The Merge Condition

Abstract

In this paper I review different evidence suggesting that, in Null Subject Languages, T is endowed with what Chomsky (2005) calls edge features (i.e., the current term for the generalized EPP of Chomsky (2000)), and, consequently, becomes a strong phase head in those languages. Given that such a possibility is conceptually problematic (cf. Chomsky (2000; 2001; 2004; 2005)), I propose that the phase effects manifested in T, though pervasive and robust, can be regarded as a side effect of v*-toT movement: when internally merged to T, v* re-labels the whole structure, forcing a species of Reprojection (cf. Donati (1997; 2000) and Hornstein & Uriagereka (2002)), to which I refer here as phase-sliding. The analysis clearly revamps Chomsky's (1986) idea that V-T amalgamation can freed the VP of its barrierhood, and, if correct, refutes the empirical phenomena threatening the phase status of v* in Null Subject Languages, for all the operations that appear to take place at the T level, actually occur at an "extended v*" level. On more general grounds, the following pages support the idea that C and v* are phase heads universally, and T exists to act as a feature-holder (of both φ and edge features) feeding parametric variation, an idea already present in the literature in one way or another (cf. Chomsky (1986),

On Movement out of Moved Elements, Labels, and Phases

“…One such case involves the otherwise puzzling immobility of verb-second (V2) clauses in German. As Webelhuth (1992) notes (see also Reis 1997, Wurmbrand 2014, Holmberg 2015 (Wurmbrand 2014:153) V2 clauses are notorious for their nonpickiness, in that anything can fill their Spec,CP. This has led to proposals that such clauses do not involve agreement at all-they involve EPP without agreement (i.e., a filled-Spec requirement without Agree; see, e.g., Haegeman 1996, Roberts and Roussou 2002, Roberts 2004, Jouitteau 2008.…”

The Sign of the V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner

“…It cannot be an instance of agreement under government either (since a head does not c-command its Spec). And even if we ventured into the realm of Reverse Agree (Zeijlstra 2012;Wurmbrand 2014), it still does not explain how we require a dependency between the V and the specifier of its specifier specifically in the case of whosever / whoever's but not in the others. Too many problems.…”

On the licensing of null subjects in Old Venetian

“…Other possible formal approaches to this relation could involve an uninterpreted BELx,t,w in Force that depends on an interpreted counterpart in the matrix verb, leaning on suggestions involving the agree-relation , Adger 2003, Pesetsky and Torrego 2007, Zeijlstra 2012, Wurmbrand 2014, and many others) or on feature-transmission under binding (Heim (2008)).…”