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. 56–77

On the need for formal features in the narrow syntax

ORCID logo | Penn State University
| University of Tromsø
In this chapter we pose the non-trivial question regarding the status of functional features (f-features) in minimalist inquiry. This investigation explores whether or not f-features can be considered an essential part of narrow syntactic operations if they can be relegated to some sort of Late Insertion rule at PF. We advance the argument here that at least some f-features must be present in the narrow syntax to ensure derivational compliance.
Published online: 24 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.03put
References (63)
References
Abney, Stephen P. 1987. “The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect.” Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2013. A Syntax of Substance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter and Neeleman, Ad. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2009. “Roots and lexicality in distributed morphology.” In York-Essex Morphology Meeting 2, Alexandra Galani, Daniel Redinger and Norman Yeo (eds), 1–21. York.Google Scholar
Arad, Maya. 2003. “Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs”. In Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(4): 737–778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1985. “The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation”. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3): 373–416.Google Scholar
. 1988. Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany (Nueva York): SUNY Albany Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 1994. “What does adjacency do?” In The Morphology-Syntax Connection, MITWPL 22, Heidi Harley and Colin Phillips (eds), 1–31.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation.” In Phi-Theory: Phi Features across Interfaces and Modules, Daniel Harbour, David Adger and Susana Béjar (eds), 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2010a. “Defeating lexicocentrism. Outline of ‘Elementary syntactic structures”. Ms., ICREA/UAB.Google Scholar
. 2010b. “What principles and parameters got wrong.” Ms., ICREA/UAB.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Considerations pertaining to the nature of logodiversity, or How to construct a parametric space without parameters.” Ms., ICREA & Universidad de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1999. “Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic Projections and the Lexicon.” Ms., USC.
. 2003. “Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon.” In The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory, Maria Polinsky and John Moore (eds), 31–67. Chicago: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2005a. Structuring Sense Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005b. Structuring Sense Vol. 2: The Natural Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio. 1993. “Sobre las diferencias entre los adjetivos relacionales y los calificativos.” Revista Argentina de Lingüística 9(1-2): 10–48.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Coordinated adjectives and the interpretation of number features.” In Studies in Spanish Syntax, Laura Brugè (ed.), 47–60. Venice: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio and Picallo, Carme. 1996. “Postnominal adjectives in Spanish DP’s.” Journal of Linguistics 32(3): 349–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans. 2000. “Against feature strength: The case of Scandinavian object shift.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 673–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions.” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 315–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. “Some notes on economy of derivation and representation.” In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Current Studies in Linguistics, Series no. 20, Robert Freidin (ed.), 417–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.), 1–53. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. “On phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–167. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2000. “Features, syntax and categories in the latin perfect”. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 185–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “On the structure of resultative participles in English”. Linguistic Inquiry 35(2): 355–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Localism vs. Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David and Noyer, Ralf. 2001. “Movement operations after syntax”. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1988. “English suffixation as constrained only by selectional restrictions.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(4): 527–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio. 2007. “The internal syntactic structure of relational adjectives.” Probus 19: 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2007. “Cyclic spell-out and the domain of post-syntactic operations: Evidence from complementizer agreement.” Linguistic Analysis 33(3-4): 267–302.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Multiple agreement and the representation of inflectional features in the C-domain.” Linguistische Berichte 213: 77–106.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. “Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements.” In Universals of Language, Joseph Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane and van Koppen, Marjo. 2012. “Complementizer agreement and relation between C0 and T0.” Linguistic Inquiry 44(3): 441–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken and Keyser, Samuel. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1993. “Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection”. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale and Samuel Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi and Noyer, Ralf. 1998. “Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon: Nominalizations, vocabulary Items and the encyclopaedia.” In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, Heidi Harley (ed.), 119–137. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1991. “The exponence of gender in Spanish.” Linguistic Inquiry 22(1): 27–62.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2006. “Agreement configurations: In defense of “Spec head”.” In Agreement Systems, Cedric Boeckx (ed.), 159–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. “One probe - Two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Laenzlinger, Christorpher. 2005. “French adjective ordering: Perspectives on DP-internal movement types.” Lingua 115(5): 645–689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No escape from syntax. Don´t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon.” In Alex Dimitriadis et al. (eds), UPenn WPL 4, 201–225.Google Scholar
. “Words”. unpublished Ms., MIT.
Mateu, Jaume. 2002. “Argument structure: Relational construal at the syntax–semantics interface.” Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2006. “Remarks on the projection of dative arguments in German.” In Datives and Other Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure, Daniel Hole, André Meinunger, & Werner Abraham (eds), 49–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2009. Why Agree? Why Move? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel. 1999. “On the constituency structure of the Catalan verbs”. In Papers on Morphology and Syntax, Cycle One, MITWPL 33, Karlos Arregi et al. (eds), 279–322.Google Scholar
Oltra, Isabel and Arregi, Karlos. 2005. “Stress-by-structure in Spanish.” Linguistic Inquiry 36(1): 43–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pensalfini, Rob. 2000. “Encyclopedia-lexicon distinctions in Jingulu grammar”. In The Encyclopedia-Lexicon Interface, B. Peeters (ed.), 393–431. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
RAE and ASALE. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2011. Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of Language. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Uninterpretable Phi-dependencies in Syntax and Interpretation.” Handout. SWIGG 12, Geneva, April 20–21.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard and Shih, Chinlin. 1988. “Prenominal adjective ordering in Chinese and Mandarin.” Proceedings of NELS 18: 465–485.Google Scholar
Stroik, Thomas. 2009. Locality in Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stroik, Thomas and Putnam, Michael. 2013. The Structural Design of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar