Linear Asymmetries and the LCA

Abstract

Abstract. Kayne (1994) was instrumental in putting linear asymmetries on the generative research agenda. His Linear Correspondence Axiom is seen as a restrictive, conceptually attractive proposal supported by a wealth of empirical evidence. In this paper, we take issue with this assessment. (i) We show that for every structure that violates the LCA, there is an LCA‐compatible counterpart, including rightward movement structures and structures with rightward specifiers. (ii) We discuss Cinque's (2005) LCA‐based analysis of word order in the extended nominal projection, demonstrating that the data in fact do not support any hypothesis stronger than a ban on rightward movement. (iii) We demonstrate that claims to the effect that central properties of phrase structure (such as headedness and the single‐specifier restriction) follow from the LCA are incorrect. (iv) We show that the LCA is toothless without a restrictive theory of movement, but that it can only be reconciled with the data in the absence of such a theory.

Suppletion and morpheme order: Are words special?

“…This sequence corresponds to the order found when modifiers of the lexical head are to its left. This proposal is central to the theory, and it is shared among the various alternatives to Cinque's account (see Steddy & SamekLodovici 2011, Abels & Neeleman 2012, Medeiros 2012.…”

“…Abels & Neeleman (2012) argue that this order should rather be derived by allowing for a different linearization of the underlying structure, with the heads to the right, as shown in (38b). What is, however, important is that all the approaches mentioned above use phrasal movement to derive the so-called mirror-violating orders in the post-head position.…”

“…In various approaches that aim at explaining such restrictions (Cinque 2005, Steddy & Samek-Lodovici 2011, Abels & Neeleman 2012, Medeiros 2012, the facts are explained by proposing a base-generated hierarchy and restricting movement to leftward, head-containing phrasal movement. However, Bobaljik's reliance on the type-of-node locality (recall (19) above) makes it impossible for him to apply this strategy in the domain of degree morphology.…”

The fundamental left–right asymmetry in the Germanic verb cluster

“…Although in his account of Universal 20 and its exceptions Cinque (2005) adopts Kayne's (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom, which necessitates specific assumptions about the X-bar theoretic status and syntax of what are assumed to be functional heads and phrasal modifiers, Abels and Neeleman (2012b) have shown that the account follows already from the following substantially weaker assumptions: (i) The underlying hierarchical arrangement of demonstrative, numeral, descriptive adjective, and noun within the extended projection of the noun is fixed in such a way that the demonstrative c-commands the remaining three elements, the numeral c-commands the adjective and the noun, and the adjective c-commands the noun. (ii) Phrase structure obeys the non-tangling condition.…”

“…This paper discusses the concepts needed to generalize Cinque's theory and situates word order variation in the Germanic verb cluster in the context of a Cinque-style general theory of neutral word order. Abels and Neeleman (2012b) shows that, although Cinque's theory is formulated assuming Kayne's (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom and a cartographic perspective on structures, it effectively relies on the following assumptions: the hierarchy of nominal modifiers is universally fixed; phrase structure obeys the non-tangling condition, which disallows discontinuous constituents (see Ojeda 2006 for discussion and references); 2 movements deriving neutral orders within DP end in positions strictly c-commanding their traces, are leftward, and affect only constituents containing the lexical noun. This is a promising blueprint for a general theory of unmarked word order because it allows for a straightforward generalization as follows: Phrase structure obeys the non-tangling condition; movements deriving unmarked word order within the extended projection of a lexical head L end in positions strictly c-commanding the trace, are leftward, and affect only constituents containing L. 3 The specific hierarchical arrangement of elements remains the only parochial assumption within the theory.…”