Is Linguistic Variation Entirely Linguistic?
                     *

Epstein, Samuel David; Obata, Miki; Seely, T. Daniel

doi:10.4324/9780367343699-6

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With regard to ϕ-features, the latter operation is initiated by a phase head, C or v, bearing unvalued ϕ-features and searching for the closest goal bearing their valued counterparts in its domain, with Feature Inheritance operating subsequently so as to transfer ϕ-features to the head of the phase complement (i.e. T or Root, respectively; see Epstein, Obata & Seely (2017) and Chomsky (2020)). With all reconceptualizations sketched above, the "shared prominent features" option would be probably replaced with labeling by pairs of unvalued features and potential sources of feature values, so as to cover both {NP, YP} and {KP, YP} cases.…”

Section: Dative Controllers and Their Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Case transmission in Classical Latin control structures: Between syntax and morphology

Jakielaszek

2023

linpo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Latin nonfinite structures with nonovert subjects exhibit puzzling properties with regard to the case- and ϕ-features of their subjects and their relationship to overt NPs in matrix clauses. While the transmission of case- and ϕ-feature related properties is obligatory when there is a nominative or accusative controller NP, it is only ϕ-feature transmission that remains obligatory when there is a dative controller, case transmission being apparently optional. To avoid an assumption of syntactic optionality, accounts of the phenomenon which rely on syntactic mechanisms propose that the apparent optionality reflects a syntactic difference between two types of nonfinite structures. It is instead proposed that mechanisms of linking of objects via Agree and ϕ-feature and case transmission should be assigned to different components of the grammar, syntax and morphology. The hypothesis allows a unified treatment of the syntactic phenomenon of control in Latin.

show abstract

Section: Dative Controllers and Their Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Case transmission in Classical Latin control structures: Between syntax and morphology

Jakielaszek

2023

linpo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under the proposed analysis, T, just like R, is universally too weak to label alone and the labelability of the head in question is not lexically parameterized at all: LW is a universal property of T. What makes weak T labelable is the derivation: the labelability depends on Merge or how it applies to C and T. Hence, the parametric variation regarding strong/weak T, like parameters of UG (Epstein, Obata & Seely 2017 and Obata, Epstein & Baptista 2015), is explained as one consequence of 3rd factor compliant applications of Merge; the labelability of T is not subject to parameterization.…”

Section: Consequences Of the Proposed Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Deduction of theEPPfrom Labeling^*

Mizuguchi

2022

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper examines a recent attempt to deduce the EPP from labeling. Chomsky (2015) argues that the EPP is reducible to Label Weakness. In this paper, I first point out that Label Weakness raises problems that are not faced under the EPP. I then propose that pair‐Merge (i.e. the Merge that yields an asymmetric structure) provides a solution to Label Weakness, claiming that Merge, together with Label Weakness, explains the EPP. I show that the proposal brings theoretically and empirically favorable consequences. Given the proposed analysis, I also argue that externalization is the other side of the EPP, demonstrating that it explains the EPP when a labeling problem is solved and that it reduces parametric variations with the EPP to the peripheries of the computation. This paper argues that Merge plays a key role in language and endorses the Merge‐based language design proposed in the Minimalist Program.

show abstract

“…Let's assume a cyclic derivation which wasn't explored in Obata et al (2015) and Epstein, Obata, and Seely (2018). In Chomsky (2015), subject raising takes place before reaching the phase level (i.e.…”

Section: Strictly Cyclic Derivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A parameter-free underspecification approach to complementizer agreement

Sugimoto

Pires

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O tema da variação linguística, correspondendo à variação paramétrica na sintaxe, não tem sido explorado de modo compreensivo na abordagem minimalista (veja-se, no entanto, ROBERTS, 2019 e as referência lá citadas). Duas visões centrais e parcialmente distintas da variação linguística nesse arcabouço são: (i) a variação se origina no léxico (a chamada conjectura Borer-Chomsky, cf. BAKER, 2008) e (ii) a variação reside na externalização (a conjectura Berwick-Chomsky). Neste artigo, exploramos uma terceira visão da variação linguística, invocando a subespecificação do ordenamento de regras na sintaxe estrita, baseada em Obata et al. (2015). Para implementar essa abordagem, comparamos duas línguas, o português brasileiro (PB) e o crioulo cabo-verdiano (CCV), quanto à concordância do complementador em perguntas-WH envolvendo argumento e adjunto. Enquanto o CCV exige a expressão do complementador nas perguntas-WH, o PB apresenta um padrão geral de opcionalidade nas perguntas-WH tanto de argumento quanto de adjunto. Defendemos que os dois sistemas podem ser explicados em termos de subespecificação do ordenamento de regras na gramática.

show abstract

Is Linguistic Variation Entirely Linguistic? *

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Case transmission in Classical Latin control structures: Between syntax and morphology

Case transmission in Classical Latin control structures: Between syntax and morphology

On the Deduction of theEPPfrom Labeling^*

A parameter-free underspecification approach to complementizer agreement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Is Linguistic Variation Entirely Linguistic? *

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Case transmission in Classical Latin control structures: Between syntax and morphology

Case transmission in Classical Latin control structures: Between syntax and morphology

On the Deduction of theEPPfrom Labeling*

A parameter-free underspecification approach to complementizer agreement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

On the Deduction of theEPPfrom Labeling^*