Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure

Abstract

This paper proposes an architecture for the mapping between syntax and phonology -in particular, that aspect of phonology that determines the linear ordering of words. We propose that linearization is restricted in two key ways. (1) the relative ordering of words is fixed at the end of each phase, or ''Spell-out domain''; and (2) ordering established in an earlier phase may not be revised or contradicted in a later phase. As a consequence, overt extraction out of a phase P may apply only if the result leaves unchanged the precedence relations established in P. We argue first that this architecture (''cyclic linearization'') gives us a means of understanding the reasons for successive-cyclic movement. We then turn our attention to more specific predictions of the proposal: in particular, the e¤ects of Holmberg's Generalization on Scandinavian Object Shift; and also the Inverse Holmberg Effects found in Scandinavian ''Quantifier Movement '' constructions (Rögnvaldsson (1987); Jónsson (1996); Svenonius (2000)) and in Korean scrambling configurations (Ko (2003(Ko ( , 2004). The cyclic linearization proposal makes predictions that cross-cut the details of particular syntactic configurations. For example, whether an apparent case of verb fronting results from V-to-C movement or from ''remnant movement'' of a VP whose complements have been removed by other processes, the verb should still be required to precede its complements after fronting if it preceded them before fronting according to an ordering established at an earlier phase. We argue that ''cross-construction'' consistency of this sort is in fact found.

Towards deriving differences in how Wh Movement and QR are pronounced

“…(The linearization algorithm is what determines adjacency relations, so it will necessarily need to apply for fusion to occur.) That the linearization algorithm can apply mid-derivation has been argued for in Epstein and Seely (2002), Nissenbaum (2000a,b), Fox and Pesetsky (2004) and others. What I'm suggesting, then, is that this ability to linearize during the derivation is compelled by (53).…”

“…First, it must be that the positions assigned by the linearization algorithm at some stage in the derivation cannot be later changed. That is an assumption about how the linearization algorithm applies that has been argued for elsewhere, most famously, perhaps, in Fox and Pesetsky (2004). This will guarantee that the positions assigned to D, Q and NP are all immutably determined by a structure that does not have the QP and the DP in the same root node.…”

Pronoun copying in Dinka Bor and the Copy Theory of Movement

“…5 is a correct result. However, it allows for a different 36 One possible way of understanding this claim is as the idea that deletion amounts to non-Transfer, if we assume that Transfer applies to an entire phase, as in the linearization-based view of successive cyclicity in Fox and Pesetsky (2005), for example. Equating deletion with non-Transfer does raise questions about the timing of copy deletion, and exactly when Transfer occurs.…”

Remnant movement in local derivational grammar

“…(17-a) states that in cases of multiple movement of the same type, of items that are in a ccommand relation, the derivation proceeds by tucking in; see Richards (2001) and Branigan (2013), among many others (and Fox & Pesetsky (2005), Stroik (2009), Unger (2010 and for related concepts). (17-b) will permit movement of β to apply first in α-over-β environments (where α, β both initially undergo intermediate movement), which is a precondition for CED satisfaction of any derivation in which this configuration violation because it is not a category label and can therefore never show up in any well-formed f-seq (which consists only of category labels by definition); thus a movement-related feature with a value like [wh: CTvV1 ] can never conform to f-seq.…”