Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T07:21:43.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Desymmetrization: Parametric Variation at the PF-Interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Marc D. Richards
Marc D. Richards*
Affiliation:
University of Leipzig
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I advance the thesis that the narrow syntactic component of CHL is purely symmetrical, with all apparent asymmetries reducing to interface conditions. Properties of Germanic object shift and scrambling, in particular the VO order-preservation (Holmberg’s Generalization), derive from symmetry-breaking strategies which dispose of superfluous (symmetric) syntactic information and ensure the PF-legibility (linearization). These interface desymmetrization strategies provide a Minimalist analysis of non-lexical (macro-)parameters, such as the head-directionality parameter.

The Linear Correspondence Axiom is reconciled with the VO/OV head parameter such that linear “shape” is preserved across the derivation. This allows object shift and scrambling to emerge as two sides of a single parametric coin. The implications of this system for the A/A-bar movement typology are explored, and a Minimalist reconceptualization is offered.

Résumé

Résumé

Je propose que le composant syntaxique CLH est purement symétrique et que toutes les asymétries apparentes sont réductibles à des conditions d’interface. Les propriétés de object shift et de scrambling dans les langues germaniques—en particulier la préservation de l’ordre VO (la généralisation de Holmberg)—sont la conséquence de stratégies de brisure de symétrie qui enlèvent l’information syntaxique superflue (symétrique) et qui assurent la lisibilité de la forme phonétique (linéarisation). Ces stratégies de désymetrisation à l’interface donnent une analyse minimaliste des (macro-)paramètres non-lexicaux, tel que le paramètre de la directionalité de la tête.

L’axiome de correspondance linéaire est réconcilié avec le paramètre de tête VO/OV de manière telle que la forme linéaire est préservée au cours de toute la dérivation. Ainsi object shift et scrambling sont deux aspects d’un seul et même paramètre. Les conséquences de ce système pour la typologie du déplacement A/A-barre sont explorées et une reconceptualisation d’inspiration minimaliste est offerte.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 53 , Issue 2-3 , November 2008 , pp. 275 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackema, Peter, and Neeleman, Ad. 2000. Effects of short-term storage in processing right-ward movement. In Storage and computation in the language faculty (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, Vol. 30), ed. Nooteboom, S.G., Weerman, F., and Wijnen, F.N.K., 219–256. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2001. The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32:193–231.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2001. The atoms of language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, and Richards, Marc. 2006. True optimality: When the grammar doesn’t mind. In Minimalist essays, ed. Boeckx, Cedric, 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjmains.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and “covert” movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20:197–267.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Jonas, Dianne. 1996. Subject positions and the role of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27:195–236.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2001. Scope reconstruction and A-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:503–548.Google Scholar
Boskovic, Željko. 2002a. Expletives don’t move! In Proceedings of the Northeast Linguisitc Society (NELS) 32, ed. Hirotani, Masako, 21–40. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Google Scholar
BoŠković, Željko. 2002b. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5:167–218.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 2000. Mirror Theory: Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31:29–56.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian syntax: A Government and Binding approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, ed. Webelhuth, G., 385–439. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist inquiries: The framework, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael J., 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004a. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 3, ed. Belletti, Adriana, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004b. Three factors in language design. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1997. Local economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2002. Eliminating Labels. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. Epstein, Samuel David and Seely, T. Daniel, 42–64. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755662.ch3Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert, and van Riemdijk, Henk, eds. 1994. Studies on Scrambling: Movement. and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomena. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David, Groat, Erich, Kawashima, Ruriko, and Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny, and Pesetsky, David. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31:1–46.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg’s Generalization. Studia Linguistica 53:1– 39.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2003. Antisymmetry and Japanese. Ms., New York University.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34:506–516.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Roussou, Anna. 1999. A Minimalist theory of A-movement and control. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 11:403–442.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, M., 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2000. Shape conservation and remnant movement. Ms., University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and Weerman, Fred. 1999. Flexible syntax: A theory of Case and arguments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 1999. Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links. In Working Minimalism, ed. Epstein, Samuel David and Hornstein, Norbert, 217–249. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2004. Object shift and scrambling in North and West Germanic: A case study in symmetrical syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2006. Weak pronouns, object shift and multiple spell-out: Evidence for phases at the PF-interface. In Minimalist essays, ed. Boeckx, Cedric, 160–181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2007. Dynamic linearization and the shape of phases. Linguistic Analysis 33: Dynamic interfaces, Vol. 2, ed. Grohmann, Kleanthes, 209–237.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamom, and Fukui, Naoki. 1998. Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29:439–474.Google Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas. 2004. Expletive constructions are not “lower right corner” movement constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35:503–508.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2001. Object shift and scrambling. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris, 148–202. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and reason: An introduction to Minimalist syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working Minimalism, ed. Epstein, Samuel David and Hornstein, Norbert, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2001. Verb movement variation in Germanic and Optimality Theory. Ms., University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar