Labeling by Minimal Search: Implications for Successive- Cyclic A-Movement and the Conception of the Postulate ‘‘Phase’’

Epstein, Samuel David; Kitahara, Hisatsugu; Seely, T. Daniel

doi:10.1162/ling_a_00163

Cited by 48 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Chomsky (, ) argues that successive‐cyclic movement is deducible from labeling ambiguity. To see this, consider the derivation of long‐distance wh ‐movement in (5) (see Epstein, Kitahara & Seely for this argument with long‐distance A‐movement).…”

Section: Ambiguous Xp‐ypmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recall that the other solution to labeling ambiguity proposed by Chomsky is minimal detection of agreeing heads: XP-YP can be labeled as far as X and Y agree in shared features (= (4b)) and agreeing features 25 For much related discussion, see Epstein, Kitahara & Seely (2014), who suggest that Agree is reducible to minimal search. Abe (2016), Fukui (2017), Kitahara (2017), Seely (2016) and Sorida (2014) propose that Agree occurs as part of labeling.…”

Section: Labeling By Agreeing Headsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… For much related discussion, see Epstein, Kitahara & Seely (), who suggest that Agree is reducible to minimal search. Abe (), Fukui (), Kitahara (), Seely () and Sorida () propose that Agree occurs as part of labeling.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ambiguous Labeling and Full Interpretation

Mizuguchi

2019

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Syntactic objects constructed by Merge are label‐less and are identified or labeled by a labeling algorithm called Label for interpretation at the interfaces. It has been argued that the set of the form {{XP}, {YP}} (or simply, XP‐YP) incurs labeling ambiguity and cannot be labeled unless [i] either XP or YP moves out or [ii] X and Y agree. This paper considers labeling of XP‐YP and argues that labeling ambiguity can be tolerated, causing no labeling failure. I claim that XP‐YP can be labeled either 〈X〉 or 〈Y〉, which is a natural consequence of minimal computation. The well‐formedness of labeling is attributable to the CI interface (or conditions imposed by the CI system), with syntax not caring about the outcome of labeling. I show that ambiguous labeling is empirically supported and removes unwanted stipulations on labeling.

show abstract

Section: Ambiguous Xp‐ypmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Labeling By Agreeing Headsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ambiguous Labeling and Full Interpretation

Mizuguchi

2019

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Chomsky () offers an analysis of the EPP based on previous proposals within Labeling Theory (see Chomsky , ; Epstein, Kitahara & Seely ). This labeling‐based approach endorses a key property of early minimalism: feature strength (Chomsky , ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remark on theEPPin Labeling Theory: Evidence from Romance

Gallego

2017

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper puts forward an account of the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) based on Chomsky's (2013, 2015) Labeling Theory. Departing from Chomsky's (2015) proposal, which adopts “feature strength” (Chomsky 1993, 1995), it is suggested that the need for Spec,TP to be occupied by a DP can be attributed to labeling reasons, under the assumption that T is a copy of C (these heads being “bundled” in the lexicon of languages of the English type). Given that copies are inert for computational operations (Chomsky 2000, 2001), it follows that they fail to label (Chomsky 2013), which in turn makes it mandatory for Spec,TP to be filled. This article explores the consequences of this proposal for null‐subject languages, in which C and T are regarded as independent lexical items.

show abstract

“…But because raising Bill affects, precisely, a proper subdomain of the cycle CP, this application of raising-to-subject is counter-cyclic. See Epstein, Kitahara & Seely (2014). 9.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Alguns problemes fonamentals desconcertants: el programa de Reading

Chomsky

2019

catJL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is an annotated transcription of Noam Chomsky's keynote presentation at the University of Reading, in May 2017. Here, Chomsky reviews some foundational aspects of the theory of structure building: essentially, Merge and Label. The aim is to eliminate what he refers to as extensions of Merge which are seemingly incompatible with the Strong Minimalist Thesis while still accounting for recursive structure, displacement, and reconstruction (as the main empirical goals of the Minimalist Program). These include sidewards movement, multi-dominance, and late-Merge; all of which have been developed throughout the life cycle of transformational generative grammar. Furthermore, Chomsky formulates a series of conditions that an adequate formulation of Merge must meet, and sketches how the aforementioned extensions may violate these conditions. Chomsky arrives at a formulation of an operation MERGE, which maintains the core properties of Merge but is further restricted by limitations over what MERGE can do to the workspaces where syntactic operations apply. Resum. Alguns problemes fonamentals desconcertants: el programa de ReadingAquesta és una transcripció anotada de la presentació principal de Noam Chomsky a la Universitat de Reading, el maig de 2017. Aquí Chomsky revisa alguns aspectes fundacionals de la teoria de la construcció d'estructures: fonamentalment, fusió i etiquetatge. L'objectiu és eliminar allò que aquest autor anomena extensions de fusió, que aparentment són incompatibles amb la tesi minimalista forta, i continuar donant compte de l'estructura recursiva, el desplaçament i la reconstrucció (com a principals objectius empírics del programa minimalista). Aquests inclouen el moviment lateral, la multidominància i la fusió tardana, que s'han desenvolupat al llarg del cicle de vida de la gramàtica generativa transformacional. A més a més, Chomsky formula una sèrie de condicions que ha de complir una formulació adequada de fusió i indica que les extensions esmentades poden violar aquestes condicions. Chomsky arriba a la formulació d'una operació fusió que manté les

show abstract

Labeling by Minimal Search: Implications for Successive- Cyclic A-Movement and the Conception of the Postulate ‘‘Phase’’

Cited by 48 publications

References 28 publications

Ambiguous Labeling and Full Interpretation

Ambiguous Labeling and Full Interpretation

Remark on theEPPin Labeling Theory: Evidence from Romance

Alguns problemes fonamentals desconcertants: el programa de Reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About