1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Minimalism and Beyond
  4. Chapter

On feature interpretability and inheritance

image of On feature interpretability and inheritance
  • Author(s): Marcel den Dikken 1
  • View Affiliations Hide Affiliations
    Affiliations:
    1 Linguistics Program — CUNY Graduate Center
  • Source: Minimalism and Beyond , pp 37-55
  • Publication Date September 2014

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the theoretical motivations given for feature inheritance, and the workings and distribution thereof. The standard motivations for feature inheritance in the literature are shown not to be tenable. The rationale for feature inheritance given in the literature is based on the requirement that Value and Transfer happen at the same time. This requirement falls through, however; hence, feature ineritance cannot be derived on that basis. Feature inheritance can instead be enforced as the only way to meet a constraint to the effect that the EPP property of a phase head must be satisfied within the minimal structure created by Merge of the phase head with its complement. Syntax then requires feature inheritance as long as ‘EPP’ is necessary and is defined as a Spec–Head relation. Both of these premises are subjected to close scrutiny in the paper, as is the question of whether the predicates ‘(un)interpretable’ and ‘(un)valued’ both need to be recognised by syntactic theory.

  • Affiliations: 1: Linguistics Program — CUNY Graduate Center

References

  1. Aoun, Joseph , Benmamoun, Elabbas and Sportiche, Dominique
    1994 “Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic.”Linguistic Inquiry25: 195–220.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena
    1998 “Parametrizing Agr: Word order, verb-movement and EPP-checking”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory16: 491–539. doi: 10.1023/A:1006090432389
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baltin, Mark
    1995 “Floating quantifiers, PRO, and predication”. Linguistic Inquiry26:199–248.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barbosa, Pilar
    1995 “Null Subjects.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Belletti, Adriana
    1999 “Inversion as focalization and related questions”. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics7: 9–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Biberauer, Theresa and Roberts, Ian
    2010 “Subjects, tense and verb-movement”. InParametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Theresa Biberauer , Anders Holmberg , Ian Roberts and Michelle Sheehan (eds), 263–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bošković, Željko
    2011 “On valued uninterpretable features”. Proceedings of NELS 39.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chomsky, Noam
    1986 Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 2001 “Derivation by phase”. InKen Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2007 “Approaching UG from below”. InInterfaces + Recursion = Language?, Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2008 “On phases”. In Robert Freidn , Carlos Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: 133–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dikken, Marcel
    1995 Particles. On the Syntax of Verb-particle, Triadic and Causative Constructions. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dikken, Marcel den
    2007 “Phase extension. Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction”. Theoretical Linguistics33: 1–41. doi: 10.1515/TL.2007.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.001 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2010 “Arguments for successive-cyclic movement through SpecCP: A critical review”. Linguistic Variation Yearbook9: 89–126. doi: 10.1075/livy.9.03dik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.9.03dik [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013 “Prepare and repair: On pre-emptive strikes and post-hoc patches”. InRepairs, Patrick Brandt and Eric Fuß (eds), 131–153. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Epstein, Samuel , Kitahara, Hisatsugu and Seely, T. Daniel
    2010 “Uninterpretable features: What are they and what do they do”? InExploring Crash-proof Grammars, Michael Putnam (ed.), 115–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lfab.3.07eps
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.3.07eps [Google Scholar]
  18. Haider, Hubert
    2000 “OV is more basic than VO”. InThe Derivation of OV and VO, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 45–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.31.03hai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.31.03hai [Google Scholar]
  19. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, S. Jay
    1993 “On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations”. InThe View from Building 20, Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hornstein, Norbert and Uriagereka, Juan
    2002 “Reprojections”. InDerivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel Epstein and T. Daniel Seely (eds), 106–132. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470755662.ch6
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755662.ch6 [Google Scholar]
  21. Horvath, Julia
    1986 Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kayne, Richard
    1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Larson, Richard
    1988 “On the double object construction”. Linguistic Inquiry19: 335–391.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru
    1991 “On the subject of infinitives”. InCLS Proceedings 27, Part I. 324–343.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. López, Luis
    2007 Locality and the Architecture of Syntactic Dependencies. London: Palgrave. doi: 10.1057/9780230597471
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230597471 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2009 A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Matthewson, Lisa
    1998 Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies. Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    2005 “Unifying agreement and agreement-less languages”. Proceedings of WAFL2. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther
    2001 “T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences”. InKen Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 2007 “The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features”. InPhrasal and Clausal Architecture: Derivation and Interpretation, Simin Karimi , Vida Samiian and Wendy Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.101.14pes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.101.14pes [Google Scholar]
  31. Rackowski, Andrea and Richards, Norvin
    2005 “Phase edge and extraction: a Tagalog case study”. Linguistic Inquiry36: 565–599. doi: 10.1162/002438905774464368
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464368 [Google Scholar]
  32. Reid, Wallis
    1991 Verb and Noun Number in English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2011 “The communicative function of English verb number”. NLLT29: 1187–1146.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Richards, Norvin
    1998 “The Principle of Minimal Compliance”. Linguistic Inquiry29: 599–629. doi: 10.1162/002438998553897
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553897 [Google Scholar]
  35. Richards, Marc
    2007 “On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition”. Linguistic Inquiry38: 563–572. doi: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563 [Google Scholar]
  36. Roberts, Ian
    2010 Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sheehan, Michelle
    2006 “The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance.” Ph.D. dissertation, Newcastle University.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Shim, Ji Young
    2012 “Deriving Word Order in Code-switching: Feature Inheritance and Light Verbs.” Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Surányi, Balázs
    2008 “Cyclic spell out and reprojection in head movement”. InSounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, Jutta Hartmann , Veronika Hegedűs and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 293–337. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Tzanidaki, Dimitra Irini
    1996 “Configurationality and Greek clause structure.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics8.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Wiltschko, Martina
    2003 “On the interpretability of tense on D and its consequences for case theory.” Lingua113: 659–696. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(02)00116‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00116-X [Google Scholar]
  42. Zubizarreta, María Luisa
    1998 Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Aoun, Joseph , Benmamoun, Elabbas and Sportiche, Dominique
    1994 “Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic.”Linguistic Inquiry25: 195–220.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena
    1998 “Parametrizing Agr: Word order, verb-movement and EPP-checking”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory16: 491–539. doi: 10.1023/A:1006090432389
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baltin, Mark
    1995 “Floating quantifiers, PRO, and predication”. Linguistic Inquiry26:199–248.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barbosa, Pilar
    1995 “Null Subjects.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Belletti, Adriana
    1999 “Inversion as focalization and related questions”. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics7: 9–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Biberauer, Theresa and Roberts, Ian
    2010 “Subjects, tense and verb-movement”. InParametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Theresa Biberauer , Anders Holmberg , Ian Roberts and Michelle Sheehan (eds), 263–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bošković, Željko
    2011 “On valued uninterpretable features”. Proceedings of NELS 39.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chomsky, Noam
    1986 Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 2001 “Derivation by phase”. InKen Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2007 “Approaching UG from below”. InInterfaces + Recursion = Language?, Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2008 “On phases”. In Robert Freidn , Carlos Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: 133–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dikken, Marcel
    1995 Particles. On the Syntax of Verb-particle, Triadic and Causative Constructions. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dikken, Marcel den
    2007 “Phase extension. Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction”. Theoretical Linguistics33: 1–41. doi: 10.1515/TL.2007.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.001 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2010 “Arguments for successive-cyclic movement through SpecCP: A critical review”. Linguistic Variation Yearbook9: 89–126. doi: 10.1075/livy.9.03dik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.9.03dik [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013 “Prepare and repair: On pre-emptive strikes and post-hoc patches”. InRepairs, Patrick Brandt and Eric Fuß (eds), 131–153. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Epstein, Samuel , Kitahara, Hisatsugu and Seely, T. Daniel
    2010 “Uninterpretable features: What are they and what do they do”? InExploring Crash-proof Grammars, Michael Putnam (ed.), 115–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lfab.3.07eps
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.3.07eps [Google Scholar]
  18. Haider, Hubert
    2000 “OV is more basic than VO”. InThe Derivation of OV and VO, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 45–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.31.03hai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.31.03hai [Google Scholar]
  19. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, S. Jay
    1993 “On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations”. InThe View from Building 20, Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hornstein, Norbert and Uriagereka, Juan
    2002 “Reprojections”. InDerivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel Epstein and T. Daniel Seely (eds), 106–132. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470755662.ch6
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755662.ch6 [Google Scholar]
  21. Horvath, Julia
    1986 Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kayne, Richard
    1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Larson, Richard
    1988 “On the double object construction”. Linguistic Inquiry19: 335–391.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru
    1991 “On the subject of infinitives”. InCLS Proceedings 27, Part I. 324–343.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. López, Luis
    2007 Locality and the Architecture of Syntactic Dependencies. London: Palgrave. doi: 10.1057/9780230597471
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230597471 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2009 A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Matthewson, Lisa
    1998 Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies. Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    2005 “Unifying agreement and agreement-less languages”. Proceedings of WAFL2. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther
    2001 “T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences”. InKen Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 2007 “The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features”. InPhrasal and Clausal Architecture: Derivation and Interpretation, Simin Karimi , Vida Samiian and Wendy Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.101.14pes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.101.14pes [Google Scholar]
  31. Rackowski, Andrea and Richards, Norvin
    2005 “Phase edge and extraction: a Tagalog case study”. Linguistic Inquiry36: 565–599. doi: 10.1162/002438905774464368
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464368 [Google Scholar]
  32. Reid, Wallis
    1991 Verb and Noun Number in English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2011 “The communicative function of English verb number”. NLLT29: 1187–1146.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Richards, Norvin
    1998 “The Principle of Minimal Compliance”. Linguistic Inquiry29: 599–629. doi: 10.1162/002438998553897
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553897 [Google Scholar]
  35. Richards, Marc
    2007 “On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition”. Linguistic Inquiry38: 563–572. doi: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563 [Google Scholar]
  36. Roberts, Ian
    2010 Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sheehan, Michelle
    2006 “The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance.” Ph.D. dissertation, Newcastle University.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Shim, Ji Young
    2012 “Deriving Word Order in Code-switching: Feature Inheritance and Light Verbs.” Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Surányi, Balázs
    2008 “Cyclic spell out and reprojection in head movement”. InSounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, Jutta Hartmann , Veronika Hegedűs and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 293–337. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Tzanidaki, Dimitra Irini
    1996 “Configurationality and Greek clause structure.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics8.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Wiltschko, Martina
    2003 “On the interpretability of tense on D and its consequences for case theory.” Lingua113: 659–696. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(02)00116‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00116-X [Google Scholar]
  42. Zubizarreta, María Luisa
    1998 Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270061-lfab.11.02dik
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270061-lfab.11.02dik
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270061
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error