View Item 

Show simple item record

Labeling Defective T*

dc.contributor.authorSugimoto, Yushi
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-06T02:14:11Z
dc.date.available2022-05-05 22:14:10en
dc.date.available2021-04-06T02:14:11Z
dc.date.issued2021-04
dc.identifier.citationSugimoto, Yushi (2021). "Labeling Defective T*." Studia Linguistica (1): 150-164.
dc.identifier.issn0039-3193
dc.identifier.issn1467-9582
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/167110
dc.description.abstractThis paper proposes a new analysis of so‐called ‘defective T’ (a postulate originally discussed in Chomsky 2000, 2001) and seeks a label‐based theoretical explanation of phenomena associated with the distribution of subjects in infinitival clauses. I argue that we do not need to postulate ‘defective T’ as an element of the lexicon. Following Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) labeling approach, which investigates only finite clauses, I argue here that the subject of infinitive‐to is pair‐merged structure <T, C> and the associated predicate forms an {XP, YP} structure, which is unlabelable. To attain labeling, the subject position ([spec, TP]) in the infinitival clause moves out and the label of the resulting structure is the amalgam <T, C>, which has no visible Spec (violating EPP). As a consequence, we eliminate the Merge‐over‐Move principle.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherDe Gruyter
dc.titleLabeling Defective T*
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelLinguistics
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHumanities
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167110/1/stul12154.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167110/2/stul12154_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/stul.12154
dc.identifier.sourceStudia Linguistica
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein, S. D. & Obata, M. 2012. Feature‐splitting Internal Merge: The Case of Tough ‐constructions. Ways of Structure Building. eds. M. Uribe‐Etxebarria & M. Valmala, 366 – 384. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLandou, I. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34 ( 3 ): 471 – 498.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLasni, H. & Saito, M. 1992. Move α: conditions on its application and output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLongenbaugh, N. 2017. Composite A/A’‐movement: Evidence from English tough ‐movement. MIT: Ms.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein, S. D. & Seely, T. D. 2006. Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoto, N. 2017. How to label there ‐constructions. English Literature, Regional Branches Combined Issue 9: 33 – 43.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHartman, J. 2009. Intervention in tough constructions. In Proceedings of NELS39, 387 – 397.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHicks, G. 2009. Tough ‐constructions and their derivations. Linguistic Inquiry 40 ( 4 ): 535 – 566.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIatridou, S. 1988. On nominative case assignment and a few related things. Ms.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein, S. D., Obata, M. & Seely, T. D. 2018. Is Linguistic Variation Entirely Linguistic? Linguistic Analysis 41 ( 3–4 ): 481 – 516.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFleisher, N. 2013. On the absence of scope reconstruction in tough subject A‐chain. Linguistic Inquiry 44 ( 2 ): 321 – 332.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavis, L. 1981. Argument‐binding and control. Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 89 – 103.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein, S. D. 1998. Overt scope marking and covert verb‐second. Linguistic Inquiry 29 ( 2 ): 181 – 227.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein, S. D., Kitahara, H. & Seely, T. D. 2014. Labeling by minimal search. Linguistic inquiry 45 ( 3 ): 463 – 481.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein, S. D., Kitahara, H. & Seely, T. D. 2016. Phase‐Cancellation by external pair‐merge of heads. The Linguistic Review 33 ( 1 ): 87 – 102.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeine, S. & Poole, E. 2017. Intervention in tough ‐constructions revisited. The Linguistic Review 34 ( 2 ): 295 – 329.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon’s. eds. Dimitriadis, A., L. Siegel, C. Surek‐Clark, and A. Williams. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, 201 ‐ 225.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMartin, R. 2001. Null case and the Distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32 ( 1 ): 141 – 166.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNomura, M. 2014. Case and Agreement Revisited: Why do Unvalued Features Exist? Presented at 32 nd Conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNomura, M. 2015. Pair‐Merge and its consequences. Presented at the 87 th General Meeting of The English Literary Society of Japan.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceObata, M. & Epstein, S. D. 2012. Feature‐splitting internal merge: The case of tough ‐constructions. Ways of structure building. eds. M. Uribe‐Etxebarria & V. Valmala, 366 – 384. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOseki, Y. 2015. Eliminating Pair‐Merge. Proceedings of the 32 nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. Ulrike Steindl et al., 303312. Momerville, MA. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRichards, M. 2009. Internal pair‐Merge: the missing mode of movement. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 55 – 73.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSeely, D. T. 2006. Merge, derivational c‐command, and subcategorization in a label‐free syntax. Minimalist Essays. ed. C. Boeckx, 182 – 217. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTakita, K., Goto, N. & Shibata, Y. 2016. Labeling through Spell‐Out. The Linguistic Review 33 ( 1 ): 177 – 198.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbe, J. 2018. How to probe expletives. Studia Linguistica 72 ( 1 ): 72 – 112.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlexiadou, A. & Lohndal, T. 2017. The structural configuration of root categorization. Labels and Roots. eds. L. Bauke & A. Blümel, 203 – 232. Mouton: De Gruyter.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlümel, A. 2017. Exocentric Root Declaratives: Evidence from V2. Labels and Roots. eds. L. Bauke & A. Blümel, 263 – 289. De Gruyter: Mouton.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBorer, H. 2013. Structuring Sense vol III: Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBošković, Ž. 2002. A‐movement and EPP. Syntax 5 ( 3 ): 167 – 218.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBošković, Ž. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38 ( 4 ): 589 – 644.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. eds. R. Martin, D. Michaels & J.   Uriagereka, 89 – 156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. The cartography of syntactic structures: Vol. 3. Structures and beyond, ed. A. Belletti, 104 – 131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in the language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36 ( 1 ): 1 – 22.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax‐semantics. eds. U. Sauerland & H.‐M. Gärtner, 1 – 30. Berlin Mouton de Gruyter.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChomsky, N. 2008. On phases. Foundational issues in linguistic theory. eds. R. Freidin, C. P. Otero & M.‐L. Zubizarreta, 133 – 166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33 – 49.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChomsky, N. 2015. Problems of projection Extensions. Structures, Strategies and Beyond. eds. E. Di Domecinco, C. Hamann & S. Matteini, 3 – 16. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCollins, C. 2002. Eliminating labels. Derivation and Explanation in the minimalist program. eds. S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely, 42 – 64. Blackwell Publishers.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
stul12154.pdf
Size:
541.7KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
stul12154_am.pdf
Size:
304.4KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.