Nessun titolo diapositiva

1
7(2) reasons for building phrase structures
top-down from left to right Cristiano
Chesi chesi_at_media.unisi.it CISCL - University of
Siena http// www.ciscl.unisi.it Nanzan
University, 20 February 2007 Siena, 13 February
2007
2
Outline

• Overview of a (directional) Minimalist Grammar
• 7(2) arguments for a preferential directionality
• FORMAL
• (Un)motivated intermediate steps and successive
  cyclicity
• Growing complexity
• EMPIRICAL
• Strong islands as nested phases
• Extractions from strong islands parasitic gaps
  and connectedness
• Criterial Vs. S-selected targets for movement
• Intermediate Constituency
• Preference for move
• Clause boundedness Scrambling Vs. Heavy NP-shift
• QR, Lefteness and the right-roof-constraint

3
A preliminary opposition Derivations Vs.
Representations
Representational Derivational
4
(Top-to-bottom) Minimalist Grammars formalism
Stablers (1997) formalization of a Minimalist
Grammars, MG (Chomsky 1995) as a 4-tuple V, Cat,
Lex, F such that V is a finite set of
non-syntactic features, (P ? I) where P are
phonetic features and I are semantic ones Cat
is a finite set of syntactic features, Cat
(base ? select ? licensors ? licensees)
where base are standard categories comp,
tense, verb, noun ..., select specify a
selection requirement x x base licensees
force phrasal movement -wh, -case
..., licensors satisfy licensee requirements
wh, case ... Lex is a finite set of
expressions built from V and Cat (the
lexicon) F is a set of two partial functions
from tuples of expressions to expressions
merge, move
5
(Top-to-bottom) Minimalist Grammars formalism
Example of a toy Minimalist Grammar V P
/what/, /did/, /you/, /see/, I what,
did, you, see Cat base D, N, V, T,
C select D, N, V, T, C licensors
wh, licensees -wh Lex -wh D
what, V T did, D you, D D V see, T
wh C ? F merge, move such
that merge (X, Y) X X Y (if and only
if F X and F Y) move (X, Y) X Y X W,
tY (if g X and -g Y with W possibly
null, without any selecting/selector feature
g in W)
6
(Top-to-bottom) Minimalist Grammars derivation

1. merge (D D V see, -wh D what) ? see D V
   see, -wh what
2. merge (D you, D V see, -wh what) ? see you,
   see V see, -wh what
3. merge (V T did, see you, see V see, -wh what
   ) ? (did T did, see you, see see, -wh
   what
4. merge (T wh C ?, did T did, see you, see
   see, -wh what ) ? (C wh C ?, did did,
   see you, see see, -wh what )
5. move (C wh C ?, did did, see you, see see,
   -wh what ) ? C What C ?, did did, see
   you, see see, twhat

C ?
wh C ?
-wh what
T did
T wh C ?
V T did
V see
D you
D V see
D D V see
-wh D what
7
Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi 2004)
Performance tasks
Parsing
Generation
Flexibility (interface conditions)
Competence
Structure Building Operations (merge, move,
phase)
Features Structures(semantic
syntactic/abstract phonetic features ? lexicon )
Economy conditions
Universals
Parameterization
8
Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi 2004)
Performance tasks
Parsing
Generation
Parsing problem given a grammar G, a finite set
of phonological features ? (grouped by words) and
a precedence total order among them, find the
relevant set of lexical items Lex, compatible
with ? and the set of dominance relations D
among ? features associated to ? in Lex, if
possible, if not reject the input.
Generation problem given a grammar G, a finite
set of semantic features ? and a finite set of
dominance relations D among them, find the
relevant set of lexical items Lex and the correct
linearization among ? features associated to ? in
Lex, if possible, if not reject the input
9
Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi 2004)
Performance tasks
Parsing
Generation
Flexibility
Competence
Structure Building Operations (merge, move,
phase)
Features Structures(semantic
syntactic/abstract phonetic features ? lexicon )
Economy conditions
Universals
Parameterization
10
Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi 2004)
Features Structures(semantic
syntactic/abstract phonetic features ? lexicon )
11
Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi 2004)
12
Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi 2004)
Performance tasks
Parsing
Generation
Flexibility
Competence
Structure Building Operations (merge, move,
phase)
Features Structures(semantic
syntactic/abstract phonetic features ? lexicon )
Economy conditions
Universals
Parameterization
13
Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi 2004)
Structural Description
I(dentifiers) A,B,C (immediate)
P(recedence) ltA,Bgt, ltB,Cgt (immediate)
D(dominance) BltA, BltC
Long Distance Relation two non-empty elements
enter a long distance relation (thus forming a
discontinuous constituency relation) when a
dominance relation but no precedence relation is
defined between them.
Universals
Linearization Principle (inspired by LCA, Kayne
1994) if A lt B, then either a. ltA, Bgt if B
is a complement of A (that is, A selects B), or
b. ltB, Agt if B is a functional projection of A
14
Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi 2004)
Performance tasks
Parsing
Generation
Flexibility
Competence
Structure Building Operations (merge, move,
phase)
Features Structures(semantic
syntactic/abstract phonetic features ? lexicon )
Economy conditions
Universals
Parameterization
15
Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi 2004)
MOVE top-down oriented function which stores an
un-selected element in a memory buffer and
re-merges it at the point of the computation
where the element is selected
MERGE binary function (sensitive to temporal
order) taking two features structures and
unifying them.
Structure Building Operations (merge, move,
phase)
PHASE PROJECTION is the minimal set of dominance
relations introduced in the SD based on the
expectations triggered by each select feature of
the currently processed lexical items
16
Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi 2004)
MOVE Linearization Principle (inspired by Kaynes
LCA) if A immediately dominates B, then either
a. ltA, Bgt if A selects B as an argument, or
b. ltB, Agt if B is in a functional
specification of A e.g. the boy kissed the
girl
PHASE
T kiss
s o kiss
the boy
s o kiss
kissed
o kiss
V
ltthe boygt
the girl
the boy
Memory Buffer
17
Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi 2004)
Sequential Phase
Nested Phase
Vs.
F1
Fn
head
Slast
S1
Memory Buffer
Success Condition the memory buffer must be
empty at the end of the phase orelse its content
is inherited by the memory buffer of the next
sequential phase (if any)
18
Top-down Minimalist Grammar (Chesi 2004)

• In a nut shell
• Every computation is a top-down derivation
  divided into phases.
• A phase gets closed when the last selected
  complement of its head is processed this last
  projected complement constitutes the next
  sequential phase.
• All unselected constituents are instead nested
  phases they are processed while the
  superordinate phase has not been closed yet.
• The Move operation stores an unselected element
  found before (i.e. on the left of) the head
  position in the local memory buffer of the
  current phase, and discharges it in a selected
  position if possible if not, when the phase is
  closed the content of the memory buffer is
  inherited by that of the next sequential phase.

19
Argument 1 - Teleological movement successive
cyclicity
From bottom to top

• Whoi do you believe ti that everybody admires
  ti?
• Every intermediate step in a bottom-to-top
  derivation has to be triggered blindly by purely
  Formal Features (FFs). Crucially movement cannot
  touch the relevant wh- feature which triggers the
  last step of the wh- chain
• FF C everybody admires -FF -WH who?
• -WH who C everybody admires?

20
Argument 1 - Teleological movement successive
cyclicity
From bottom to top

• How many -FF should a wh- element bear to trigger
  recursive successive cyclic movement?
• 1 feature 1 move (deletion)... but then
  recursive successive cyclicity would need an
  infinite number of formal features (this is in
  contrast with the finitary nature of the lexicon)
• 1 feature many moves (no deletion)... but then
  you will always send an uninterpretable feature
  to LF

21
Argument 1 - Teleological movement successive
cyclicity
Top-down
who 1st Nested Phase (DP)
Matrix Phase (CP)
you 2nd Nested Phase (DP)
that Selected Phase (CP)
believe
you
ltyougt
who
ltwhogt
that
who
Memory Buffer (Matrix Phase, CP)
everybody
admires
ltwhogt
Whoi do you believe twho that everybody admires
twho?
22
Argument 1 - Teleological movement successive
cyclicity
A note on Japanese successive cyclicity
(1) a. Dare-ga John-ga Bill-ni atta to
omotteimasu ka? who-NOM J.-NOM
B.-DAT met that think Q
'Who thinks that John met Bill?' ? b.
John-ga Bill-ni atta to1 dare-ga t1
omotteimasu ka? J.-NOM B.-DAT met that
who-NOM think Q 'Who
thinks that John met Bill?'
atta to
omotteimasu
23
Argument 1 - Teleological movement successive
cyclicity
A note on Japanese (apparent) successive
cyclicity
(2) a. CP Dare-nii anata-wa CP Mary-ga CP
John-ga CP Sue-ga ti atta to itta to
shinnjiteiru to who-DAT you-TOP
M.-NOM J.-NOM S.-NOM met that said
that believe that omotteimasu ka? think
Q Who do you think that Mary believes
that John said that Sue met? b. CP
Bill-ni anata-wa CP Mary-ga CP John-ga CP
Sue-ga ti atta to itta to shinnjiteiru to
omotteimasu ka? c. CP Bill-ni-wa
Sarah-ga CP Mary-ga CP John-ga CP Sue-ga ti
atta to itta to shinnjiteiru to
omotteimasu. Bill, Sarah thinks that
Mary believes that John said that Sue met
24
Argument 1 - Teleological movement successive
cyclicity
A note on Japanese (apparent) successive
cyclicity
Bill-ni-wa
Matrix Phase (CP)
Sarah-ga
Nested Phases (CPs)
V
omotteimasu
S.-ga
B.-ni
B.-ni
S.-ga
(1) c. CP Bill-ni-wa Sarah-ga CP Mary-ga CP
John-ga CP Sue-ga ti atta to itta to
shinnjiteiru to omotteimasu Bill,
Sarah thinks that Mary believes that John said
that Sue met
25
Argument 2 - Growing complexity
Top-down
Bottom-to-top
Vs.
head
Phase 1
Fx
Phase 2
Slast
edge
Phase 2
head
Phase 2
Phase 1
n number of nested phases possible relations
per phase 2n(k-1)
k elements in a phase possible relations per
phase 2k-1
26
Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands
Left-branching islands Whoi did close friends
of ei become famous ?
Matrix Phase (CP)
who 1st Nested Phase (DP)
Who
G?1 2nd Nested Phase (DP)
did
close friends of e
ltwhogt
become
G?1
V
famous
ltG?1gt
who
ltwhogt
Memory Buffer (Matrix Phase, CP)
27
Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands
A note on Japanese complex NPs and adjuncts
behave like islands...
(3) a. Nani-oi John-ga CP Mary-ga ti
katta to omotteru no? what-ACC J.
-NOM M. -NOM bought that think
Q? Whati , John thinks that Mary bought ti
? b. ??Nani-oi John-ga NP IP ej ti
katta hitoj -o sagasiteru
no? what-ACC John-NOM bought
person-ACC looking-for Q? Whati , John
is looking for the person that bought ti
? c. ?Nani-oi John-ga PP
Mary-ga ti katta kara okotteru
no? what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought
since angry Q? Whati , John is
angry because Mary bought ti? (Saito
Fukui 1998)
28
Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands
A note on Japanese ... but no asymmetry seems to
exist between extraction from a subject or an
object!
(4) a. ?Nani-oi John-ga NP IP Mary-ga ti
katta koto-o mondai-ni siteru no. what-ACC
John-NOM Mary-NOM bought fact-ACC problem-into
making Q Whati , John is making an issue out
of the fact that Mary bought ti .
b. ?Nani-oi John-ga CP NP IP Mary-ga ti
katta koto-ga mondai-da to omotteru
no. what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought fact-NOM
problem-is that think Q Whati , John thinks
that the fact that Mary bought ti is a
problem. (Saito Fukui 1998)
29
Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands
A note on Japanese how comes that subjects are
not islands?

ga Fn
head
?(ga)
prediction case-marked preverbal phases could
behave as selected phases
30
Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands
Right-branching island ??Those boring old
reportsi , Kim went to lunch without reading
ei.

Fn
prediction right-hand adjuncts can be nested
phases
31
Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands
Right-branching island ??Those boring old
reportsi , Kim went to lunch without reading
ei.

Nested Phase
x Fn
X
prediction right-hand adjuncts can be nested
phases
32
Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands
A note on Japanese adjuncts are islands (?)
(3) c. ?Nani-oi John-ga PP Mary-ga
ti katta kara okotteru
no? what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought
since angry Q? Whati , John is
angry because Mary bought ti? (Saito
Fukui 1998)
33
Argument 3 - Nested phases are islands
Complex NPs (5) ? Which booki did John meet
NP a child CP who read ei
Matrix Phase (CP)
Which book
did
John
Last Selected Phase (DP)
meet
J.
V
J.
ltwhichgt
which
which
a child
Memory Buffer (Matrix Phase, CP)
Nested Phase (CP)
who read
34
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
(5) a. Which famous playwrighti did close
friends of ei become famous ? b. ? Which
famous playwrighti did close friends of ei
admire ei ? (Kayne 1983) (6) a. Who did my
talking to ei bother Hilary ? b. v Who
did my talking to ei bother ei ? (Pollard
Sag 1994) (7) a. Whoi did you consider
friends of ei angry at Sandy ? b. v Whoi
did you consider friends of ei angry at ei ?
(Pollard Sag 1994)
35
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)

• Left branch constituents are islands for
  extraction
• A legitimate gap on a right branch can rescue
  an illegitimate gap inside a left branch

X
36
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
Kaynes Connectedness Condition
(Kayne 1983)
A. Y is a g-projection of X iff i. Y is an
( X' ) projection of X or of a g-projection of X,
or ii. X is a structural governor and Y
immediately dominates W and Z, where Z is a
maximal projection of a g-projection of X, and W
and Z are in a canonical government
configuration B. W and Z (Z a maximal
projection, and W and Z immediately dominated by
some Y) are in a canonical government
configuration iff a. V governs NP to its right
in the grammar of the language and W precedes
Zb. V governs NP to its left in the grammar of
the language and Z precedes W C. The
g-projection set G? of a category ? is defined as
follows (where ? governs ? ) a. ??, ? a
g-projection of ? ? ? ? G? b. ? ? G? and b'. ?
dominates ? and ? does not dominate ? ? ? ? G?
37
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
D. Connectedness Condition Let ?1 ... ?j, ?j1
... ?n be a maximal set of empty categories in a
tree T such that ?? ?j, ?j is locally bound by
?. Then ? ? ( G?j) must constitute a
subtree of T.
?
?
?
1 - all the maximal projections in the path
between the gap and its binder are on a right
branch or 2 - a path terminating in a left branch
is connected to a legitimate path of right
branches
38
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
(5) a.
?
Which famous playwright
did
1
1
close
G?1
1
friends
1
1
e?
of
?1
famous
become
39
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
(5) b.
?
Which famous playwright
did
1
1
close
G?1
1
friends
1
1
e?
of
?1
e?
admire
?2
40
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
(5) b.
2
2
?
2
Which famous playwright
did
G?2
1
1
close
G?1
1
friends
1
1
2
e?
of
2
2
?1
e?
admire
?2
41
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
(8) a person who you admire e because close
friends of e became famous
?
who
you
because
1
admire
e?
1
close
1
friends
1
1
G?1
e?
of
became
famous
?1
42
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
(8) a person who you admire e because close
friends of e became famous
2
?
who
2
2
you
because
G?2
2
2
1
admire
e?
?2
1
close
1
friends
1
1
G?1
e?
of
became
famous
?1
43
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
(5.b) ?Whoi did close friends of ei admire ei ?
G? Matrix Phase (CP)
Who
who 1st Nested Phase (DP)
did
G?1 2nd Nested Phase (DP)
close friends of e
ltwhogt
admire
G?1
V
ltG?1gt
ltwhogt
who
who
Memory Buffer (Matrix Phase, CP)
44
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
(8) ... Who you admire e because close friends
of e became famous
G? Matrix Phase
who Nested Phase
Who
you Nested Phase
because Nested Phase
G?1 Doubly-nested Phase
you
admire
who
because
you
V
ltwhogt
ltyougt
who
close friends of _
ltwhogt
became famous
Memory Buffer (Matrix Phase, CP)
?1
who
45
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
Summary of the proposed analysis (Bianchi Chesi
2006) the Connectedness Condition can be recast
in derivational terms, by assuming (a) a
top-to-bottom derivation divided in phases (b) a
storage conception of the Move operation (c) a
distinction between sequential and nested phases
(corresponding to branches on the recursive vs.
non-recursive side of the tree). (d) The content
of the memory buffer of a phase can only be
inherited by the next sequential phase, and not
by a nested phase. (e) Parasitic gaps exploit
the possibility of parasitically copying the
content of the buffer of a matrix phase into the
buffer of a nested phase. (f) Parasitic copying,
however, cannot empty the matrix memory buffer,
whence the necessity of another (legitimate)
gap within the matrix phase itself (or within a
phase that is sequential to the matrix one).
46
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
Problems for Kaynes account 1 - Connectedness
Condition does not subsume right hand adjunct
islands... but see (11) (9) a. ??Those boring
old reportsi , Kim went to lunch without
reading ei. b. v Those boring old
reportsi , Kim filed ei without reading ei.
(10) ?A personi that they spoke to ei
because they admire ei (11) a. Who did you
go to Girona in order to meet e? (Pollard
Sag 1994, Haider 2003) b.This is the blanket
that Rebecca refuses to sleep without e. c.
How many of the book reports did the teacher
smile after reading e? 2 - Complex NPs block
connectedness... but complex subjects do not
(13) (12) ? Which book did John meet NP a
child CP who read t (13) a. A person who
people that talk to ei usually have money in
mind b. ? A person who people that talk to
ei usually end up fascinated with ei
47
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
An attempt to find a solution (Longobardi 1985)
1 - Longobardi strengthens the notion of
g-projection, by adding a proper government
requirement a non properly governed maximal
projection is a boundary to the extension of
g-projections. Then, by definition, subjects
and adjuncts are not properly governed thus, the
adjunct island is assimilated to the subject
island, much as in Huangs (1982) Condition on
Extraction Domains. 2 - He must modify his
definition of proper government so that the
relative clause counts as properly governed but
then, the Complex NP Island Constraint must be
stipulated as a separate constraint on
extraction. Notice that the Complex NP Island
Constraint did not follow from Kaynes original
Connectedness Condition since it applies to the
right branch (cf. Kayne 1984, n. 5)
48
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
(14.a) ??Those boring old reportsi , Kim went
to lunch without reading ei.
?
Those boring old reports
Kim
G?
1
1
went
without
1
to
PRO
lunch
1
1
reading
e?
?1
49
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
(14.b) Those boring old reportsi , Kim filed ei
without reading ei.
2
?
2
Those boring old reports
2
Kim
G?
1
2
2
1
without
filed
e?
1
?2
PRO
1
1
reading
e?
?1
50
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
(15) b. ?
?
A person
who
1
1
usually
people
1
end up
that
G?
1
fascinated
e
1
talk
with
e?
1
1
e?
to
?2
?1
51
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)
(15) b. ?
2
2
?
2
A person
who
2
1
2
1
usually
people
2
1
end up
that
G?
2
1
fascinated
e
1
2
talk
with
e?
1
1
e?
to
?2
?1
52
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)

Fn
prediction right-hand adjuncts can be nested
phases
53
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)

x Fn
X
prediction right-hand adjuncts can be nested
phases
54
Argument 4 - Parasitic gaps and connectedness
(Bianchi Chesi 2006)

F1
Fn
x head
C1
C2
X
prediction right-hand adjuncts CAN be nested
phases
55
Argument 5 - Criterial Vs. S-selected targets for
movement
(16) a. Who do you like books that
criticize ? b. Who likes books that
criticize who ? (Huang 1982) How do we
allow the wh- element embedded in a complex NP to
take wide scope?
56
Argument 5 - Criterial Vs. S-selected targets for
movement
Features on a wh- element wh D
who
57
Argument 5 - Criterial Vs. S-selected targets for
movement
A note on Japanese marking wh-scope
(17) a. Dare-gai John-ga sono-hon-o katta
ka ti siritagatteiru who-NOM J.-NOM
that-book-ACC bought Q know-want Who wants
to know Q John bought that book?
b. ?Dono-honoi Mary-ga John-ga toshokan-kara ti
karidasita ka siritagatteiru Which book
M.-NOM J.-NOM library-from checked-out Q
know-want M. wants to know which book J.
checked out from the library Ban against
Vacuous Quantification (Saito 1989, Watanabe
1992) An operator must bind a variable (the
selected position cannot be out of the scope of
the criterial position)
58
Argument 5 - Criterial Vs. S-selected targets for
movement
A note on Japanese one more wh-
(18) a.??/ John-wa Mary-ga nani-o katta ka
dooka Tom-ni tazuneta no? J.-TOP M.-NOM
what-ACC bought whether Tom-DAT asked Q? Whati
did John ask Tom whether Mary bought ti
b. John-wa Mary-ga nani-o katta ka dooka
dare-ni tazuneta no? J.-TOP M.-NOM what-ACC
bought whether who-DAT asked Q? Whoi did John
ask ti whether Mary bought what c.??/
John-wa dare-ga nani-o katta ka dooka
Tom-ni tazuneta no? J.-TOP who.-ACC what-ACC
bought whether who-DAT asked Q? Whati did J.
ask Tom whether who bought ti (Watanabe 1992)
59
Argument 5 - Criterial Vs. S-selected targets for
movement
A note on Japanese one more wh-

• Schematic summary of the data (Watanabe 1992)
• ?? ... wh1 ... ... wh2 ... ka dooka
  ... Q
• ?? ... wh1 ... ... wh2 ... wh3 ... ka
  dooka ... Q
• ... ... wh1 ... ka dooka ... wh2 ... Q
• ... wh1 ... wh2 ... ... wh3 ... ka dooka
  ... Q
• ... wh1 ... ... wh2 ... ka dooka ... wh3
  ... Q
• ... ... wh1 ... ka dooka ... wh2 ... wh3
  ... Q
• ... ... wh1 ... wh2 ... ka dooka ... wh3
  ... Q
• Anti-superiority A multiple question is
  well-formed only if there is a wh-phrase which is
  not c-commanded by the wh-phrase that is moved
  first
• Two-level Movement Hypothesis one and only one
  wh-phrase per wh C is affected at the first
  level of movement, which is subject to subjacency
  and is responsible for the antecedent-government
  from Comp.

60
Argument 5 - Criterial Vs. S-selected targets for
movement
Q2
Q
? H
Q2
Q1
Q
?
61
Argument 6 - Intermediate constituency (Phillips
1996-2002)
a. John gives candy to childreni in
theiri library a'. John intended to give candy
to children in their library and give candy
to childreni he did ti in their
library a''. John intended to give candy to
children in their library and to children in
their libraryi he did give candy ti
layered structure cascade structure
Pesetsky (1995)
62
Argument 6 - Intermediate constituency (Phillips
1996-2002)
Merge right (Phillips 199618) new items
must be introduced at the right edge of the
structure Prediction 1 (Phillips 2002) A
constituency test may refer to only those strings
that are constituents at the point in the
incremental derivation when the test
applies Prediction 2 Contradictions between
constituency tests can only arise when those
tests apply at different stages in the
incremental derivation of a sentence ... Predictio
n 5 Constituency changes during the course of a
derivation, but most c-command relations do not.
Therefore, tests involving c-command relations
should not conflict with one another.
63
Argument 6 - Intermediate constituency (Phillips
1996-2002)
Intermediate constituents (Phillips 1996)
64
Argument 6 - Intermediate constituency (Phillips
1996-2002)
Coordination of intermediate constituents
(Koisumi 2000, Choi Yoon 2006) Mary-ga
ringo-o 2-tu to Nancy-ga banana-o3-bon
tabeta (koto). M.-NOM apple-ACC 2-CL and
N.-NOM banana-ACC 3-CL ate Lit. Mary two
apples and Nancy three bananas ate. (Mary ate
two apples, and Nancy three bananas.) Mary-ga
John-ni ringo-o 2-tu to Nancy-ga Bob-ni
banana-o 3-bon ageta (koto). M.-NOM J.-DAT
apple-ACC 2-CL and N.-NOM B.-DAT banana-ACC
3-CL gave Lit. Mary two apples to John and
Nancy three bananas to Bob gave. (Mary gave
two apples to John, and Nancy gave three bananas
to Bob.)
65
Argument 7 - move preempts merge (Richard
1999-2002)

• there seems to be a man in the room
• there seems a man to be in the room
• there was heard a rumor that a man is in the
  room
• a.i there seems _there to be
• a.ii there seems _there to be _there
  (expletives dont get theta-roles!)
• there seems _there to be a man
• a.iii there seems to be a man in the room
• c. there was heard a rumor that _there (moving
  there from the matrix clause would violate
  A-movement restrictions)

66
Conclusions

• The Top-to-Bottom (Left-to-Right) orientation of
  the structure building operations Merge (Phillips
  1996), Move (Chesi 2004, Bianchi Chesi 2006)
  and Phase Projection (Chesi 2004) allows us to
  capture
• Successive Cyclicity without look-ahead or
  unmotivated steps
• characterization of recursive/transparent phases
  depending on features of the selecting
  phase-head, in particular
• Left branch islands (unless case-marked) are
  computationally nested phases (selected phases
  come after the selecting head by L.P.)
• Right hand adverbials too can be analyzed as
  computationally nested phases, depending on the
  structure of the relevant licensor/selecting
  feature
• (a relevant subset of) Strong Islands effects and
  the related connectedness effects in a
  derivational way
• an insight into the (quantification/criterial)
  scope-related movement (to the right).
• contradictory results for constituency/hierarchy
  tests (Phillips 1996, 2002)
• structure building operations preferences
  possibly without (sub-)numerations (Richards
  1999, 2002)