Structure Building That Can't Be

Abstract

This chapter proposes and explores a “new” deduction of cyclic Transfer. A new account of cyclic Transfer is motivated since Chomsky’s (2007, 2008) “valuation-induced” account has both conceptual and empirical problems. The proposal is guided by strict adherence to: Strong Minimalist Thesis (optimal satisfaction of the interfaces) and 3rd factor considerations. There is one necessary, and simple, structure building operation, Merge. Minimizing search, External Merge can apply only to root nodes. Internal Merge can apply only if all External Merges have been exhausted. Internal Merge, based on the simplest form of Merge, creates structures which trigger Transfer. cyclic Transfer is then a natural and immediate consequence of strict adherence to SMT and 3rd factor.

Reconsidering Phase-Internal Derivations: Are They Exceptional or Not?

“…Provided that φ-features are properties of C and probe after C is Merged with TP, unlike in previous frameworks, where subject raising is followed by the Merge of C, the subject raises to Spec-T 1 The question here is why φ-features are inherited from phase heads. Some proposals have been made in the literature: for A/A′ distinction at the C-I interface (Chomsky (2008)), for Value-Transfer simultaneity (Richards (2007)), for Case-valuation (Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (2012)). We refer the reader to the works cited above for details.…”

“…Given that Merge (Internal as well as External) is triggered by the edge-feature (EF), this suggests that φ-features are equipped with EF. We assume, following Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (2012), that EF is a higher-order property of features and that φ-features can have EF. Thanks to the inheritance of φ-features, T bears EF for second-Merge.…”

“…One solution to this problem is proposed by Epstein, Kitahara andSeely (2012), andNarita (2011). In this paper, we just note that there is a way of solving counter-cyclic A-movement under feature-inheritance syntax, and that it does not pose a problem to Minimalist syntax.…”

“…When Spec-T is counter-cyclically created, on the other hand, C has already been Merged with TP and it cannot have any derivational (i.e. search/probe-goal) relation with either Spec-T or its terms (Epstein (1999), Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (2012)). Thus, its EF cannot probe into this position and extraction out of Spec-T is derivationally impossible.…”

Relations in Minimalism

“…First, I briefly discuss the strong minimalist thesis (section 2) and review two distinct approaches to syntactic relations : Epstein et al's (1998) derivational approach (section 3) and Chomsky's (2000) compositional approach (section 4). I then review in detail Epstein, Kitahara and Seely's (2010) analysis of structure-building, based on the simplest form of merger and its "counter-cyclic" application (section 5), which eliminates the main empirical difference between Epstein et al and Chomsky's approaches. With this result, I would like to discuss Chomsky's (2007Chomsky's ( , 2008 suggestion that c-command is eliminable in favor of probe-goal and minimal search conditions (section 6).…”