Emergent Extended Projections

Peter Svenonius

CASTL, University of Tromsø – The Arctic University of Norway

Paper presented at MIT on Friday, November 4, 2016

1 Classical EP theory meets Cartography: CEP

(1) Important commonalities of lexical and functional heads were captured when X′

theory was extended to the latter (e.g., Chomsky 1986). However, the relation-ship of a selecting lexical head (e.g., a verb) to its complement (e.g., a directobject) is importantly different from the relationship of a functional head to itscomplement. This was noted, for example, in the transparency of functional pro-jections (Chomsky 1986:13), s-projections (Abney 1987), collapsing projections(Haider 1988), T-chains (Gueron and Hoekstra 1988), and the Categorial Iden-tity Thesis (van Riemsdijk 1990); the general idea was distilled, codified, andnamed in Grimshaw’s Extended Projections (EP, Grimshaw 1991), later revisedin Grimshaw (2005).

(2) Grimshaw (1991) recognized two major categories sporting two levels of functionalstructure:F2: C PF1: T DF0: V N

(3) One argument Grimshaw offered was the pattern seen in pied-piping in questions:a complement doesn’t pied-pipe the head selecting it, unless they are parts of thesame extended projection

a. *Proud of whom is John?b. *Broken what has the toddler?c. *Pictures of who did they take?d. With what should I poke it?

1

(4) With cartography, (Cinque 1994; 1999, Rizzi 1997) inter alia, the number of func-tional projections explodes, but the logic of EP remains the same. I’ll use the termCartographic Extended Projections, CEP for the extension of EP to structures ofcartographic granularity.

1.1 Universal inventory of categories in a universal hierarchy

(5) CEP assumes a universal inventory of features, usually conceived along the linesoutlined byChomsky (2004:106) : “S0 determines the set {F} of properties (“fea-tures”) available for languages. Each L makes a one-time selection of a subset [F]of {F} and a one-time assembly of elements of [F] as its lexicon LEX, which wecan take to be a classical “list of exceptions,” putting aside further issues”

(6) Footnote 11 to the above: “. . . Alternatively, LEX could be replaced by a gener-ative system for constructing the possible lexical elements of L.” In this paper Iam pursuing this tack.

(7) CEP goes further than what the above quote from Chomsky (2004) states inassuming that the categorial features are organized in a universal hierarchy.As Starke (2001:155) puts it, “Any theory with ‘functional’ projections con-tains” this “kernel” assumption: “there exists an ‘fseq’—a sequence of functionalprojections—such that the output of [Merge] must respect fseq.”

(8) Grimshaw (2005) offers a chart like this to illustrate how cross-linguistic variationworks in the CEP:Functional Heads De-fined by UG

Functional Heads In-cluded in the Grammarof Language A

Functional Heads In-cluded in the Grammarof Language B

F1F2

√

F3√

. . .F12

√

F13√

F14√

F15F16

√

. . .

2

1.2 A straightforward task for the LAD

(9) Given CEPs, the LAD has to match up morphemes with categories, and identifywhich categories are active but null; the hierarchy is given

(10) For example, if an LAD encounters (and correctly parses) input containing themorpheme sequence V-T-Asp, then the learner can deduce that VP moves acrossT in that language, given a small number of assumptions about UG, namely (i)UG provides the CEP hierarchy T > Asp > V; (ii) something like the LCA(Kayne 1994)constrains the mapping of syntactic trees to linear order of expo-nents, (iii) something like the HMC (Travis 1984) constrains head movement,and (iv), there are no information-structure neutral rearrangements of projec-tions not containing the head, in a CEP (Cinque 2005). On these assumptions,V-T-Asp data like that in the following examples entails that VP moves acrossT and Asp (Cinque 2014), despite other differences. For example, neither T norAsp is affixal in Nama, only T is affixal in Comox, and both T and Asp areaffixal in Ngarinjin. Because of the CEP universal T > Asp, the order V-T-Aspautomatically entails high VP movement.

a. ‘aopman+cl

kedecl

!uugo

tamaneg

kerem.past

haaperf

‘iıneg.cop

‘the man was not going’ or ‘the man had not gone’ (Nama, Cinque 2014:235,citing Hagman’s 1977 grammar)

b. qaëeP2mm-a-cxw-x2mwork-Q-you.sg-fut

Poth

Aspincep

‘Are you going to work?’ (Comox, Central Coast Salish, Cinque 2014:239,citing Harris 1977, a dissertation and grammar)

c. N-a-Nge-riI-go-past-cont‘I was going’ (Ngarinjin, Australian, Cinque 2014:238, citing Coate andCoate 1970, a grammar)

2 Explanations for hierarchy don’t scale up

2.1 Small hierarchies

(11) As long as the set of functional heads is relatively small, it is easy to imaginehow a hierarchy among them might be motivated (Grimshaw’s 1991 hierarchy

3

repeated from (2)): F2: C PF1: T DF0: V N

(12) Cf. Wiltschko’s (2014) functional hierarchy:CP Linking KP

IP Anchoring DPAspP point-of-view PhiP

vP classification nP

(13) Ramchand and Svenonius (2014)CP Proposition

FinPTP Situation

AspPvP Event

(14) Or my (2004) attempt to locate A and A-bar features in different phases:TopP A-bar features Op

CP Phase QPTP A features KP

AspP A features NumPvP Phase nP

VP Lexical core NP

(15) But cartography suggests that there are many more categories, on the basis ofrigid and fine-grained orderings of suffixes, functional heads, and adverbs (Cinque1999).

(16) Even small expansions typically go beyond the broad-strokes conceptual moti-vations provided for a three-way division

a. T > Mod > Perf > Prog > Voice > Vb. Epistemic > Perfect > Deonticc. Williams (2003)d. Borer (2005a;b)

(17) Richer hierarchies are often implicitly assumed: Chomsky (2008:9): “C is short-hand for the region that Rizzi (1997) calls the “left periphery,” possibly involvingfeature spread from fewer functional heads (maybe only one), . . . ”

4

2.2 Plato meets Darwin

(18) Chomsky (2004; 2005; 2007): If language developed recently, then UG can’t berich

(19) If UG is not rich, then it doesn’t contain a totally ordered sequence of 200functional categories

(20) If categories emerge from triggers in the input, then the task of the LAD is verydifferent from the picture sketched above

(21) LADs posit categories (rather than selecting them from a preexisting list) to gowith observed morphemes; evidence for active null categories must be reasonablyrobust in the input if a category is to be posited (rather than simply activated)

(22) Rather than an innate hierarchy, there must be some bias in the way categoriesare organized which leads to the creation of hierarchies (cf. contrastive featureshierarchies in phonology, Jakobson et al. 1951, Halle 1959, Dresher 2015)

(23) Various constraints, such as

a. phases (Chomsky 2000; 2001; 2008)b. event-situation-proposition structure, Ramchand and Svenonius (2014)c. structural manifestation of degrees of ‘referentiality,’ Hinzen (2006), Hinzen

and Sheehan (2013)d. conservatism in the the positing of new features/categories, Biberauer et al.

(2014)e. a feature-category distinction, features being built from logical, geometric,

and mereological components (cf. Hale (1986), Harbour (2013; 2014))

3 Emergent EPs (EEPs)

3.1 Cognitive underpinnings

(24) I take cognitive concepts such as event and time and proximity (perhaps Hale’s(1986) coincidence) to be structured in a way that shapes acquisition, and that isreflected in language: an event anchored in time is a situation, and a situationwith a discourse ‘link’ is a proposition (Ramchand and Svenonius 2014). Thisis the basis for the layers C-T-V, and probably for phases as well.

(25) There are analogous and related layers in the nominal domain; cf. Wiltschko’s(2014) functional hierarchy, repeated from (12):

5

CP Linking KPIP Anchoring DP

AspP point-of-view PhiPvP classification nP

(26) Properties of objects which are reinforced by linguistic input form categories.A category is normally restricted to a sort of object, e.g., V is a property ofevents, Asp is a function from events to situations, T is a property of situations,etc. N is a property of substances, Cl is a function from substances to objects,Num is a property of objects, etc.; Borer (2005a;b).

(27) The syntactic complementation relation in the EP as posited in syntax reflectsa primitive semantic relation among conceptual notions which are established ascategories; T takes Asp as a complement because T ‘elaborates’ Asp (Ramchandand Svenonius 2014), or Asp is embedded under T because Asp is the centralpart of what is characterized by T (Svenonius 2016).

(28) Distinguish EPs from embedding

a. Extended projection complementation (C over T over V, P over D over N):simple function application or function composition

b. Embedding of one EP inside another(i) Arguments (subjects, objects, etc.): Predication, semantically distinct

from simple function application (cf. Pietroski’s (2005) special treat-ment of thematic roles)

(ii) Adjuncts (modifiers): conjunction; requires type matching (predicatesof events can be conjoined with predicates of events, etc.)

(29) Embedding points may motivate functional structure

a. v as the source of the external thematic role: v [=DP]

b. happy is A; John happy either shows that A can have a specifier (impossible,following Baker 2003) or that there is another head (Bowers 1993: Pred[=DP])

c. chicken could be mass, hence simply N, but big chicken must be count,hence at least Cl (if dimension adjectives are A〈Cl〉 and A〈Cl〉 adjoins to Cl)

d. fortunately might motivate additional structure above T (Adv〈Fin〉 adjoinsto Fin, if Fin is responsible for linking the proposition to the speaker, andis necessary for introducing speaker-evaluative adverbs)

3.2 Prosody, transition probabilities, and the parse

(30) LADs extract EEPs on the basis of prosody, statistical frequency, and the usualbootstrapping: Here, capitals represent prosodic prominence, and the distribu-

6

tions of x’s, y’s, and z’s represents transition probabilities: z’s are often foundtogether, etc.

a. xxzzZxxyyYxxX →b. [xx[zzZ] xx[yyY] xxX] →c. [xx xx xxX] plus specifiers [zzZ] and [yyY]

(31) HMC (Travis (1984)) and Mirror (Baker 1985, Brody 2000a;b) suggest that thereis a default structural assumption correlating to affixation: If x is suffixed to y,then the default assumption of the LAD is that X takes Y as a complement

(32) Schematically, an example like Have the chickens been clucking? has form in-dependent of semantic content something like xyYyxXx, where capitals indicateprosodic prominence and letters indicate transitional probabilities (x’s go withx’s, y’s go with y’s)—or, more mnemonically, vnNnvVv

a. v1naNnbv2Vv3 → (transition-based grouping around peaks)b. [v1[naNnb]v2Vv3] → (extracting embedded phrases)c. [v1v2Vv3] embedding [naNnb] at v2 → (applying Mirror)d. EPV: v1>v2>v3>V embedding EPN: na>nb>N at v2

7

3.3 An example

(33) Now Smith’s chickens are already laying big white eggs

(34) There is a correlation between EP and prosodic peak (Selkirk 1984; 2011, interalios)ι xφPh (x) x xφEP x (x) x x x x xω x x x x x x x xσ x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Now Smith’s chickens are already laying big white eggs

(35) There are eight prosodic words and eight EPs: the clause, two arguments, onepossessor, two adjectives, and two adverbs

TP

TP

T′

AspP

AspP

vP

vP

VP

V

lay

DP

ClP

Cl

nP

nP

N

egg

n

AP

white

Cl

-s

AP

big

D

v

t 1

Asp

-ing

Adv

already

T

are

DP1

D′

Cl

N

chicken

Cl

-s

D

’s

DP

PN

Smith

D

Adv

now

8

(36) Marking the clausal EP:

TP

TP

T′

AspP

AspP

vP

vP

VP

V

lay

DP

ClP

Cl

nP

nP

N

egg

n

AP

white

Cl

-s

AP

big

D

t 1

Asp

-ing

Adv

already

T

are

DP1

D′

Cl

N

chicken

Cl

-s

D

’s

DP

PN

Smith

D

Adv

now

v

9

(37) Marking the other EPs:

TP

TP

T′

AspP

AspP

vP

vP

VP

V

lay

DP

ClP

Cl

nP

nP

N

egg

n

AP

white

Cl

-s

AP

big

D

t 1

Asp

-ing

Adv

already

T

are

DP1

D′

Cl

N

chicken

Cl

-s

D

’s

DP

PN

Smith

D

Adv

now

v

(38) The following categories can be extracted from (33) for the clausal EP:

a. are -ing lay motivates three heads, T > Asp > Vb. There must be a source for the thematic role of the subject, motivating v ;

it is thematic, hence in the event description, below Asp, and it is external,hence above V: T > Asp > v > V

c. There must be a source for the thematic role of the object; if this could beV, then no new positions need be posited

d. There must be a landing site for the subject, since it is linearly separatedfrom its thematic source by are; if this could be T, no new projections needbe posited

e. There must be an attachment site for now ; if that could be T, then noadditional projections need be posited (∃t.[now(t) ∧ present(t)])

f. There must be an attachment site for already ; if that could be Asp, then noadditional projection need be posited ((∃s.[already(s) ∧ prog(s)])

10

3.4 The verbal extended projection

(39) The clausal spine is at least T[=DP] > Asp > v [=DP] > V[=DP]; in this diagram,squiggly lines indicate exponence, which is not syntactically present; dashedlines indicate modifiers (adjuncts), while double solid lines indicate arguments(specifiers)

TP

TP

TP[=DP]

Asp

Asp

ingvP

vP[=DP]

VP[=DP]

big white eggs

lay

t

already

areSmith’s chickens

now

(40) For this example, the adverbial and adjectival EPs are trivial:

a. Adverbial EP: now → Adv〈T〉

b. Adverbial EP: already → Adv〈Asp〉

c. Adjectival EP: big → A〈Cl〉

d. Adjectival EP: white → A〈N〉

11

3.5 The nominal extended projection

(41) There are three noun phrases in (33), giving three partial nominal EPs:1

PN

Smith

Cl

Cl

sN

N

eggwhite

big

Poss

Poss[=PN]

Cl

sN

chicken

’sSmith

(42) The possessor tree above is based on Abney (1987); alternatively, the LAD parsesthe possessor as a case-marked noun phrase:

Poss[=KP]

Cl

sN

chicken

KP

’sPN

Smith

(43) External distribution suggests all three are the same category; names and bareplurals appear as subjects, object, complements of prepositions, possessors, etc.

DP

PN

Smith

DP

Cl

Cl

sN

N

eggwhite

big

DP

Poss

Poss[=DP]

Cl

sN

chicken

’sSmith

(44) LADs identify EP-categories on the basis of distributional patterns; for example,if pronouns and names, and EPs headed by the and some have sufficiently similardistribution (appearing in the same set of contexts), then they will be analyzedas belonging to a single EP (a DP or a KP).

1Legend: As in (39), solid lines indicate complements, squiggly lines indicate exponents, dashed lines indicate adjuncts,double lines indicate specifiers.

12

3.6 Label transition functions

(45) Adger (2013) proposes that each language has a set of Label transition functionslicensing dependencies. D over Num over N entails the following set Λ of labeltransition functions:Λ = {<N, Cl>, <Cl, Num>, <Num, D>, . . . }

(46) Smith’s chickens motivates <Cl,Poss> (Cl is dominated by Poss) and <D,Poss>(DP is dominated by Poss) (cf. (41))

Poss

Poss[=PN]

Cl

sN

chicken

’s

DP

Smith

(47) Adger (2013) assumes that a Hierarchy of Projections (HoP) is universally given(here, D > Poss > Cl), so that the difference between the specifier and thecomplement follows: D cannot be a complement of Poss, because it is higher inthe HoP, so D must be a specifier. In order to achieve a deterministic labellingalgorithm, Adger assumes that specifiers cannot be lower in the HoP than theirhosts, e.g., a PossP can have a DP specifier only if D is higher than Poss in HoP.Num dominated by D cannot be interpreted as a specfier, given that Num islower than D in HoP, so Num dominated by D will always be interpreted as acomplement.

(48) The specifier restriction posited by Adger is not obviously correct; nonfiniteclauses can be subjects in finite clauses, for example, and a mass noun canmodify a count noun

a. [FinP [TP To join the Mardi Gras parade] sounds like fun].b. [ClP [NP mud] cakes]

(49) Here, I do not assume that the HoP is given. The difference between specifiersand complements can be extracted from the different semantic and phonologicalproperties they have, and they will be at least derivationally distinct, probablyalso featurally (possessive ’s is an interesting study in itself, concerning whetherit is part of the possessor or the possessed phrase)

13

3.7 Extended projections as finite-state automata

(50) Represent EEPs as FSAs, each state being a category, defined positionally.

a. parsed input: y-xb. Lexical items: 〈/y/, Y〉, 〈/x/, X〉c. LTF: <Y, X>

d. FSA: Y X

(51) For example

a. parsed input: chicken-sb. Lexical items: 〈/tSIkIn/, N〉, 〈/z/, Cl〉c. LTF: <N, Cl>

d. FSA: N Cl

(52) chickens used as an argument would also be analyzed as a DP, on the basis ofexternal distribution, forcing the positing of a null D

N Cl D

(53) chicken used as a (mass noun) argument

N D

(54) Combining the two

N Cl D

(55) Common properties of plurals and count singulars motivate an additional path

N Cl Dsg

pl

mass

14

3.8 Digression: Features

(56) Features can be made explicit in the FSA (Svenonius 2012): Privative . . .

N

Pl

Cl Dsg

mass

(57) . . . or binary

N Sg

Pl

Cl D

mass

(58) The two features Sg and Pl have identical paths in and out so can be representedas a single binary feature:

N ±Sg Cl D

mass

(59) Categories are defined positionally, features are defined in terms of semanticcontent;

a. cf. Harbour (2007) on number features in the determination of Kiowa gender,(i) n [–sg,–aug] = idi class nouns, easily individuable members of collec-

tions (hair, fruit)(ii) Num [–sg,–aug] = dual number (nonsingular lacking nonsingular sub-

sets)b. or Hale (1986) and Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2000) on central and

centripetal coincidence[+central coincidence] [+centripetal] [+centrifugal]

T present future pastAsp progressive prospective perfect

c. or Bach (1986) and Krifka (1998) on mud and running events being cumu-lative, while apples and events of dying are quantized.

15

(i) a substance with the CUM property is mass, an object with the CUMproperty is plural;

(ii) an event with the CUM property is atelic

3.9 Returning to the emergence of a nominal extended projec-

tion

(60) A null D is also apparent when names are used in argument positions

a. Parsed input: Smithb. Lexical items: 〈/smIT/, PN〉, 〈/ /, D>c. LTF: <PN, D>

d. FSA: PN D

(61) Combining the FSA for proper names with the one for common nouns

N

PN

Cl D

(62) The possessor head has a feature =D which requires the merge of a DP. It couldbe analyzed as an alternative to D (on a forking path in the FSA), but theexternal distribution of possessed and nonpossessed DPs is about the same, soD and Poss would then be subordinate to a greater category K. Alternatively,Poss could be analyzed as a featural variant of D.

a. Parsed input: Smith-’s chicken-sb. Lexical items: 〈/z/, Poss[=D]〉 (and chicken-s, and Smith, above)c. LTF: <Cl,Poss>, <D, Poss>d. FSA:

N Cl Poss[=D] D

16

(63) Combining:

N Cl Poss[=D] D

PN

(64) In big white eggs, the size adjective big describes a property of something witha dimension, so adjoins to Cl, while the color adjective white is compatiblewith both objects and masses, so adjoins lower, to N (the plural morpheme islinearized to the right of the noun, following Mirror). Classes of modifiers canin principle motivate additional categories but for this example the categoriesalready introduced are sufficient to get strict ordering (*white big eggs).

3.10 Recap

(65) Recap: The EEP for the nouns in example (33) is as in (63)

a. The possessor is an argument of Poss, merged to satisfy the [uD] featurethere and interpreted as an argument

b. The size adjective is an adjunct to Cl, denoting a property of entities of thesame sort as Cl and interpreted as conjoined

c. The color adjective is an adjunct to N, denoting a property of substancesof the same sort as N and interpreted as conjoined

(66) Nstart Cl Num D

(67) Distinguish:

a. Accepting states (complete Xmaxs; labeled),b. ordinary categories (projecting, not complete),c. features (not defined positionally, not projecting)

(68) If Num is optional:

Nstart Cl Num D

17

3.11 Category identity

(69) Positionally equivalent categories: As the LAD acquires more data, certain cate-gories will turn out to be positionally equivalent. For example, DPs with posses-sors and DPs with articles are in complementary distribution; on a KP analysisof the noun phrase, both might be postulated to form KPs, but when it emergesthat Poss and the articles form KP on all the same bases, D and Poss turn outto be positionally equivalent, hence the same category if category is defined po-sitionally.

N Cl Num

D

Poss

K

(70) If PossPs are analyzed as DPs, then a null D is semantically analyzed as ‘elab-orating’ PossP, and there’s no motivation for collapsing the categories

N Cl Num Poss D

(71) With some possible exponents (simplified)

N Cl Num Poss D

’s

∅, the

’s

∅, a, the

’s

∅, the

∅

18

4 Comparing CEP and EEP: Overt morphology

(72) Because the categories in CEP are innately prespecified, there may be significantmismatches between overt morphology and syntactic structure in both directions

a. Phonologically null heads: T in Chinese, D in Russian, Classifiers in English,etc.

b. Exponents which are inserted without syntactic structure: Agreement, Case,Theme vowels

(73) Categories in EEP are triggered, and children acquire morphology early; theexpectation on EEP is a fairly good fit between overt morphology and syntacticstructure

a. Phonologically null heads must either be semantically entailed (Ramchandand Svenonius 2014 on T and Asp) or syntactically salient (van Riemsdijk2002 on null go).

b. Exponents need never be assumed to lack syntactic structure:

5 Comparing CEP and EEP: Language-specific cat-egory manifestations

(74) CEP stresses the unity of categories. An unusual category (Mayan positionals,Xhosa ideophones, English prepositions) can be assumed to be “unused” in otherlanguages, but rather subtle evidence can be assumed to be enough to triggerthe activation of a universal category.

(75) If category X has properties x1 and x2, then either might be enough to causethe LAD to activate X; so languages with different evidence on the surface couldhave the same category underlyingly (e.g., English and Chinese “D”, Englishand Kiitharaka “P”, English and anybody else’s K, Anybody’s and Kayardild’sK).

(76) For EEP, unity must come not from UG but elsewhence. Unusual categories aresimply unusual. Distinct properties x1 and x2 are not expected to reliably mapto a common abstract category X.

(77) Kayardild case/tense (Evans 1995)

a. Ngada1.sg.nom

kurri-nangkusee-neg.pot

mala-wusea.m.prop

(balmbi-wu).tomorrow.m.prop

‘I won’t be able to see the sea (tomorrow)’

19

b. Ngada1.sg.nom

kurri-nangkusee-neg.pot

mala-ysea.m.loc

(barruntha-y).yesterday.m.loc

‘I could not see the sea (yesterday)’

6 Comparing CEP and EEP: Root classes

(78) It has been argued for English, Hebrew, and some other languages that rootsare acategorical and acquire categorial features only through combination withfunctional structure (Borer 2005a;b; Marantz (1997); Arad (2003))

(79) In other languages, however, roots seem to be inherently associated with cate-gories (Dechaine (2015)), not always the same set (cf. Coon 2016 on transitive,intransitive, and positional roots in Chuj Mayan).

(80) Shona, from Dechaine (2015): Verbs roots are C-final, noun roots are V-finalshona verb roots are c-finala.√c p´- ku-p-a ‘to give’

b.√c on- ku-on-a ‘to see’

c.√c tor- ku-tor-a ‘to take’

shona noun roots are v-finala.√cv -ga chı-ga ‘mark, sign, branch, notch, cl7’

b.√cv.v -koo ma-koo ‘bloodstains, bloodclots, cl6’

c.√cv.cv -pofu chı-pofu ‘groundnut, cl7’

c.√cv.cv.cv -komana mu-komana ‘boy, cl3’

(81) EEP doesn’t lead to any expectation that languages settle on the same solutionto the relationship between roots and categories.

(82) Categoriless root

√start

v Voice Asp T

n Cl Num D

(83) Category-specific roots

20

√start

√start v Voice Asp T

n Cl Num D

7 Comparing CEP and EEP: Mixed projections

(84) Abney (1987) argued that gerunds involved D taking a VP complement: a“mixed” extended projection.

(85) Grimshaw (2005) suggested that this was an illusion due to the fact that -ingis categorially ambiguous, but additional research supports the contention thatthere are mixed projections of verbal structure dominated by nominal functionalstructure (e.g., Borsley and Kornfilt 2000, Alexiadou 2001)

(86) BenI

[siz-inyou-gen

tatil-evacation-dat

cık-acag-ınız-ı]go.out-fact.fut-2pl-acc

duy-du-m.hear-past-1sg

‘I heard that you will leave for vacation’ (Turkish, Borsley and Kornfilt 2000:108)

(87) Nouns and verbs from the same set of roots

root

n Cl Num D K

poss

v V oice Asp T C

Mod

(88) Low nominalization

21

root

n Cl Num D K

poss

v V oice Asp T C

Mod

(89) High nominalization

root

n Cl Num D K

poss

v V oice Asp T C

Mod

(90) Empirically, lateral transitions seems to be constrained; higher nodes such as TPmay be embedded in an NP, but not nominalized by low nominal heads such asn, suggesting that phasal zones constrain lateral transitions.

References

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect . Ph.D. thesis,MIT, Cambridge, Ma.

Adger, David. 2013. A Syntax of Substance. MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.

22

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Erga-tivity . John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrewdenominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21 4: 737–779.

Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9 1: 5–16.

Baker, Mark. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. LinguisticInquiry 16 3: 373–415.

Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives . No. 102 inCambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, and Ian Roberts. 2014. A syntactic universal andits consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45 2: 169–225.

Borer, Hagit. 2005a. In Name Only (Structuring Sense, vol. I). Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Borer, Hagit. 2005b. The Normal Course of Events (Structuring Sense, vol. II). OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Borsley, Robert D and Jaklin Kornfilt. 2000. Mixed extended projections. In The Na-ture and Function of Syntactic Categories , edited by Robert D. Borsley, pp. 101–131.Academic Press, San Diego, Ca.

Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24 4: 591–656.

Brody, Michael. 2000a. Mirror Theory: Syntactic representation in Perfect Syntax.Linguistic Inquiry 31 1: 29–56.

Brody, Michael. 2000b. Word order, restructuring, and Mirror Theory. In The Derivationof VO and OV , edited by Peter Svenonius, pp. 27–43. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures . Mouton, ’s-Gravenhage.

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers . MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: MinimalistEssays in Honor of Howard Lasnik , edited by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and JuanUriagereka, pp. 89–155. MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, editedby Michael Kenstowicz, pp. 1–52. MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.

Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond: TheCartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3 , edited by Adriana Belletti, pp. 104–131.Oxford University Press, New York.

Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.

Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion =Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics , edited by

23

Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gartner, pp. 1–18. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essaysin Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud , edited by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, andMaria Luisa Zubizarreta, pp. 133–166. MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1994. On the evidence for partial N-movement in the RomanceDP. In Paths towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne,edited by Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and RaffaellaZanuttini, pp. 85–110. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.Oxford University Press, New York.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Lin-guistic Inquiry 36 3: 315–332.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 2014. Again on tense, aspect, mood morpheme order and the “MirrorPrinciple”. In Functional Structure from Top to Toe: A Festschrift for Tarald Tarald-sen, edited by Peter Svenonius, pp. 232–265. Oxford University Press, New York.

Coon, Jessica. 2016. Unergatives, antipassives, and roots in chuj. Ms. McGill University.

Dechaine, Rose-Marie. 2015. What “spell-out” reveals: Niger-Congo prosodificationconstrains the syntax-semantics interface. In Current Research in African Linguistics:Papers in Honor of O

˙ladele Awobuluyi , edited by O

˙lanike

˙O˙la Orie, Johnson Fo

˙lo˙runs

˙o

Ilo˙ri, and Lendzemo Constantine Yuka, pp. 287–352. Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle.

Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2000. The primitives of temporalrelations. In Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honour of Howard Lasnik ,edited by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, pp. 157–186. MITPress, Cambridge, Ma.

Dresher, B Elan. 2015. The motivation for contrastive feature hierarchies in phonology.Linguistic Variation 15 1: 1–40.

Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A Grammar of Kayardild: With Historical-Comparative Notes onTangkic. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Freeland, L. S. 1951. Language of the Sierra Miwok . Waverly Press, Baltimore, Md.

Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projections. Ms. Brandeis University.

Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Extended projection. In Words and Structure, edited by JaneGrimshaw. CSLI, Stanford, Ca. Final version of 1991 ms.

Gueron, Jacqueline and Teun Hoekstra. 1988. T-chains and the constituent structure ofauxiliaries. In Constituent Structure, edited by Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque,and Giuliana Giusti. Foris, Dordrecht.

Hale, Ken. 1986. Notes on world view and semantic categories: some Warlpiri examples.

24

In Features and Projections , edited by Pieter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk, pp.233–254. Foris, Dordrecht.

Halle, Morris. 1959. The Sound Pattern of Russian: A Linguistic and Acoustical Inves-tigation. Mouton, The Hague.

Harbour, Daniel. 2007. Morphosemantic Number . Springer, Dordrecht.

Harbour, Daniel. 2013. “not plus” isn’t “not there”: Bivalence in person, number, andgender. In Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, edited by OraMatushansky and Alec Marantz, pp. 135–150. MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.

Harbour, Daniel. 2014. Paucity, abundance, and the theory of number. Language 90 1:185–229.

Hinzen, Wolfram. 2006. Mind Design and Minimal Syntax . Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Hinzen, Wolfram and Michelle Sheehan. 2013. The Philosophy of Universal Grammar .Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Jakobson, Roman, C. Gunnar M. Fant, and Morris Halle. 1951. Preliminaries to SpeechAnalysis: The Distinctive Features and Their Correlates . MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.

Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax . MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.

Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and Grammar , edited by SusanRothstein, pp. 197–235. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Marantz, Alec. 1997. ‘cat’ as a phrasal idiom: Consequences of late insertion in Dis-tributed Morphology. Ms. MIT.

Pietroski, Paul M. 2005. Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Ramchand, Gillian and Peter Svenonius. 2014. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Lan-guage Sciences 46 B: 152–174.

van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1990. Functional prepositions. In Unity in Diversity , edited byH. Pinkster and I. Genee, pp. 229–241. Foris, Dordrecht.

van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2002. The unbearable lightness of GOing. The Journal of Com-parative Germanic Linguistics 5 1-3: 143–196.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar:Handbook in Generative Syntax , edited by Liliane Haegeman, pp. 281–337. Kluwer,Dordrecht.

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The Handbook of Phonolog-ical Theory , edited by John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan Yu. Blackwell, Oxford,2nd edn.

Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and

25

Structure. Current studies in linguistics series; 10. MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.

Starke, Michal. 2001. Move Reduces to Merge: A Theory of Locality . Ph.D. thesis,University of Geneva. Available at http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000002.

Svenonius, Peter. 2004. On the edge. In Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects ,edited by David Adger, Cecile de Cat, and George Tsoulas, pp. 261–287. Kluwer,Dordrecht.

Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Merge, project, and bundle. Ms. CASTL, University of Tromsø.

Svenonius, Peter. 2016. Complex predicates as complementation structures. In Ap-proaches to Complex Predicates , edited by Lea Nash and Pollet Samvelian, pp. 212–247. Koninklijke Brill, Leiden.

Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. thesis,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Ma.

Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation Theory . MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a FormalTypology . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

26