SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS

Heads

Features

n

iN, iPerson, iNumber, iGender, uCase

iWh (for wh-phrases such as  who and what)

nExpl

iN, uPerson

d

iD

v*

iv, uPerson, uNumber, uGender, Case:Acc

C

iC, iQ

CQ

iC, uQ

Psv

iAux, uPerson, uNumber, uGender

      Prog, Perf

iAux

ToT

iTense:None, uPerson

     Tpres

iTense:Pres, uPerson, uNumber, uGender, Case:Nom

Tpast

iTense:Past, uPerson, uNumber, uGender, Case:Nom

Prog, Perf, Psv

AuxF

Roots

Roots such as read and book which are categorized as verbs and nominals, verbal roots can assign theta-roles

  Table 1  Basic Heads and important features (i = interpretable/valued, u = unvalued)

 

#

Basic Operations and principles

Source (if relevant)

(1)

Input Stream

Each derivation begins with an input list of lexical items, which are selected and Merged.

 

(2)

External set-Merge

Given syntactic objects X and Y, form {X, Y}.

 

 

Chomsky 2000, 2004

(3)

Internal set-Merge

{….X….} {X, {….X….}}

l  Select an argument X in the accessible portion (not transferred) of an SO, and internally set-Merge the argument X with the root.

(3)

Pair-Merge

Given syntactic objects X and Y, form <X, Y> , where X (or Y) is invisible to further syntactic operations.

(4)

Categorization

A root is categorized when Labeled by a categorizer v, n, etc.

 

Marantz 1997, Embick and Marantz 2008, Borer 2005a, 2005b,  2013; Chomsky 2013, 2015

(5)

Theta-criterion

An argument must be assigned a theta-role on external-Merge. An argument cannot get a second theta-role.

 Chomsky 1981, 2021

(6)

Agree

l  A probe (uF) on the root note searches for a matching goal iF in its c-command domain.

Agree(X[uF1], Y[F1])   (X[F1], Y[F1])

l  If a probe with uF1 Agrees with a goal that has an identical uF1,  the uF1 unify.

Agree(X[uF1], Y[uF1]), uF1 unify

 

Chomsky 2001, Ginsburg & Fong (2019)

 

FormCopy

If NP X c-commands NP Y, X and Y are identical in form, and if there no intervening NP Z, Y can be interpreted as a Copy of X. A Copy in a Case position is pronounced.

Chomsky 2021

(7)

Case: Basic Case configurations

a. Subject: {NP, TP}

b. Object: {v*, {R, NP}}

c. Object of P: {P, NP}

d. Possessor: {NP, NP}

Case is a reflex of phi-feature agreement. It appears at Spell-Out and its form is subject to cross-linguistic and language-internal variation.

 

Chomsky 2000, 2001, Marantz 2000, Bobaljik 2008

(7)

The Box

A topicalized/focused phrase goes into a Box after external Merge with an SO. CQ has access to the Box. 

 

Chomsky 2024

(8)

Free Merge of arguments

{….NP1…..} {NP1, {….NP1…..}}

An argument NP1 contained within an SO (that has not been transferred) can be internally set-Merged with the root of the SO.

 

Chomsky 2001, 2013, 2015

(9)

Labeling

a.     Given {X[F1], Y[F1]}, where F1 is a prominent feature, F1 labels.

b.     Given {X, YP}, YP labels if its head is strong enough to label.

c.     Given {X, YP}, X labels if it doesn’t have any uFs.

 

Chomsky 2013, 2015 

 

Mizuguchi 2017

(10)

Transfer

When a phase head is Merged, the entire phase is transferred.  

Chomsky 2001,  2013, 2015

 

(11)

Basic Spell Out Rules

Tense: T v* R/Aux R/Aux+T

Modal: T Modal T+Modal

Passive: be -en v R be R+-en

Progressive: be -ing v* R be R+-ing

Perfective: have -en v* R have R+-en

Interrogatives: CQ N T CQ+T N

Thematization/Extraction: N be+-en v R be N R+-en

 

Irregular verb forms are stored in a lexicon.

Chomsky 1957

 Table 2   Basic Operations and Principles  (R = Root)

References

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. (2008). Where’s phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (Eds.), Phi theory: Phi features across modules and interfaces (pp. 295-328). Oxford University Press.Borer, Hagit. 2005a. In name only. Structuring sense, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Borer, Hagit. 2005b. The normal course of events: Structuring sense, Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Borer, Hagit. 2013. Taking form: Structuring sense, Volume 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding: the Pisa lectures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti (ed), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 3, 104-132. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003

Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projections: Extensions. Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini, 1-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chomsky, Noam. 2021. Minimalism: Where are we now, and where can we hope to go. Gengo Kenkyu 160. 1-41.

Chomsky, Noam. 2024. The miracle creed and SMT. In Matteo Greco & Davide Mocci (eds.), A Cartesian dream: A geometrical account of syntax: In honor of Andrea Moro, 17-40). Lingbuzz Press.

Embick, David & Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 1-53.

Ginsburg, Jason & Fong, Sandiway. 2019. Combining linguistic theories in a Minimalist Machine. In Robert C. Berwick and Edward P. Stabler (eds.), Minimalist Parsing, 39-69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2. 201-225.

Marantz, Alec. 2000. Case and licensing. In Eric J. Reuland (ed.), Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization, 11-30. John Benjamins.

Mizuguchi, Manabu. 2017. Labelability and interpretability. Studies in Generative Grammar 27. 327-365.

 

 

 

 Home