No abstract

No abstract

Abstract.  This article offers a critical conceptual discussion and refinement of Chomsky’s (2000, 2001, 2007, 2008) phase system, addressing many of the problematic aspects highlighted in the critique of Boeckx & Grohmann (2007) and seeking to resolve these issues, in particular the stipulative and arbitrary properties of phases and phase edges encoded in the (various versions of the) Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC). Chomsky’s (2000) original conception of phases as lexical subarrays is demonstrated to derive these properties straightforwardly once a single assumption about the pairwise composition of phases is made, and the PIC is reduced to its necessary core under the Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT)—namely, the provision of an edge. Finally, a comparison is undertaken of the lexical‐subarray conception of phases with the feature‐inheritance system of Chomsky 2007, 2008, in which phases are simply the locus of uninterpretable features (probes). Both conceptions are argued to conform to the SMT, and both converge on a pairwise composition of phases. However, the two conceptions of phases are argued to be mutually incompatible in numerous fundamental ways, with no current prospect of unification. The lexical‐subarray conception of phases is then to be preferred on grounds of greater empirical adequacy.

This paper proposes a general analysis of Case alternations and other phenomena associated with nominal hierarchies of the Silverstein type. The analysis is based on the mechanism of defective probes (in the sense of Chomsky 2001), such that a defective head may value a different Case from its nondefective counterpart (cf. Rezac 2004). The resultant 'defective Case forms' are characterized by a range of well-known interpretive restrictions on argument encoding (definiteness-, animacy-and Person-Case-Constraint effects)-examples include Icelandic nominative objects, English expletiveassociates, the Russian genitive of negation, and the absolutive in Mohawk. These interpretive restrictions, and their relation to the EPP (optional vs. obligatory), are shown to follow from the variable crosslinguistic association of the syntactic Person feature of a nominal with, for probes, the EPP-feature of Chomsky 2000, and, for goals, different degrees of prominence as defined on a referential scale. In this way, differences in form (Case-marking) have semantic consequences, with the various interpretive restrictions at the interface reducing to a single, common source: namely, formal violations of the Case Filter in the context of defective Agree.

No abstract