Cover not available
Part of
Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces
Edited by Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork and Lilia Schürcks
[Language Faculty and Beyond 11] 2014
► pp. 37–55

On feature interpretability and inheritance

| Linguistics Program — CUNY Graduate Center
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the theoretical motivations given for feature inheritance, and the workings and distribution thereof. The standard motivations for feature inheritance in the literature are shown not to be tenable. The rationale for feature inheritance given in the literature is based on the requirement that Value and Transfer happen at the same time. This requirement falls through, however; hence, feature ineritance cannot be derived on that basis. Feature inheritance can instead be enforced as the only way to meet a constraint to the effect that the EPP property of a phase head must be satisfied within the minimal structure created by Merge of the phase head with its complement. Syntax then requires feature inheritance as long as ‘EPP’ is necessary and is defined as a Spec–Head relation. Both of these premises are subjected to close scrutiny in the paper, as is the question of whether the predicates ‘(un)interpretable’ and ‘(un)valued’ both need to be recognised by syntactic theory.
Published online: 24 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.02dik
References (42)
References
Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas and Sportiche, Dominique. 1994. “Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic.” Linguistic Inquiry 25: 195–220.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. “Parametrizing Agr: Word order, verb-movement and EPP-checking”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 1995. “Floating quantifiers, PRO, and predication”. Linguistic Inquiry 26:199–248.Google Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 1995. “Null Subjects.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 1999. “Inversion as focalization and related questions”. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 9–45.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa and Roberts, Ian. 2010. “Subjects, tense and verb-movement”. In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts and Michelle Sheehan (eds), 263–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2011. “On valued uninterpretable features”. Proceedings of NELS 39.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Derivation by phase”. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Approaching UG from below”. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008. “On phases”. In Robert Freidn, Carlos Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: 133–166.Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles. On the Syntax of Verb-particle, Triadic and Causative Constructions. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den. 2007. “Phase extension. Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction”. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Arguments for successive-cyclic movement through SpecCP: A critical review”. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 89–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Prepare and repair: On pre-emptive strikes and post-hoc patches”. In Repairs, Patrick Brandt and Eric Fuß (eds), 131–153. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel, Kitahara, Hisatsugu and Seely, T. Daniel. 2010. “Uninterpretable features: What are they and what do they do”? In Exploring Crash-proof Grammars, Michael Putnam (ed.), 115–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2000. “OV is more basic than VO”. In The Derivation of OV and VO, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 45–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, S. Jay. 1993. “On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations”. In The View from Building 20, Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert and Uriagereka, Juan. 2002. “Reprojections”. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel Epstein and T. Daniel Seely (eds), 106–132. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1986. Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the double object construction”. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru. 1991. “On the subject of infinitives”. In CLS Proceedings 27, Part I. 324–343.Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2007. Locality and the Architecture of Syntactic Dependencies. London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies. Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2005. “Unifying agreement and agreement-less languages”. Proceedings of WAFL2. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther. 2001. “T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences”. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. “The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features”. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Derivation and Interpretation, Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian and Wendy Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea and Richards, Norvin. 2005. “Phase edge and extraction: a Tagalog case study”. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reid, Wallis. 1991. Verb and Noun Number in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2011. “The communicative function of English verb number”. NLLT 29: 1187–1146.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 1998. “The Principle of Minimal Compliance”. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 599–629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2007. “On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition”. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 563–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2006. “The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance.” Ph.D. dissertation, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Shim, Ji Young. 2012. “Deriving Word Order in Code-switching: Feature Inheritance and Light Verbs.” Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Surányi, Balázs. 2008. “Cyclic spell out and reprojection in head movement”. In Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, Jutta Hartmann, Veronika Hegedűs and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 293–337. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Tzanidaki, Dimitra Irini. 1996. “Configurationality and Greek clause structure.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2003. “On the interpretability of tense on D and its consequences for case theory.” Lingua 113: 659–696. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Larson, Richard K.
2022. Adjectives, case and concord. In A0 – The Lexical Status of Adjectives [Language Faculty and Beyond, 17], ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.