends up intervening between this head and the target nounphrase) moving away, giving the impression of Long-Distance Agreement; and (ii) apparent Long-Distance Agreement is actually an instance of syntactic movement in which the phonological component chooses to pronounce the moved element in its lower position. It is shown that the latter approach fares better with respect to the scopal properties of several constructions, including English expletiveassociate constructions, and so-called Long-Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu and in Basque.
An analysis of German Left Dislocation is proposed which combines the findings in recent work on the construction with a theoretical model of syntactic derivation that dispenses with the existence of the EPP-feature. The findings at stake are basically those in Frey (2000, 2004a), where it is shown that the topical character of left-dislocated structures is the result of movement of the D-pronoun to a middle-field, and not a pre-field, topic projection. The theoretical model adopted is ‘Survive Minimalism’ (Stroik, 2009; Putnam, 2007; Putnam and Stroik, in progress). The core of the proposal is that ‘Merge’ of both the D-pronoun and the left-dislocated XP with C is triggered by the presence of a [+REF] feature on the three heads, as in Stroik’s (2009) account of English wh-constructions with a pair-list reading.
This paper describes how temporal chains are construed in a syntactic structure. The links in T-chains are local T-heads, where every main verb and auxiliary brings its own tense package. The semantic difference between finite and non-finite T-elements consists in the choice of first argument, the speech event S (finite tense) or any preceding verbal event e (non-finite tense). Overt inflectional markings encoding finiteness are a crucial difference between Modern English and Mainland Scandinavian languages (MSc). Middle English, like MSc, encoded finiteness. MSc retained the finiteness distinction but lost the agreement markings; English main verbs lost the finiteness distinction but retained their tense and agreement markings. This development fuelled many syntactic differences between MSc and English, e.g., do-support versus verb-second.
This study provides a Survive-minimalist analysis of two issues related to DP-structures in code-switching (CS) grammars: (i) the relationship between determiners and nouns in a DP where each respective lexical item originates from a separate language and (ii) the linearization of Det(erminers)-Adj(ectives)- N(ouns) in CS-grammars where each respective language contributing a surface order contrasts with the other. Violable constraints that filter the selection possibilities (i.e., the operation Select) of determiners are posited. We contend that a formal feature, definiteness [+ Def], triggers the re-configuration of lexical items to conform to structural requires of a given CS-grammar. That same feature motivates both the det-adj-n and the det-n-adj orderings. The advantages to pursuing this analysis of DP linearity in CS-grammars are that it is: (i) consistent with the desiderata of Survive-minimalism and (ii) does not require features similar to the EPP to exist in the system.
This analysis examines the symmetries of coordinate structures, specifically how they can be generated in a minimalist, crash-proof grammar. I show that a phase-based model with selection of lexical items (LIs) before merge must have a matching operation across conjuncts, but this operation is prohibited by this model’s own constraints. An alternative is presented that uses the Survive principle by which LIs are selected as needed for the merge operations of a coordinate structure. This selection process is guided and assisted by algorithms that map certain features from a leading conjunct to the next conjunct undergoing concatenation. With selection on demand and the mapping of features, coordinate symmetries can be generated that otherwise require global operations spanning all the conjuncts such as across-the-board movement. Additionally, the asymmetries that occur in coordinate structures are accounted for as consequences of additional mergers that do not require coordinate matching across conjuncts. Issues related to the limits of working memory can also be addressed.
Over the years, a number of counter-examples to the hypothesis that ellipsis resolution is mediated via syntactic identity have been identified. However, in the same time evidence which seems to require comparison of syntactic structures in ellipsis resolution has also been unearthed. On top of this empirical puzzle, survive minimalism places an additional theoretical constraint: syntactic structures, once assembled, are opaque to further search or manipulation. In this paper, I show that a simple perspective shift allows us both to view the purported counter-examples as providing glimpses into the nature of the operations which build syntactic structure, and to satisfy the theoretical constraints imposed by survive minimalism’s derivational take on syntactic structure.
The paper pursues two goals. First, it motivates a particular view of the Survive principle. Concretely, it is suggested to interpret the Survive principle as the syntactic instance of a more general push-up mechanism that is responsible for triggering movement induced by type incompatibility on the semantic side. Second, I identify a particular set of properties that the Survive analysis predicts for configurations involving multiple covert movements. These diagnostics, which help to discriminate between survive and Attract based models of dislocation, are argued to be manifest in scope restrictions on double object constructions and inverse linking. The critical factor setting apart the two models consists in the observation that only the Survive principle is able to express ordering restrictions between different types of movements (Case driven movement vs. QR) in a natural way. The resulting analysis also supports the phonological theory of QR.
This paper examines what data from language change can tell us about derivations, and in particular the early part of the derivation where lexical items are selected from the lexicon using the Survive mechanism. It is well-known that in changes often referred to as grammaticalization the features of lexical items are not only lost but reanalyzed from semantic to grammatical. I argue this is due to principles economizing derivations. Unlike many using Survive, I argue that uninterpretable features are in fact necessary.