Glossa
a journal of
general linguistics
Dékány, Éva. 2018. Approaches to head movement: A critical
assessment. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1): 65.
1–43, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.316
OVERVIEW ARTICLE
Approaches to head movement: A critical assessment
Éva Dékány
Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Benczúr utca 33, 1068 Budapest, HU
dekany.eva@nytud.mta.hu
Heads can be spelled out higher than their merge-in position. The operation that the
transformationalist generative literature uses to model this is called head movement. Government
and Binding posited that the operation in question involves adjunction of a lower head to a
higher head in narrow syntax. It has been noted early on, however, that this approach is highly
problematic because head-adjunction violates several well-motivated constraints on syntactic
structures.
This overview article surveys the problems raised by the adjunction approach as well as
the recent alternative analyses that were suggested in its stead in the Minimalist program. It
evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives, discusses to what extent they are
able to eliminate the problems raised by the adjunction analysis, and also points out the new
problems that they give rise to.
Keywords: head movement; defective goal; reprojection; remnant movement; PF movement;
direct linearization theories
1 Introduction
1.1 Head movement and the controversy surrounding it
Heads can be spelled out higher than their merge-in position. For instance, the exponent
of a verb is expected to appear in the verb phrase, but in certain languages (and certain
types of clauses) it appears higher, in the inflectional or the complementizer domain.
Naturally, this has an effect on the word order of the clause.
Let us consider the specific examples in (1).
(1)
a.
b.
c.
English
John doesn’t always like Mary.
French (Pollock 1989: 367)
Jean (n’) aime pas Marie.
John not love not Mary
‘John doesn’t love Mary.’
German (András Bárány, p.c.)
Gestern sah Hans Maria
nicht.
yesterday saw Hans Maria.acc not
‘Yesterday Hans did not see Maria.’
In English, the verb is in the vP because it follows negation and adverbs, the sign-post
elements that mark the left edge of the verb phrase. In French and German, however, the
exponents of the verbs appear outside of the vP. In French the verb follows the subject
but precedes negation (1b), so it is in a position above NegP but still in the IP-domain. In
German non-subject-initial root clauses, on the other hand, the verb is obligatorily in the
Art. 65, page 2 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
second position; it precedes the canonical positions of the subject, object, and negation
(1c), and so it is in the CP-domain.1
Pre-theoretically, we can use the term head movement (HM) as the name of the operation
that the transformationalist generative literature uses to model the word order difference
between (1a), (1b) and (1c). There is currently great controversy over what grammatical
mechanism this operation exactly corresponds to: whether it is movement or not, and if it
is movement, what exactly moves (only a head or a whole phrase), where it moves, and in
which component of the grammar. While both ingredients of the label “head movement”
are under debate, it will serve as a useful descriptive term for the operation involved in
the word order difference between (1a) to (1c) thoughout this paper.
The proposed alternatives of what HM exactly involves fall into four main groups.
The operation of HM is:
• syntactic movement
• a combination of syntactic movement and a post-syntactic operation
• post-syntactic movement
• post-syntactic and involves no movement; it falls out from the way the ­syntactic
hierarchy is translated into linear oder
The aim of this paper is to offer a balanced discussion of these alternatives and to evalue
their strengths and weaknesses.
1.2 Constraints on HM
While the exponent of a head can occur higher than the merge-in position of that head,
not all logically possible types of patterns are attested. Researchers have come to the conclusion early on that the operation that is used to model the data must be subject to three
constraints, or else overgeneration cannot be avoided.
The first constraint applies to morphologically complex heads. The HM operation always
displaces the exponent of the head from the merge-position of the head. In some cases the
displaced exponent remains morphologically unaltered. We can observe this in English
matrix yes-no questions, where the preposing of the auxiliary from T to C does not change
the form of the auxiliary.
(2)
a.
b.
The cat will eat the mouse.
Will the cat eat the mouse?
In other cases, the change of the base-generated word order is also accompanied by
word formation: affixation of a stem with derivational and/or inflectional suffixes (3) or
­incorporation of a noun into a(n inflected) verb (4b).
1
We can observe similar data in the domain of noun phrases as well. In English the noun appears to the right
of all NP-modifiers (except complements), therefore it is standard to assume that it is in situ. In the Hebrew
Construct state, on the other hand, the noun sits in the left periphery of the DP. It is the first element in the
DP, and it precedes the adjective that modifies it as well as its possessor (ii), a sign that it (or a projection
containing it) has undergone movement.
(i) English
the Italian invasion of Albania
(ii) Hebrew (Ritter 1988: 916)
beyt
ha-mora
ha-yafe
house-m the-teacher-f the-pretty-m
‘the teacher’s pretty house’
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
(3)
Dutch (Marcel den Dikken, p.c.)
Ze speel-de-n op straat.
they play-pst-3pl on street
‘They were playing in the street.’
(4)
Mohawk (Baker 1988: 81–82)
a. Yao-wir-aʔa ye-nuhweʔ-s
ne ka-nuhs-aʔ.
pre-baby-suf 3fS/3n-like-asp the pre-house-suf
‘The baby likes the house.’
b.
Art.65, page 3 of 43
Yao-wir-aʔa ye-nuhs-nuhweʔ-s.
pre-baby-suf 3fS/3n-house-like-asp
‘The baby likes the house.’
As first discussed in Baker (1985), the internal structure of complex words created by HM
reflects the underlying syntactic structure of the given expression.
(5)
The Mirror Principle
Morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice
versa). (Baker 1985: 375)
What the Mirror Principle says is that an affix that spells out a lower head will end up
closer to the root than an affix that spells out a higher head.2 This way the morphological
make-up of words allows insights into the syntactic hierarchy of functional projections.
For instance, on the basis of the morphology of the Hungarian verb in (6a) we can conclude that the syntactic hierarchy of the causative, modal, and tense heads is as in (6b).
(6)
Hungarian
a. Ír-at-tat-hat-t-ak
gyógyszer-t.
write-caus-caus-pot-pst-3pl medicine-acc
‘They may have made somebody have medication prescribed.’
b.
tense > modality > outer causative > inner causative > V
The first constraint on the HM operation is that it cannot break up the morphologically
complex heads that it creates at a later point in the derivation: there is no excorporation
from complex heads. This restriction is a subcase of the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis.
(7)
Lexical Integrity Hypothesis
No syntactic rule can refer to elements of morphological structure. (Lapointe
1980: 8)
The no excorporation condition amounts to saying that head movement is always ­“roll-up”
movement and there is no successic cyclic head movement; chains of head movement are
maximally two-member chains.
The second constraint on the operation is that it is strictly local: it always establishes a
relation between two structurally adjacent heads. This has been formulated as the Head
Movement Constraint (Travis 1984).3
2
3
As noted in Brody (2000a), the name in (5) involves the word “Principle”. It is, however, not a syntaxinternal genuine principle like the Projection Principle or the Empty Category Principle. Instead, it is an
empirical generalization, and so the name “Mirror Generalization” would be a better fit for it.
Chomsky (1986); Baker (1988) and Rizzi (1990) proposed that the HMC can be derived from the Empty
Category Principle (ECP).
(i) The Empty Category Principle
A nonpronominal empty category must be properly governed. (Lasnik & Saito 1984: 240)
Art. 65, page 4 of 43
(8)
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Head Movement Constraint
An X0 may only move into the Y0 which properly governs it. (Travis 1984: 131)
In cases in which a head apparently moves to a structurally non-adjacent higher head position, e.g. when V ends up in C, we have the successive creation of separate local chains:
V-to-T and then T-to-C. V ends up in C because it is pied-piped by T when T moves to C.
Thirdly, the HM operation is clause-bound, or more generally, it applies only within but
not across extended projections.4
Importantly, these constraints do not apply to phrasal movement. Phrasal movement
can skip intermediate phrasal positions; it is not the case that it has to target the next
higher specifier. Phrasal movement can also be successive cyclic: phrases can touch
down in intermediate positions and move further on without pied-piping any other
material with them. Finally, phrasal movement can cross clausal boundaries giving rise
to so-called long movement (long wh-movement, long topicalization, long focalization,
etc.).
1.3 The structure of the paper
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the GB-style syntactic adjunction
analysis proposed for (1b) through (4b), as well as the theory-internal arguments that
were leveled against this analysis. Approaches that maintain that data like (1b)–(4b)
should be captured with a syntactic operation will be surveyed in Section 3. A model in
which such data arise as a result of a syntactic movement followed by a post-syntactic
operation will be discussed in Section 4. Theories that account for these data with a postsyntactic displacement operation will be the topic of Section 5. The analysis of (1b) to
(4b) as positioning via syntax-phonology mapping is taken up in Section 6. I will discuss
to what extent these theories can eliminate the problems posed by the adjunction analysis
as well as the new problems they give rise to.5 In the current Minimalist framework, the
most important question is whether (1b) through (4b) should be modeled by a narrow
syntactic operation or not. Section 7 addresses arguments related to this issue. Section 8
concludes the paper.
2 The head-to-head adjunction analysis
In Section 1.2 three types of data were discussed: i) upward displacement of a head’s
exponent without morphological growth of that head, ii) upward displacement of a
head’s exponent accompanied by morphological growth of the head (i.e. displacement +
­affixation), and iii) incorporation. In the GB period all three types of data were modeled
with the same syntactic operation, whereby a lower head moves up to and adjoins to a
Roberts (2001) suggests that the Head Movement Constraint is instead a special case of Relativized
­Minimality (RM). As Vicente (2007) points out, however, this would require some feature that is shared by
all heads (as RM makes reference to features, not positions).
4
From the early days of GB, however, the validity of all three constraints has been called into question:
there has been discussion about cases of “long head movement” and excorporation (see Sections 3.2.2 and
3.4.2) as well as non-clause bounded HM (see Landau 2006; Vicente 2007; Harizanov 2016 and Harizanov
& ­Gribanova accepted).
5
The focus of this paper is the head adjunction operation posited in GB, the problems with this operation
and the the various alternative operations that were meant to replace head-adjunction. There are cases in
which the exponent of a head appears lower than its merge-in position. Such data are customarily ­modeled
with Lowering or Affix Hopping. Head-adjunction and its alternatives on the one hand and Lowering/Affix
Hopping on the other hand model a complementary set of data. As Lowering is not meant to replace head
adjunction, it will not be discussed here. I refer the interested reader to Halle & Marantz (1994); Bobaljik
(1995); Embick & Noyer (2001); Embick & Marantz (2008) and Skinner (2009) for relevant detailed
­discussion.
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
o head movement
hes to head movement
hes to head movement
Art.65, page 5 of 43
7
7
7
6
higher
head
(Koopman
1984;of
Travis
1984; Baker 1985).6 The output of this adjunction is
1984; Travis 1984;
Baker
1985).
The6 output
this adjunction
man
1984;
Travis
Baker
1985).
output of this adjunction
a1984;
­complex
head,
as in6 The
(10).
x head,
as in
(10).1984;
man
1984;
Travis
Baker
1985).
The output of this adjunction
mplex head, as in (10).
mplex head, as in (9)
(10).
XP
XP
XP
X
YP
X
YP
X
YP
Y
Y
XP Y
(10)
a.
a.
XP
a.
XP
X
YP
X
YP
X
YP
Yi X ti
Yi X ti
YXP
X ti
i
b.
XP
b.
XP
b.
X
YP
X
YP
X
YP
X Yi ti
X Yi ti
X Yi ti
e i) arise when the host of adjunction (X in (10)) has a zero
type i) arise
when
of
adjunction
a zero (X in (10)) has a zero exponent,
while
ii) and
iii) the
result
from
to(10))
a host
that
Data
of host
type
i) head-adjunction
arise when(X
thein
ofhas
adjunction
f typetypes
i) arise
when
the
host
of
adjunction
(X
inhost
(10))
has
a zero
nt,
while
types
ii)
and
iii)
result
from
head-adjunction
to
a
host
that
tnt,
exponent.
types
ii)from
and head-adjunction
iii) result fromtohead-adjunction
to a host that has an overt
while types ii)while
and iii)
result
a host that
overt
exponent.
er
adjunction
neither
the moved head nor the target can move
­exponent.
overt
exponent.
t after adjunction
neither
the
moved
headneither
nor
thethe
target
canbemove
orporation)
does
not
follow
from
the structure
itself;
must
That
adjunction
moved
head nor the target can move out (no
t after adjunction neitherafter
the
moved
head nor
the this
target
can move
excorporation)
does
not
follow
from
the
structure
itself;
this
must be
ofexcorporation)
by a separate constraint
(see
Baker
1988
for
early
discussion,
­excorporation)
does the
notstructure
follow from
thethis
structure
does
not follow from
itself;
must beitself; this must be taken care of by a
arethat
of by
a separate
constraint
(see Baker 1988 for early discussion,
ts
words
cannot
contain
traces).
separate
constraint
(see
Baker
1988
for
early
discussion, who suggests that words cannot
care of by a separate constraint (see Baker 1988 for early discussion,
ggests
that
words cannot
contain
traces).
eggests
several
well-known
problems
with
the
head-adjunction
approthat wordscontain
cannot traces).
contain traces).
re are
several
well-known
problems
with the
head-adjunction
approer.
Firstly,
it
does
not
obey
theseveral
Extension
Condition
of Chomsky
There
are
well-known
problems
with
the head-adjunction approach, however.
re are several well-known problems
with
the head-adjunction
approwever.
Firstly,
it
does
not
obey
the
Extension
Condition
of
Chomsky
7
23).
does the
not Extension
obey the Extension
of Chomsky (1993: 22–23).7
owever. Firstly,
it Firstly,
does notit obey
ConditionCondition
of Chomsky
22–23).77
22–23).
cases in which morphological growth (affixation) of a head occus without
(11)
Extension
Condition
e(see
alsoBrody
cases 2000a;
in whichAdger
morphological
growth
(affixation)
of a head occus
without
et The
al. 2010;
Harley
2013; Harizanov
& Gribae also(see
cases
in which
morphological
growth
(affixation)
of to
a Harizanov
head
occus&without
*
ment
Brody
2000a;
Adger
et
al.
2010;
Harley
2013;
Griba- K as a proper part. (Chomsky
GT andthat
Move
α extend
K
Kanalysis
, which
includes
). It has always been acknowledged
the head-adjunction
canment
(see
Brody
2000a;
Adger
et al. 2010;
Harley
2013; Harizanov
& Griba8
epted).
It
has
always
been
acknowledged
that
the
head-adjunction
analysis
r this; such data were assumed1993:
to involve
different operation such as Affix can22) athat
cepted).
It has
always
been assumed
acknowledged
head-adjunction
analysis
canunt
for
this;
such
data
were
to
involve
athe
different
operation such
as Affix
wering.
Substitution
operations
extend
their
unt for this; such data were assumed
to involve
a differentalways
operation
such as
Affixtarget. (Chomsky 1993: 23)
Lowering.
r,orthat
in Chomsky (1993) and Chomsky (1995: Chapter 3) the Extension
or Lowering.
thattoinadjunction,
Chomsky (1993)
and
(1995:
Extension
swever,
not apply
which is
theChomsky
mechanism
of HMChapter
in (10).3)
In the
order
to
owever,
that
in Chomsky
(1993)
and Chomsky
(1995: and
Chapter
themovement
In other
words,
Merge
phrasal
nChomsky
does not
apply
to
adjunction,
which
is while
the mechanism
of
HM
in 3)
(10).
InExtension
order to are cyclic operations, head-adjunc(2000)
replaces
the Extension
Condition
with the
Least
Tampering
nHM,
doesChomsky
not apply
to adjunction,
which
is thenot
mechanism
of HM
(10).
Inroot).
order to
tion
is notthe
(itExtension
does
extend with
the
tree
at the
(2000)
replaces
Condition
theinLeast
Tampering
rn.HM, Chomsky (2000) replaces the Extension Condition with the Least Tampering
Secondly, (10) complicates the definition of c-command. The Proper Binding Condition
n.
Least Tampering Condition
requires
traces to be bound, that is, a moved constituent must c-command its extraction
Least of
Tampering
Condition
enThe
a choice
operations
applying to A and projecting its label L, select one
The
Least
Tampering
Condition
site from
the 137)
landing
site.projecting its label L, select one
Given a choice
operations
applying
to A and
preserves
R(L,g).of(Chomsky
2000:
Given
a choiceR(L,g).
of operations
applying
A and projecting its label L, select one
that
preserves
(Chomsky
2000: to
137)
that preserves R(L,g). (Chomsky 2000: 137)
6
7
There are also cases in which morphological growth (affixation) of a head occus without displacement
(see Brody 2000a; Adger et al. 2010; Harley 2013; Harizanov & Gribanova accepted). It has always been
acknowledged that the head-adjunction analysis cannot account for this; such data were assumed to involve
a different operation such as Affix Hopping or Lowering.
Note, however, that in Chomsky (1993) and Chomsky (1995: Chapter 3) the Extension Condition does not
apply to adjunction, which is the mechanism of HM in (10). In order to allow for HM, Chomsky (2000)
replaces the Extension Condition with the Least Tampering Condition.
(i) The Least Tampering Condition
Given a choice of operations applying to A and projecting its label L, select one that preserves
R(L, g). (Chomsky 2000: 137)
This, however, raises more problems than it solves. See Surányi (2005) for discussion.
8
GT stands for Generalized Transformation.
Art. 65, page 6 of 43
(12)
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Proper Binding Condition
In surface structure Sα, if [e]NPn is not properly bound by […]NPn, then Sα is not
grammatical. (Fiengo 1977: 45)
Applied to (10), this means that Y must c-command its trace, which, in turn, means that
c-command must be defined in such a way that the moved head c-commands out of the
complex head it is part of. Baker’s (1988) definition of c-command, for instance, is given
in (13).
(13)
Baker’s revised definition of c-command
A c-commands B iff A does not dominate B and for every maximal projection
C, if C dominates A then C dominates B. (Baker 1988: 36, original emphasis)
(13) effectively replaces c-command with m-command as the crucial relationship holding
between moved elements and traces.9
Thirdly, (10) also violates the Chain Uniformity Condition.
(14)
Chain Uniformity Condition
A chain is uniform with regard to phrase structure status. (Chomsky 1995: 253)
In Bare Phrase Structure (BPS) heads and phrases are defined relationally: heads are categories that are not projected, while phrases are categories that do not project. On this
definition, in (10) the lower copy of the moving Y is a head, while the higher copy is both
a head and a phrase. Therefore the movement in (10) produces a non-uniform chain, in
violation of (14). Furthermore, in BPS the higher X in (10) (dominating X and the moved
Y) is neither a head nor a phrase. As intermediate categories are generally thought to be
inert, it is predicted that the complex head X will not be able to undergo movement to the
next higher head. This is undesirable, as “roll-up” HM does occur.
Fourthly, (10) violates the A-over-A Principle on movement. The A-over-A Principle is a
sort of minimality condition: it states that if a category A contains another category A (i.e.
[ A … [ A …]]), then it is not possible to extract the lower category A across the higher
category A containing it. If movement of category A is required, then it is the higher one
that needs to move. For instance, if a DP embeds another DP, then it is not possible to
move the lower DP out of and across the higher DP.
(15)
A-over-A Principle
If a transformation applies to a structure of the form [α … [A … ]A … ]α, where
α is a cyclic node, then it must be so interpreted as to apply to the maximal
phrase of the type A. (Chomsky 1973: 235)
In BPS there are no category labels like X-bar and XP. Instead, intermediate and maximal
categories inherit the category label of their head. This means that a head and its maximal
projection bear the same label, which gives rise to an [ A … [ A … ]] configuration. In
(10) the head raises out of its own maximal category. With the lower Y moving across the
higher, containing Y(P), an A-over-A violation is incurred. (See Section 7.2 for a proposal
9
Baker (1988: 449, fn. 10) also discusses an alternative, however, which he attributes to personal
c­ ommunication with Chomsky. According to this version, in (10) X does not contain Y because it has a
segment that does not contain Y. The smallest category that properly dominates Y is XP. Since XP contains
the trace of Y, there is c-command between the head and the tail of the chain. While this is more restrictive
than ­m-command, it still requires a complex definition of c-command that makes reference to segments.
Note, however, that a complicated definition of c-command may be needed independently of head-to-head
adjunction, too, cf. Kayne’s (1994: Chapter 3) discussion of adjunction (and specifiers) in general.
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 7 of 43
by Preminger why this violation happens, and how it can be used to argue that HM takes
place in narrow sytnax).
Fifthly, (10) violates anti-locality. Anti-locality bans movements that are too local/too
short (cf. Grohman 2001; 2002; 2003a; b; 2011 and Abels 2003, among others).
(16)
Anti-Locality Hypothesis
Movement must not be too local. (Grohman 2003b: 269)
Abels (2003: Chapter 2.4) proposes that all movements must lead to feature satisfaction
that was impossible before the movement. Certain local movements are such that they
cannot lead to new feature satisfaction by definition. Movement from the complement of
a head to the specifier of the same head is a case in point: any feature that can be satisfied
between a head and its specifier can also be satisfied between the head and its complement, so anti-locality rules out this type of movement. Head-adjunction also runs afoul of
anti-locality. In BPS all the featues of the head are assumed to be present on the phrase
projected by the head. Feature satisfaction between a head X and the next lower head Y
thus can take place immediately upon merger of X with YP, and adjunction of Y to X does
not allow feature satisfaction that was impossible before the movement.10,11 It should be
pointed out, however, that the anti-locality constraint on movements has not been unanimously adopted in the literature, and so this is not necessarily a strong argument against
head-adjunction.
Sixthly, at least in some (but not necessarily all) cases (10) needs a special triggering
feature that is different from the feature triggering phrasal movement to specifiers. If this
were not the case, there would be no cases in which movement to both the head and the
specifier of a projection are simultaneously necessary. But such cases do exist: for instance
in English matrix wh- questions the specifier of C is filled by a wh- element, while C is
filled by T-to-C head movement.
Seventhly, in the checking theory of movement (10) also complicates the definition of
checking domain (Surányi 2005). “Checking domain” must have a disjunctive defintion
because we must allow features of heads to be checked either by a specifier (spec-head
agreement) or by an adjoining head. Disjunctive definitions are always suspect, however,
of missing an important generalization.12
Finally, the HM operation does not seem to affect semantic interpretation in a consistent/systematic way. Here the term consistent/systematic is of key importance. For
instance, while A-movement may affect interpretation, e.g. by altering scope relations
between constituents, not every instance of A-movement does so (the movement of the
subject to Spec, TP, for instance, does not appear to have an effect on the interpretation of
A reviewer points out that anti-locality does not rule out all cases of HM, though. If a lower head bears an
uninterpretable feature that should be valued by the next higher head, and upward Agree is excluded, then
the maximally local configuration of the heads in their base-generated position is not enough for feature
valuation to happen.
11
Grohman (2003a) has a different view on what constitutes anti-local movement. He suggests that any movement that takes place within a so-called Prolific Domain is too short, where the Profilic Domains are the
thematic, agreement and discourse domains. If coupled with the HMC, this view excludes all cases of head
movement except when the highest head of a domain moves to the lowest head of the next domain. In the
following sections we will apply Abels’ definition of anti-locality.
12
In more recent Minimalism the checking theory (understood as a relation between two valued features)
has been replaced by valuation (of an unvalued feature by a valued feature) under Agree. While checking
required a local relationship, Agree can also take place long-distance (provided there is no intervener or
phase head between the valuing and the to-be-valued feature). Given this shift in the theory, I will not discuss how the different alternatives to head-adjunction can solve the problem with the disjunctive definition
of checking.
10
Art. 65, page 8 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
the sentence). We would expect any core syntactic operation to have the ability to affect
interpretation, and so it is unexpected that HM systematically fails to do so.13
In spite of these problems with (10), however, the head-adjunction analysis is not universally rejected. Pesetsky (2013: Chapter 4) defends (10) on theoretical grounds. He notes
that the root of all problems with head movement is that it is a complement-creating
rule: the moving element lands in a complement position (in (10), the moved Y becomes
the complement of X). He labels complement-creating movement Undermerge, and points
out that this type of movement has also been proposed in the realm of phrasal movement.
Sportiche (2005), for instance, argues that D is merged not within the extended noun
phrase, but among clausal functional projections, and NPs combine with D by moving up
to the D head and becoming a complement of D. Raising to Object is another instance of
complement-forming phrasal movement: here the subject of an embedded clause raises to
the complement (object) position of the matrix verb (Rosenbaum 1967; Postal 1974 and
later work).14 Finally, McCloskey (1984) argues that modern Irish features complementcreating phrasal movement to the P head (see also Postal 2004: Chapter 2 on English rely
on). In view of these proposals for “head movement-like phrasal movement”, Pesetsky
fully embraces head-adjunction. Baker (2009) also argues that (10) is needed: he suggests
that this is the best model of noun incorporation in Mohawk and Mapudungun.15,16
A large body of literature, however, considers HM qua adjunction as a highly problematic operation, and seeks other alternatives to model the data in (1b) through (4b). Many
researchers are exploring narrow syntactic alternatives, in which some version of HM is
part of the core syntactic module of grammar. We will turn to these theories in the next
section.
3 HM as a syntactic operation
In this section we look at approaches that consider HM to be part of narrow syntax.
We will start with theories in which the final output of HM is an adjunction structure
very much like in HM qua adjunction: sideward movement (Section 3.1) and Agree
with a defective goal (Section 3.2). Then we turn to the reprojective movement analysis
(Section 3.3). Some proponents of this theory hold that complex words are composed via
head adjunction, but the core of the analysis can be maintained without this assumption,
too. Finally, we look at the phrasal movement analysis, which has a different output from
head-adjunction (Section 3.4).
But see Mahajan (2003) and Matushansky (2006) for proposals why verb movement lacks interpretive
effects, and Section (7) for proposals that HM can have an effect on interpretation.
14
See, however, Lasnik & Saito (1991) and Runner (1998) for early analyses in which the embedded subject
lands in a specifier position in the matrix clause (Spec, AgrOP; recast as the outer specifier of vP in later
minimalist work).
15
In Mapudungun the incorporated noun follows the verb rather than precedes it, so deriving these data by
the mechanism of (10) requires right-adjunction. That is, one cannot maintain both the head-adjunction
analysis of (ib) and Kayne’s (1994) LCA (as the latter exludes right-adjunction).
13
(i) Mapudungun (Baker 2009: 149)
a. Ñi chao kintu-le-y
ta-chi pu
waka.
my father seek-prog-ind.3sS the-adj coll cow
‘My father is looking for the cows.’
b. Ñi chao kintu-waka-le-y.
my father seek-cow-prog-ind.3sS
‘My father is looking for the cows.’
16
Chomsky, too, holds that while HM generally takes place post-syntactically, incorporation involves
­syntactic head movement: “There are some reasons to suspect that a substantial core of head-raising processes, excluding incorporation in the sense of Baker (1988), may fall within the phonological component”
­(Chomsky 2001: 37).
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
roaches
head movement
to head to
movement
Art.65, page 9 of 43
13
13
3.1
Sideward
ces.
This approach
is pursued
inmovement
Nunes
2004);
Bobaljik
his
approach
is pursued
in Nunes
(1995;(1995;
2001;2001;
2004);
Bobaljik
& &
own
and Uriagereka
(1998).
997)(1997)
and Uriagereka
(1998).
The first syntactic alternative to head-adjunction to be discussed here is sideward
­movement, i.e. movement of heads between different derivational spaces. This approach
1mechanics
The mechanicsis pursued in Nunes (1995; 2001; 2004); Bobaljik & Brown (1997) and Uriagereka (1998).
instream
generative
holds
that structure
building
proceeds
m
generative
grammar
holds
that structure
building
proceeds
in in
3.1.1grammar
The
mechanics
17
17
ottom-up
fashion.
A
consequence
of
this
approach
is
that
whenever
up fashion. A consequence
this approach
is that
whenever
Mainstream of
generative
grammar
holds
that structure building proceeds in a bottom-up
head
with
an internally
complex
specifier
(or
a phrase
merges
17
ergesmerges
with an
internally
complex
specifier
(or
a
phrase
merges
fashion. A consequence of this approach
is that whenever a head merges with an interh
an
internally
complex
adjunct),
syntax
must
make
use
of
two
different
ternally complex adjunct),
syntax
must make
of two
different
nally complex
specifier
(orConsider
ause
phrase
merges
with
an internally complex adjunct), syntax
rkspaces
(aka.
derivational
spaces)
in
parallel.
the
case
in
which
es (aka. derivational
spaces)
in
parallel.
Consider
the
case
in
which
mustinmake
usethe
of noun
two different
workspaces
derivational spaces) in parallel. Consider
akes
a subject
which
a modifier,
e.g. (aka.
three
cats.
subject
NP/DPNP/DP
in the
which
the
noun
has
a has
modifier,
e.g.
three
cats.
′
case
in
which
v
takes
a
subject
NP/DP
in
which
the noun has a modifier, e.g. three cats.
ore merger of the subject and v , we have the two syntactic objects in
erger of the subject and v′ , we have the two syntactic objects in
Before merger of the subject and v′, we have the two syntactic objects in (17).
7).
7)
.
a.
(17)
a.
NumP
NumP
three
b.
three
Num
v′
b.
v
Num
NP
′
vcats
v
VP
NP
cats
VP
ucially, (17a) is internally
complex
must have
been and
builtmust
indepenCrucially,
(17a) isand
internally
complex
have been built independently of (17b).
(17a)
is
internally
complex
and
must
have
been
built
indepenntly of (17b). So inSoorder
for the
to reach
the stage
withwith
the the two objects in (17), syntax must
in order
for derivation
the derivation
to reach
the stage
Soinin(17),
order
for
the
derivation
to
reach
the
stage
with
the
o(17b).
objects
syntax
must
have
used
two
parallel
workspaces:
one
to(17a), and another, independent one
have used two parallel workspaces: one to
construct
18
ts in (17),
syntax
have
used
two
parallel
workspaces:
one
to
nstruct
(17a),
and must
another,
independent
one
to
create
(17b).
18
to create (17b).
(17a),
another,
one to
create (17b).
Nunes and
(1995;
2001;independent
2004); Bobaljik
& Brown
(1997)18and Uriagereka
Nunes (1995; 2001; 2004); Bobaljik & Brown (1997) and Uriagereka (1998) suggest that
98)
suggest
that2004);
movement
can take
place between
workspa(1995;
2001;
Bobaljik
& Brown
(1997) two
and parallel
Uriagereka
movement can take place between two parallel workspaces. They call this type of move. Theythat
callmovement
this type ofcan
movement
sideward
movement,
interarboreal
ggest
take place
between
two parallel
workspa- moment
sideward
movement
ment
or paracyclic
movement,
andmovement,
suggest
thatinterarboreal
HM
also proceeds
in thisor paracyclic movement, and suggest
call this
type of movement
sideward
movement,
interarboreal
mothat
HM
also
proceeds
in
this
fashion.
hion.
paracyclic movement, and suggest that HM also proceeds in this
The holds
standard
holds
thattoa the
head
Y higcan move to the next higher head, X,
The standard approach
that approach
a head Y can
move
next
only
after
X
has
merged
with
its
phrasal
complement
head, X,
only after
X has
merged
with
its phrasal
complement
YP (see YP (see Section 2). The sideward
andard
approach
holds
that
a head
Y can
move to
the next hig14
Éva Dékány
movement
analysis
abandons
this
assumption
ction
2). The
movement
analysis
abandons
this
assumption
andsuggests that the order of operations
X, only
aftersideward
X has
merged
with
its phrasal
complement
YP (seeand
is exactlyanalysis
the other
way around.
Consider and
the case of v-to-T movement, for instance.
.Phillips
The sideward
movement
abandons
this(2018)
assumption
(1996; 2003);
Chesi (2004;
2015)
and
Den of
Dikken
forissome
exceptions
suggests
that
the
order
operations
exactly
theisother
wayfor
around.
Con- purposes).
(The internal
structure of v resulting from V-to-v
ignored
expository
advocate top-down structure
building.
the
case
v-to-T
forexceptions
instance. (The internal structure of
(1996; 2003); Chesi sider
(2004;
2015)
andisof
Den
Dikkenmovement,
(2018)the
for head
some
Once
the
vP
constructed,
placed
course, at the point when
(17a)
is merged
with
(17b) and vP
is created, T
theistwo
objectsinto a workspace separate from vP
te
top-down
structure
building.
v
resulting
from
V-to-v
is
ignored
for
expository
purposes.) Once the vP is
ome part of a single workspace.
(18).
t the point when (17a)
is merged with (17b) and vP is created, the two objects
constructed, the head T is placed into a workspace separate from vP (18).
t of a single workspace.
(18)
(18)
a.
a.
workspace11
workspace
vP
v
VP
b. workspace 2
b. workspace 2
T
T
In the sideward movement approach, the next step is that v moves out of
workspace
1 into workspace 2 and adjoins to T. This creates a complex head
17
See Phillips (1996; 2003); Chesi (2004; 2015) and Den Dikken (2018) for some exceptions that advocate
in top-down
workspace
2. Atbuilding.
this stage, the two instances of v are not in a c-command
structure
18
Of
course,
at
the
point
when (17a) is merged with (17b) and vP is created, the two objects become part of
relationship.
a single workspace.
(19)
a.
b.
workspace 1
vP
v
VP
workspace 2
v
VP
VP
vv VP
workspace 2
b.10 of workspace
workspace
2
2
Art. 65, pageb.
43
T
T
T
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
ward movement
the next
step is that
v moves
out
of step is that v moves out of
Inapproach,
the sideward
sideward
movement
approach,
the
next
In
the
movement
approach,
the
next
step is that v moves out of
1 into workspace
2
and
adjoins
to
T.
This
creates
a
complex
head
workspace
1 into
into
workspace
2 and
and adjoins
adjoins
to
T. This
This
creates
a complex
complex
head 1 into
In the sideward
movement
approach,
the nextto
step
is thatcreates
v moves
out of workspace
workspace
1
workspace
2
T.
a
head
ce 2. At this stage, the two instances of v are not in a c-command
in
workspace
2.
At
this
stage,
the
two
instances
of
v
are
not
in
a
c-command
workspace
2 and
adjoins
to T. This
creates
a complex
in workspace
2. At this stage,
in
workspace
2. At
this stage,
the two
instances
of vhead
are not
in a c-command
p.
relationship.
the
two
instances
of
v
are
not
in
a
c-command
relationship.
relationship.
workspace 1
(19)
a. workspace
workspace1 1
1
(19)
a.
(19)
a.
workspace
vP
v
VP
v
T
vP
vP
VP
vv VP
b. workspace
workspace2 2
2
b.
workspace
b.
T
T
workspace 2
T
T
vv T
ees in (19a) and (19b) are merged with each other. At this stage,
structure that contains
non-distinct
instances
of v,merged
and (on
Next, the
thetwo
trees
in (19a)
(19a) and
(19b) are
with
Next,
the
trees
in
(19a)
and
(19b)
are
merged
with each
eachother.
other.At
Atthis
thisstage,
stage,we have
Next,
trees
in
(19b)
are
merged
with
each
other.
At
this
stage,
finition of c-command)
these
instances
are
in
a
c-command
cona structure
that contains
non-distinct
instances of instances
v, and (onof
of
we
have a
a structure
structure
thattwo
contains
two non-distinct
non-distinct
instances
ofKayne’s
v, and
and definition
(on
we
have
that
contains
two
v,
(on
Consequently, they
are
interpreted
as
forming
a
chain
and
Chain
c-command)
these
instances
are
in
a
c-command
configuration.
Consequently,
they
are
Kayne’s
definition
of
c-command)
these
instances
are
in
a
c-command
conKayne’s definition of c-command) these instances are in a c-command consilences the lower
copy at PF.
interpreted
as forming a chain
Reduction
silences the
lowerand
copy
at PF.
figuration.
Consequently,
theyand
areChain
interpreted
as forming
forming
a chain
chain
and
Chain
figuration.
Consequently,
they
are
interpreted
as
a
Chain
Reduction silences
silences
the lower
lower copy
copy at
at PF.
PF.
Reduction
the
TP
(20)
(20)
(20)
T
v
vP
T v
VP
T
T
TP
TP
vP
vP
T asvvapproach
VP
The finalmovement
output of approach
the sideward
movement
is the same as the output of the
utput of the sideward
is the
same
theVP
vv T
he head-adjunction
analysis discussed
in discussed
Section 2.in Section 2.
head-adjunction
analysis
The final
final output
output of
of the
the sideward
sideward movement
movement approach
approach is
is the
the same
same as
as the
the
The
output
of
the
head-adjunction
analysis
discussed
in
Section
2.
3.1.2
The
pros
and
cons
of
this
approach
output of the head-adjunction analysis discussed in Section 2.
The sideward movement approach is compliant with the Extension Condition. In (19),
the movement of v to T extends the root in workspace 2, and the merger depicted in (20)
also extends the root of vP. In this analysis the HM operation is fully cyclic. No problem
arises with anti-locality either: the movement brings two heads into the same workspace,
allowing feature satisfaction between them that was not possible when they were in different workspaces.19
At the same time, the approach retains many of the problems of the head-adjunction
analysis. The sideward movement in (19) still violates the formulation of the A-over-A
Principle in (15).20 The structure still requires a complication in the definition of
­c-command (the v adjoined to T must be assumed to c-command out of T), the assumed
movement operation still needs a trigger that is different from phrasal movement, and
the problem with the Chain Uniformity Condition is not solved either. A new problem
that arises in this approach is how to keep the theory constrained enough to admit only
attested cases of movement.
3.2 Agree with a defective goal
In an analysis developed in Roberts (2010) and taken up in Livitz (2011); Aelbrecht &
Den Dikken (2013); Walkden (2014) and Iorio (2015), among others, head-adjunction is
replaced by Agree between a probing head and a head that serves as its defective goal.
The theory has to ensure that HM obeys the head movement constraint, however. Bobaljik & Brown (1997)
argue that while locality does not apply to the movement itself, the notions “shortest” or “closest” apply to
the links of the chain in (20).
20
If the A-over-A Principle is viewed as a kind of minimality condition, and holds because AP is always closer
to higher probes than A, then this approach has no problem with the A-over-A Principle, though: in (19) vP
is not closer to T than v.
19
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 11 of 43
3.2.1 The mechanics
a syntactic
16In this analysis HM happens when a probe and a goal enter intoÉva
Dékány Agree
r­ elationship, and the goal’s formal features are a proper subset of the probe’s. A goal in
such a relationship
is called a defective goal.21
(21)
Defective goal
(21)
A goal G goal
is defective iff G’s formal features are a proper subset of
Defective
those
G’s
Probe P.
62)are a proper subset of those of G’s
A
goal of
G is
defective
iff(Roberts
G’s formal2010:
features
Probe P. (Roberts 2010: 62)
After Agree, all of the features of the defective goal are also present on the
probe,
and the
incorporates
intodefective
the probe.
result
of thisonmechaAfter Agree,
all goal
of the
features of the
goalAs
area also
present
the probe, and
nism,
the
goal’s
features
are
pronounced
at
the
probe.
the goal incorporates into the probe. As a result of this mechanism, the goal’s features are
Let us consider
the case of v-to-T as a specific example.22 This movement
pronounced
at the probe.
happens
when T the
hascase
an interpretable
Tense-feature
and
anmovement
uninterpretable
Let us consider
of v-to-T as a specific
example.22
This
happens when T
V-feature
(as well asTense-feature
ϕ -features toand
be an
valued
by the subject),
while
hasasanφ-features
has an interpretable
uninterpretable
V-feature
(as vwell
uninterpretable
T-feature
and
an
interpretable
V-feature.
In
the
trees
below,
to be valued by the subject), while v has an uninterpretable T-feature and an
interpretable
V-feature.
In the
trees
the structure
φ-features of
and
the internal
of v (after
the
ϕ -features
and
thebelow,
internal
v (after
V-to-vstructure
movement)
are V-to-v
movement)
are ignoredof
forexposition.
simplicity of exposition.
ignored
for simplicity
(22)
(22)
Environment
Environmentfor
forAgree
Agree
Tmin
[iT, uV]
vmin
[iV, uT]
The
relationshipbeween
beween
T and
v exhausts
the goal’s
features:
afterthe label
The Agree
Agree relationship
T and
v exhausts
the goal’s
features:
after Agree
Agree
the labelvalued
of T contains
versionsCrucially,
of v’s features.
Crucially,
origiof T contains
versions valued
of v’s features.
originally
unvalued
features are
assumed
not to features
undergo deletion
at thenot
transfer
of the phase.
So at
as the
a result
of Agree, the
nally
unvalued
are assumed
to undergo
deletion
transfer
same
set
of
features
will
be
present
both
in
v’s
label
and
within
T’s
label
at
the
final stage of
of the phase. So as a result of Agree, the same set of features will be present
the derivation.
T c-commands
v, theattwo
of identical
V and
T featuresAs
will
both
in v’s labelAsand
within T’s label
thesets
final
stage of the
derivation.
T be interpreted
to
form
a
chain.
This
means
that
the
output
of
Agree
with
a
defective
goal
is
c-commands v, the two sets of identical V and T features will be interpreted formally
indistinguishable
from the
output
of the
Move.
The resulting
allowsgoal
v to adjoin to
to
form a chain. This
means
that
output
of Agreeconfiguration
with a defective
Approaches to head movement
17
min
0
T
in
an
incorporation
operation.
The
result
is
a
derived
minimal
head,
a
T
rather
is formally indistinguishable from the output of Move. The resulting confi-than a T .
guration
allows v to adjoin
to T in an incorporation operation. The result is
(23)
v-to-T:
(23)
v-to-T:valuation,
valuation,incorporation
incorporation
a derived minimal head, a Tmin rather than a T0 .
22
respect to one probemin
but non-defective with respect to another. For this reason, Aelbrecht
T use the term “subset
& Den Dikken (2013)
vmin goal” to refer to such goals.
It should be emphasized that in the end, Roberts adopts a partial reprojection analysis
[iV, uT]
min Celtic V-to-T,
for Romancevand
Tmin and a remnant movement approach for Norwegian verb
movement[iV,
(see uT]
Chapter[iT,
4 foruV]
details). The sample derivations here feature v-to-T for better
comparability with the other proposals.
At
at two
two places,
places,and
andthe
thehigher
higherinstances
Atthis
thispoint
pointthe
the iV
iVand
and uT
uT features
features are
are present
present at
min
min
instances
(in
T
)
c-command
the
lower
instances
(in
v).
They
are
therefore
(in T ) c-command the lower instances (in v). They are therefore subject to regular
subject
to regular
chain
when
the structure
is it
linearized.
chain reduction
when
thereduction
structure is
linearized.
As usual,
is the headAs
ofusual,
the chain that
itreceives
is the head
of the
chain
thattail
receives
thewe
tailhave
remains
phonetic
form
and the
remainsphonetic
silent. Inform
otherand
words,
“the PF effect
of movement”
2010:
61).“the PF effect of movement” (Roberts 2010:
silent.
In other(Roberts
words, we
have
61).
21
By (21), defectivity is a relative rather than an inherent notion. It does not mean that the goal is somehow
defective in its feature content; it simply means that the goal has no formal features that its probe does not
(24)
Chain
reduction
also have.
This also
means that a goal can be defective with respect to one probe but non-defective with
respect to another. For this reason, Aelbrecht & Den Dikken (2013) use the term “subset goal” to refer to
such goals.
22
It should be emphasized that in the end, Roberts adopts a partial reprojection analysis for Romance and
Celtic V-to-T, and a remnant movement approach for Norwegian verb movement (see Chapter 4 for details).
The sample derivations
here feature v-to-T for better comparability with the other proposals.
Tmin
v
[iV, uT]
⇓
min
T
[iT, uV]
min
vmin
[iV, uT]
⇓
silenced due to the LCA
instances (in Tmin ) c-command the lower instances (in v). They are therefore
subject to regular chain reduction when the structure is linearized. As usual,
Art.is65,the
pagehead
12 of 43
Dékány:
to head movement
it
of the chain that receives phonetic form and
the Approaches
tail remains
silent. In other words, we have “the PF effect of movement” (Roberts 2010:
61).
(24)
(24)
Chain
Chainreduction
reduction
Tmin
v
[iV, uT]
⇓
spelled out
min
T
[iT, uV]
min
vmin
[iV, uT]
⇓
silenced due to the LCA
3.2.2
The
pros
ofapproach
this approach
3.2.2 The
pros
andand
conscons
of this
This approach solves several problems raised by the head-adjunction analysis. There is
This approach solves several problems raised by the head-adjunction analyno need for a specific movement-triggering feature; the trigger is the unvalued features
sis.
There is no need for a specific movement-triggering feature; the trigger
that trigger any Agree relationship. The definition of c-command, Roberts argues, does
is the unvalued features that trigger any Agree relationship. The definition
notc-command,
need to be complicated,
because
goal
incorporates
into the probe,
and the probe
of
Roberts argues,
doesthe
not
need
to be complicated,
because
c-commands
the
base-position
of
the
goal.
the goal incorporates into the probe, and the probe c-commands the baseThis approach
involves incorporation, and incorporation is restricted to heads. This
position
of the goal.
means
that
the
phrase
projected
by the defective
goal is not aispossible
target
This approach involves
incorporation,
and incorporation
restricted
to for movement toThis
begin
with, that
and so
doesprojected
not violate
Principle.
heads.
means
the(23)
phrase
bythe
theA-over-A
defective
goal is not a
The
incorporation
of
the
probe
into
the
goal
violates
the
Chain
possible target for movement to begin with, and so (23) does not Uniformity
violate the Condition:
the lower Principle.
copy of the incorporee is a head but its higher copy is both a head and a phrase.
A-over-A
Roberts
suggests,
however,
that
this into
condition
mayviolates
have to the
be abandoned
independently
The incorporation
of the
probe
the goal
Chain Uniforof head
movement,
thatcopy
it is also
possible
that the
chain
is unnecessary in
mity
Condition:
theand
lower
of the
incorporee
is anotion
head of
but
its higher
general.
copy is both a head and a phrase. Roberts suggests, however, that this conIn this analysis the output of Agree is an Xmin rather than an X0; the lower head is not
added extraneously to the target, but becomes part of the higher head. As a result, Roberts
argues, the higher head is not extended, and so the Extension Condition is not violated.
We will see below, however, that in addition to Agree, this approach also involves ordinary movement of the goal to the probe, and this movement does not extend the root of
the tree, so the problem with the Extension Condition is not resolved. (To be fair, however, Roberts argues that the Extension Condition is not even relevant here: this condition
is only forced by edge features, which are not involved in Agree with a defective goal).
The Agree with a defective goal approach does not derive the HMC. Agree can take place
between structurally non-adjacent heads, and if the goal is defective, its features will end
up being pronounced on the goal. In other words, this approach predicts that cases of
long HM will occur. Roberts argues that this is desirable because such cases indeed exist,
e.g. in the case of English Quotative Inversion, Breton long verb movement or Mainland
Scandinavian V2 (see Chapter 5). In the latter case, for instance, V ends up in C apparently without stopping in T (in embedded clauses V stays in the vP and in main clauses we
do not have direct evidence for an intermediate position in T). That HM often has a local
character is derived from the Phase Impenetrability Condition and the locality conditions
on Agree rather than a condition specific to heads. The proposal even entertains the possibility that if the functional hierarchy is fine-grained enough, HM never targets the next
head up, and so it does not ever violate the anti-locality constraint on movement. At the
same time, in the purported cases of long HM it is difficult to construct empirical arguments regarding the presence or absence of an intermediate copy, and cases of long HM
can always be recast as cases of remnant vP/VP movement.
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 13 of 43
This approach does not derive the no excorporation condition either. Suppose that a
defective goal incorporates into its probe, and then that same goal is probed by a higher
head, such that the goal is defective with respect to that higher probe as well. In this case
the goal’s features will end up pronounced on the higher probe, which yields the effect of
successive cyclic movement. The system therefore predicts that excorporation is possible
and relevant cases should be attested. Roberts argues that excorporation of the incorporee (the “moved” head) indeed exists (e.g. in the case of clitic climbing).23 However, the
cases in which this is suggested to apply, namely cliticisation, are extremely contentious
cases for excorporation, as it is not clear that incorporation is involved in the first place.
Indisputable cases of incorporation (e.g. those discussed in Baker 1988) do not allow
excorporation, and so the fact that excorporation is allowed is not advantageous.
The analysis leaves doubt about whether it involves syntactic movement or not. On the
Approaches
movement
Approachestotohead
head
movement
19
one
hand, it is suggested that it does not. In the 19relevant
cases “Agree and Move/Internal
Approaches to head movement
19
Merge are formally indistinguishable” (Roberts 2010: 60) and “given that copying the
climbing).
the
ininwhich
suggested
totoapply,
climbing).2323However,
However,
thecases
cases
whichthis
thisisisgoal
suggested
apply,
namely
features
of
the
defective
exhausts
thenamely
feature
content of the goal, Agree/Match is
climbing).23
However,
thecontentious
cases in which
this
isexcorporation,
suggested to apply,
namely
cliticisation,
are
extremely
cases
for
asasititis
cliticisation,
are
extremely
contentious
cases
for
excorporation,
isnot
not
in extremely
effect
indistinguishable
from
movement.
For
this
cliticisation,
are
contentious
for
excorporation,
it is of
not
clear
that
isisinvolved
ininthe
first
Indisputable
cases
clear
thatincorporation
incorporation
involved
thecases
firstplace.
place.
Indisputableas
cases
of reason we see the PF effect of moveclear
that
incorporation
is
involved
in
the
first
place.
Indisputable
cases
of fact that Agree is followed by incorpoment”
(Roberts
2010:
160).
On
the
other
hand,
the
incorporation
incorporation(e.g.
(e.g.those
thosediscussed
discussedininBaker
Baker1988)
1988)do
donot
notallow
allowexcorporaexcorporaincorporation
(e.g.
those
discussed
in
Baker
1988)
do
not
allow
excorporation,
and
that
excorporation
is
allowed
is
not
advantageous.
tion,
andso
sothe
thefact
fact
that
excorporation
is
allowed
is
not
advantageous.
ration suggests that some form of movement is involved, after all (see also Matushansky
tion,
and
so the
fact doubt
that
excorporation
is it
allowed
is syntactic
not
advantageous.
The
leaves
about
whether
Theanalysis
analysis
leaves
doubt
aboutfor
whether
itinvolves
involves
syntactic
2011).
In (23),
instance,
we see
that movement
vmovement
has adjoined to T.24 Incorporation restricts the
The
analysis
leaves
doubt
whether
syntactic
or
On
the
hand,
ititisisabout
suggested
that
does
InInthe
relevant
ornot.
not.
On
theone
one
hand,
suggested
thatitititinvolves
doesnot.
not.
themovement
relevant
operation
involved
in the
analysis
to
heads.
principle, it should be possible for a phrase
or not.
On and
the
one
hand,
it is suggested
that
it does not.
In the In
relevant
cases
“Agree
Move
// Internal
Merge
are
formally
indistinguishable”
cases
“Agree
and
Move
Internal
Merge
are
formally
indistinguishable”
cases
“
Agree
and
Move
/
Internal
Merge
are
formally
indistinguishable”
to
be
a
featural
subset
of
a
higher
probe,
in
which
(Roberts
(Roberts2010:
2010: 60)
60)and
and“given
“giventhat
thatcopying
copyingthe
thefeatures
featuresofofthe
thedefective
defective case Agree with a defective goal fol(Roberts
2010:
60)
and
“
given
that
copying
the
features
of
the
defective
goal
exhausts
the
feature
content
of
the
goal,
Agree
/
Match
is
in
effect
goal
exhausts
the
feature
content
of
the
goal,
Agree
/
Match
is
in
effect
lowed by chain formation and chain reduction
(as detailed above) should yield the PF
goal exhausts the
feature
contentFor
of this
the
goal,
Agree
/ Match
iseffect
in effect
indistinguishable
from
movement.
reason
we
see
the
PF
ofof
indistinguishable
from
movement.
For
this
reason
we
see
the
PF
effect
effect
of
XP-movement.
But
if
Agree
with
a
defective
goal is obligatorily followed by
indistinguishable
movement.
this
reason
the
PFAgree
effectisisof
movement”
(Roberts
2010:
160).
the
hand,
the
fact
that
movement”
(Robertsfrom
2010:
160).On
OnFor
theother
other
hand,we
thesee
fact
that
Agree
incorporation,
then
this
would
involve
movement”
(Roberts
2010:
160).
Onsome
the
other
the factadjunction
that
Agree isof a phrase to a head; an illicit configufollowed
by
suggests
that
form
ofofmovement
is
followed
byincorporation
incorporation
suggests
that
some
formhand,
movement
isinvolved,
involved,
followed
by
incorporation
suggests
that
some
form
of
movement
is
involved,
ration.
The
movement
step
following
Agree
is
thus
after
vv needed, but this has to be stipulated
afterall
all(see
(seealso
alsoMatushansky
Matushansky2011).
2011).InIn(23),
(23),for
forinstance,
instance,we
wesee
seethat
that
after
all
(see
also
24
24Matushansky 2011). In (23), for instance, we see that v
has
Incorporation
restricts
the
operation
involved
hasadjoined
adjoinedtotoT.
T. 24
Incorporation
restricts
thefrom
operation
involvedininthe
the
because
it does not
follow
the mechanism
of Agree.
has adjoined
to In
T.
Incorporation
restricts
the operation
involved
in
analysis
totoheads.
ititshould
be
for
totobe
aa
analysis
heads.
Inprinciple,
principle,
should
bepossible
possible
foraaphrase
phrase
bethe
analysis to heads. In principle, it should be possible for a phrase to be a
2323
This
Thisapproach
approachdoes
doesnot
notallow
allowexcorporation
excorporationofofthe
theoriginal
originalincorporation
incorporationhost.
host.See
SeeRoberts
Roberts
23
23
This
approach
does not
allow
excorporation
theSee
original
This Chapter
approach
does
not
allow
excorporation
of the
original
incorporationof
host.
Robertsincorporation host. See Roberts (2010: Chapter
(2010:
for
aadetailed
explanation.
(2010:
Chapter5.2)
5.2)
for
detailed
explanation.
5.2)
aargue
detailed
explanation.
2424
(2010:
Chapter
5.2)
for
afor
detailed
explanation.
In
this
specific
case
one
might
argue
that
the
movement
is
motivated
by
the
unvalued
TT
In
this
specific
case
one
might
that
the
movement
is
motivated
by
the
unvalued
24
24
In this
case
one
might
that one
the movement
istomotivated
the
unvalued
T
In
this
specific
case
might
argue
that
theby
movement
is motivated
by the unvalued T feature on v, which
feature
on
v,v,which
must
end
up
c-commanding
TTininorder
The
analysis
feature
onspecific
which
must
end
upargue
c-commanding
order
toget
getvalued.
valued.
The
analysis
feature
on v,movement
whichmust
must
up
T inTalso
order
to gettowhen
valued.
The
analysis
up c-commanding
c-commanding
in happens
order
get the
valued.
The
ofofobject
totoend
vend
that
goal
has
objectclitic
clitic
movement
vshows
shows
thatincorporation
incorporation
also
happens
when
the
goal
has analysis of object clitic movement to v shows
ofuninterpretable
object clitic movement
vthis
shows
incorporation
also
happens
when
the
goal
has
that incorporation
also
happens
when
the
has
no
uninterpretable
features. In this case v has unvalued
no
features.
Into
case
unvalued
ϕϕ-features
and
the
clitic
only
has
nouninterpretable
features.
Inthis
casevthat
vhas
has
unvalued
-features
andgoal
the
clitic
only
has
no uninterpretable
features.
In this
case
has
ϕ -features
and
the
clitic
only
φ-features
and
thevclitic
only
(valued)
φ-features
(i). ishas
(The
other features of v and its internal structure
ϕϕ-features
(The
features
of
and
its
internal
structure
after
V-to-v
(valued)
-features(i).
(i).
(Theother
other
features
ofv vunvalued
and
itshas
internal
structure
after
V-to-v
is
(valued)
ϕ -features
(i). (The
other
features
v and its
structure
after V-to-v is
(valued)
again
ignored
for
purposes.)
again
ignored
forexpository
expository
purposes.)
after
V-to-v
are
again of
ignored
forinternal
expository
purposes).
again ignored for expository purposes.)
(i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
min
vvmin
vmin
iV,
iV,uuϕϕ(Pers:_,Num:_)
(Pers:_,Num:_)
…
(Pers:a,Num:b)
… iϕ
iϕ(Pers:a,Num:b)
iV, uϕ (Pers:_,Num:_) … iϕ (Pers:a,Num:b)
InInthe
not
get
but
the
theproposed
proposedanalysis
analysis
after
Agreewe
wedo
doanalysis
notsimply
simply
get(ii)
(ii)
but(iii),
(iii),
with
theinterpretable
interpretable
Inafter
theAgree
proposed
after
Agree
wewith
do not
simply
get (ii) but (iii), with the interpretable φ-features as
In the proposed analysis after Agree we do not simply get (ii) but (iii), with the interpretable
ϕϕ-features
adjunct
totoadjunct
v.v.
-featuresasasthe
thehighest
highest
adjunct
the
highest
to
v.
ϕ -features as the highest adjunct to v.
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(iii)
(iii)
(iii)
min
vvmin
vmin
iV,
iV,uuϕϕ(Pers:a,
(Pers:a,Num:b)
Num:b)…
… iϕ
iϕ(Pers:a,Num:b)
(Pers:a,Num:b)
iV, uϕ (Pers:a, Num:b)
… iϕ (Pers:a,Num:b)
(iii)
min
vvmin
vmin
…
(Pers:a,Num:b)
… iϕ
iϕ(Pers:a,Num:b)
… iϕ (Pers:a,Num:b)
min
iϕ
Num:b)
iϕ(Pers:a,
Num:b)
vvmin
i(Pers:a,
ϕ (Pers:a, Num:b)
vmin
iV,
u
ϕ
(Pers:a,
Num:b)
iV,
u
ϕ
(Pers:a,
Num:b)
iV, uϕ (Pers:a,
Num:b)
Here this extra step is required to get the word order: on the surface, the clitic object appears to the left
of the verb, and it would be difficult to achieve this if the clitic were the spellout of the uninterpretable
features inherent in the label of v.
Art. 65, page 14 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
It should also be mentioned that Agree with a defective goal is not a global alternative to
the head-adjunction analysis. It is suggested to co-exist with three other mechanisms that
deliver upward movement of heads: reprojective movement of a compound head formed
in the Numeration, A′-movement and wh-movement (see Chapter 5.3).25
3.3 Reprojective movement
In another recent analysis of data like (1b) through (4b), a head projects a phrase, moves
up and adjoins to that phrase, and then projects another phrase with a different label.
This approach is advocated, among others, in Koeneman (2000); Bury (2003); Fanselow
(2004); Surányi (2005; 2008) and partly also in Biberauer & Roberts (2010) and Roberts
(2010) for the verbal domain, in Donati (2006) for wh-movement in free relatives, and in
Georgi & Müller (2010) for the nominal domain.
3.3.1 The mechanics
In the head-adjunction analysis complex heads arise as a result of syntactic movements.
For instance, the verb in inserted in V, the past tense suffix is inserted in T, and they form
approach this is not the case:
o head movement a complex head only after movement. In the reprojection
21
complex heads are merged into the structure already in their complex form. For a verb
form
like kisses,
instance,
this means
on the root have
features
thatfor
must
be checked,
but that
this what
will merges in the V position is not the verstem kiss,
but the Therefore
whole inflected
verbal form
sible in a higherbal
structural
position.
the complex
headkisses.26 In the complex head, the affixes
oncontains
the rootithave
that the
must
be checked,
of the phrase that
and features
merges into
structure
againbut this will only be possible in a higher
position.
Therefore
thethe
complex
head
r of that phrase.structural
The moved
head then
projects
label of
the moves out of the phrase that contains
ed syntactic object
(hence
theinto
name
it and
merges
thereprojection).
structure again as the sister of that phrase. The moved head then
′
onsider a specific
example.
theof
hypothetical
language
Englishobject
projects
the In
label
the newly formed
syntactic
(hence the name reprojection).
T movement, the Let
complex
verb form
kissesexample.
that merges
in hypothetical
the
us consider
a specific
In the
language English′ with V-to-T
has three features:
V, v, and
(25). In
theform
VP, kisses
this complex
movement,
the T
complex
verb
that merges in the V position has three features:
es with the object.
V’sthe
requirement
for anhead
object
V, v,This
and satisfies
T (25). In
VP, this complex
merges with the object. This satisfies V’s
t, the V feature requirement
discharges itsfor
object
theta-role,
and thethe
complex
an object
complement,
V feature discharges its object theta-role, and
cts the label V the
(because
this
feature’s
requirements
have now
complex
head
projects
the label V (because
this feature’s requirements have now been
ed and it will besatisfied
inactiveand
in the
restbeofinactive
the derivation).
it will
in the rest of the derivation).
(25)
VP
V
kisses
[V, v, T]
Obj
features on kisses
remain
however,
as they
have
their own
The
v andactive,
T features
on kisses
remain
active,
however, as they have their own selectional
requirements (v requirements
wants a V complement,
a v complement)
(v wants a TVwants
complement,
T wants a v complement) that have not yet been
not yet been satisfied.
InInthe
thederivation
derivationkisses
kisses
satisfied.
thenext
next step
step of the
moves out of VP and is merged as a sister
of VP and is merged
as
a
sister
to
it,
as
in
(26).
After
the
movement
to it, as in (26). After the movement the selectional feature of v is satisfied, and so the
nal feature of v moved
is satisfied,
so the
moved
head projects this
head and
projects
this
label.27
Interestingly, the first of these is still argued to be a form of incorporation, but it is dubious that it could be
vP of Agree with a defective goal.
viewed as a form
26
Opinions differ as to how this morphological complex comes about. Koeneman (2000) and Fanselow (2004)
take the lexicalist position of Chomsky (1995) that this complex comes from the lexicon, Biberauer &
VP (2010) propose that complex heads are assembled in the Numeration, while
v (2010) and Roberts
Roberts
Surányi
(2005;
2008)
argue
that complex heads are put together in syntax. We will abstract away from
kisses
these differences here
and
represent
complex heads without any internal syntactic structure.
Obj
V
27 [V, v, T]
Fanselow (2004) and Surányi (2005; 2008) argue that the features that drive the movement are c-selectional
kisses
features (a position
also shared by Matushansky 2006), while Koeneman (2000) proposes that the trigger is
that ultimately[V,
all of
v, the
T] categorial features of the complex head need to project. The two approaches are
not incompatible with each other.
25
step of the derivation the complex head moves out of its phrase
merges with the root node, now projecting its T feature. With
together in syntax. We will abstract away from these differences here and
mplex heads without any internal syntactic structure.
04) and Surányi (2005; 2008) argue the features that drive the movement are
ctional requirements (v wants a V complement, T wants a v complement)
have not yet been satisfied. In the next step of the derivation kisses
ves out of VP and isDékány:
merged
as a sister
to it,
as in (26). After the movement
Approaches
to head
movement
selectional feature of v is satisfied, and so the moved head projects this
l.27
Art.65, page 15 of 43
vP
(26)
v
kisses
[V, v, T]
22
VP
Obj
V
kisses
[V, v, T]
Éva Dékány
he final step of theInderivation
the complex
head moves
of its head
phrasemoves out of its phrase again and
the final step
of the derivation
the out
complex
n this
andkisses
merges
the root
node,
now
projecting
its
T
feature.
With
haswith
nomerges
active
features
left,
and
the
derivation
continues
withWith
the this kisses has no active feawith the root node, now projecting its T feature.
28
28
external merge ofsyntax.
a new
head.
left,
derivation
continues
with thehere
external
s are put together intures
Weand
will the
abstract
away from
these differences
and merge of a new head.
esent complex heads without any internal syntactic structure.
(27)
TP
(27)
elow (2004) and Surányi (2005; 2008) argue the features that drive the movement are
ctional features (a position also shared by Matushansky 2006), while Koeneman (2000)
oses that the trigger is that ultimately all of the categorial features of the complex head
vP each other.
to project. The two approaches areTnot incompatible with
kisses
[V, v, T]
v
kisses
[V, v, T]
VP
V
kisses
[V, v, T]
Obj
Importantly, in Importantly,
the reprojection
analysis
the complex
does nothead
move
in the
reprojection
analysishead
the complex
does not move into an already
into an already pre-existing
pre-existinghead
headposition;
position;that
thathead
headposition
position
is
created
by
is created by the movement.
the movement.
3.3.2 The pros and cons of this approach
this
approach
problem with the Extension Condition arises (the movement extends
The prosIn
and
cons
of thisno
approach
the tree at the root), the Uniformity Condition on chains (the moved element is a head at
In this approachboth
no problem
with
Extension
Condition
(the mo-of c-command. Reprojective
the tail and
thethe
head
of the chain),
and arises
the definition
vement extendsmovement
the tree atdoes
the not
root),
the anti-locality
Uniformity Condition
on the
chains
violate
either. While
movement of the complex head
(the moved element
is
a
head
at
both
the
tail
and
the
head
of
the
chain),
is short, it leads to new feature satisfaction: after the movement a selectional feature (in
and the definition
c-command.
movement
does not can
violate
(26)ofthe
v feature’s Reprojective
requirement for
a V complement)
be satisfied.
anti-locality either.
While
the
movement
of
the
complex
head
is
short,
it violated by this movement.
It is also possible to argue that the A-over-A Principle is not
leads to new feature
satisfaction:
after
the
movement
a
selectional
feature
It is true that in (26) the node V is extracted from VP, which, in BPS, also has the V label.
(in (26) the v feature’s
requirement
V movement
complement)
canvbe
satisfied.
However,
the triggerfor
of athe
is the
and
T features of the complex head; V is
It is also possible
to
argue
that
the
A-over-A
Principle
is
not
only pied-piped along with these features. Therefore violated
technically, we are dealing with the
by this movement.
It
is
true
that
in
(26)
the
node
V
is
extracted
from
movemet of v and T over V, rather than the movement of VP,
V over V.
which, in BPS, also
has
the V constraint
label. However,
triggerfalls
of the
The
locality
on HMthe
naturally
outmovement
from the assumption that all features
is the v and T features
of the complex
head;beVdischarged
is only pied-piped
along with
of the complex
head must
before another
external merge can take place.
these features. Therefore
technically,
we are
of (cases that look like long
This analysis
thus predicts
thatdealing
genuinewith
longthe
HMmovemet
cannot occur
v and T over V, HM
rather
than
the
movement
of
V
over
V.
could be captured by remnant phrasal movement, though). Cases of excorporation
8
are
alsohere
excluded:
all the
active
of acan
complex
head must be discharged before a
A valid question that
arises
is how a Tense
suffix
and features
a lexical verb
form a complex
verb in languages without
V-to-T
movement,
for
instance
in
the
case
of
English
kisses.
At
new head is merged.
3.3.2
least two analyses are possible. One is that both English and English′ have a verb-moving
syntax, as in (26), but they differ in which copy of V is pronunced (the lowest one in English
28
′
A valid
question
that arises
hereanalysis
is how isa that
Tenseinsuffix
andtoa English
lexical ′ ,verb can form a complex verb in
). The other
possible
contrast
and the highest one in
English
l
­
anguages
without
V-to-T
movement,
for
instance
in
the
case
of
English
English has no verb movement. This is possible if -es is not a real tense suffix (if it were,
it kisses. At least two analyses are
­possible. One is that both English and English′ have a verb-moving syntax, as in (26), but they differ in
would trigger movement
of
the
complex
verb
to
T,
as
in
(26)).
In
this
approach
-es
can
be
which copy of V is pronounced (the lowest one in English and the highest one in English′). The other possible
viewed as e.g. agreement
with
a morphologically
free zero
tense
merged in
T is possible if -es is not a real tense
analysis
is that
in contrast to English′,
English
hasmorpheme
no verb movement.
This
(see Fanselow 2004 and
Biberauer
&
Roberts
2010).
suffix (if it were, it would trigger movement of the complex verb to T, as in (26)). In this approach -es can
be viewed as e.g. agreement with a morphologically free zero tense morpheme merged in T (see Fanselow
2004 and Biberauer & Roberts 2010).
Art. 65, page 16 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Reprojection potentially makes an interesting and correct prediction when applied to
the nominal domain. DP/NP-internal movements are subject to a well-known restriction:
only projections that contain N can be displaced. For instance, it is possible to move N(P),
or the constituent comprising N and Adj, but it is not possible to move Adj on its own
(see Cinque 2005 and Abels & Neeleman 2009 for an exhaustive list of the movements
that are allowed and disallowed by this restriction). Georgi & Müller (2010) show that if
DP/NP internal movements are modeled with reprojection, then this pattern is predicted.
The hedge “potentially” is used here because this prediction is made only if reprojection is
coupled with some non-standard assumptions about nominal structures (e.g. the maximal
extension of nominal phrases is NP, not DP, and AP, NumP, and DP are NP-specifiers).
While this approach offers a comprehensive solution to the problems raised by head-adjunction, it also raises some new problems. For instance, if the complex head kisses has V, v and T
features, then it is not entirely clear why v’s selectional requirement for V (and T’s selectional
requirement for v) cannot be checked already within the complex head, by the V (and v) feature. Incorporation might also pose problems for this approach. Surányi (2008: 313) argues
that “When a functional head F is morphologically free, it will not be generated as part of the
inflected head H, which will then never raise to F by HM”. If this is to be maintained, then in
incorporating languages nouns have to be listed both as free and as bound elements in order
to capture both non-incorporated and incorporated cases. One possible track to take here is
to assume that incorporation is always pseudo-incorporation (i.e. incorporation of phrases).
Éva will
Dékány
Whether this is a plausible approach or not
have to be settled on the basis of the data (but
Éva Dékány
noun incorporation in Mohawk and Mapudungun always leave behind NP-modifiers, which
Baker’s original
head
incorporation
cf. Baker 2009: 153).
; Rackowski & supports
Travis (2000);
Kayne &
Pollock
(2001); analysis,
Ma-
0); Rackowski
Travis(2004);
(2000); Pollock
Kayne &
Pollock
(2001);
MaNilsen
(2003); &
Müller
(2006)
and
Bentzen
3.4Müller
Phrasal(2004);
movement
Nilsen
(2003);
Pollock
(2006)
and
Bentzen
movement, and by Shlonsky (2004); Cinque (2005) and
rb
movement,
andfinal
by
(2004);
(2005) andis (complete or remnant) phrasal moveThe
syntactic alternative
to head-adjunction
or noun
movement,
to Shlonsky
mention
just
a few.Cinque
ment. This
is advocated
by Koopman & Szabolcsi (2000); Massam (2000); Rackowski
) for noun
movement,
to view
mention
just a few.
nents
of the
phrasal
movement
analysis
hold that syntax
&phrasal
Travis (2000);
Kayneanalysis
& Pollock
(2001);
Mahajan
ponents
of
the
movement
hold
that
syntax (2003); Nilsen (2003); Müller (2004);
eads at all; data like (1b) to (4b) always involve
phrasal
Pollock
(2006)
and (4b)
Bentzen (2007)
for verb
movement, and by Shlonsky (2004); Cinque
heads2003).
at all;Others
data
like
(1b)
involve
phrasal
hajan
allow
for to
syntacticalways
movement
of heads
(2005)
and
Cinque
(2010) formovement
noun movement,
to mention just a few.
Mahajan
2003).
Others
allow
for
syntactic
of
heads
d circumstances, while maintaining that the majority of the
Some
proponents
of thethat
phrasal
analysis
ed
circumstances,
while
maintaining
the movement
majority
of
the hold that syntax cannot move heads
e derived
by phrasal
movement
(e.g. Koopman
& Szabolcsi
at
all;
data
like
(1b)
to
(4b)
always
involve
phrasal
are derived by phrasal movement (e.g. Koopman & Szabolcsi movement (Mahajan 2003). Others
allow for syntactic movement of heads under restricted circumstances, while maintaining
).
that the majority of the relevant data are derived by phrasal movement (e.g. Koopman &
hanics
Szabolcsi 2000: 41–42).
echanics
h data like (1b)3.4.1
to (4b)
arise when a phrase whose last (and
The mechanics
ach
data
like
(1b)
to
(4b)
arise when
a phrase whose
last
(and
overt element is
head
moves
to the
of arise
the
next
In athis
approach
data
like specifier
(1b) to (4b)
when a phrase whose last (and possibly only)
) overt element is a head moves to the specifier of the next
9).
overt element is a head moves to the specifier of the next higher head (29).
29).
XP
(28)
XP
X YP
X YP
Y
Y
XP
XP
(29)
YPi
X′ ′
YPi
X
Y X ti
Y X ti
a free morpheme and X is a bound morpheme, then after
s a order
free morpheme
and X”,
X isand
a bound
eir
is “Y precedes
X canmorpheme,
simply leanthen
ontoafter
Y
their
order
is
“
Y
precedes
X”,
and
X
can
simply
lean
onto
l support in the linear string. (The fact that in the syntactic Y
cal
in the linear
string.Y(The
that
in affect
the syntactic
is asupport
phrase boundary
between
and fact
X does
not
this.)
re
is
a
phrase
boundary
between
Y
and
X
does
not
affect
this.)
orphological word is not reflected in the syntactic structure.
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 17 of 43
If in (29) Y is a free morpheme and X is a bound morpheme, then after linearization their
order is “Y precedes X”, and X can simply lean onto Y for phonological support in the
linear string. (The fact that in the syntactic hierarchy there is a phrase boundary between
Y and X does not affect this.) That Y-X is a morphological word is not reflected in the
syntactic structure.
In several cases the final output should be a Y-X morphological word (where X and Y
are exponents of syntactic heads), but the (originally lower) Y head already has a phrasal
complement. In this case suffixation is achieved by remnant movement. First the complement of Y must move out of the way, creating a phrase that contains the head Y as the last
overt element. The remnant YP then moves to the next higher specifier position. As the
es to head movement
25
output of this operation two heads become string-adjacent
and affixation can take place.
Depending on the final word-order, evacuating movements
oaches to head movement
25 may be required for the speciplace. Dependingfier
onand
the the
final
word-order,
movements
adjuncts
of YP,evacuating
too.29
required
forDepending
the specifier
adjuncts
of
too.29 example.
Let us
consider
V-to-T
as YP,
a specific
If we are dealing with an unaccusaake place.
onand
thethe
final
word-order,
evacuating
movements
s consider V-to-Ttive
as averb,
specific
example.
If we
are
dealing 29
with
an
and
all
phrases
are
generated
with
a
head-first order, then in order for V
be required for the specifier and the adjuncts of YP, too.
ative verb, and all
phrases
are
generated
with
a
head-first
order,
to pick
a tenseexample.
suffix, the
stepdealing
of the with
derivation
involves evacuation of the
et us consider V-to-T
as up
a specific
If first
we are
an
order for V to picksole
up argument
a tense suffix,
the
firstV-complement
step of the derivation
out
of
the
position
to
the
specifier
of a higher projeccusative verb, and all phrases are generated with a head-first order,
evacuation of thetion
sole(30).
argument
out
of
the
V-complement
position
VPfirst
can step
thenofmove
to Spec, TP, whereby V and T end up
in order for V to pick up a The
tenseremnant
suffix, the
the derivation
pecifier of a higheradjacent
projection
(30).
The remnant
VP
can
thenstep
move
on
the
surface
(31).
In
the
final
the deep structure object moves above
lves
evacuation
position
hes
to head
movement of the sole argument out of the V-complement
25
TP,
whereby
V and
T
end
up
adjacent
on
the
surface
(31).
In
the
the remnant VP, either to a second, outer specifier of TP or the specifier of a higher
e the
specifier
of a higher
projection
(30). The
remnant VP
can then move
p
deep
structure
object
moves
the remnant
VP, either to
projection
(32).30above
e
place.
Depending
on
the
final
word-order,
evacuating
movements
pec,
TP,specifier
wherebyofVTP
and
T end
up adjacent
on the
surface (32).
(31).30In the
29
d,
outer
or the
the
specifier
of atoo.
higher
projection
required
for the specifier
and
adjuncts
of YP,
step the deep structure object moves above the remnant VP, either to
(32).30
us consider V-to-T as a specific example. If we are dealing with an
XP
ond, verb,
outerand
specifier
the specifier
of a higher
projection
(30)of TP
sative
all phrases
are or
generated
with a head-first
order,
order for V to pick up a tense suffix, the first step of the derivation
NPout of the
XPV-complement position
s evacuation of the sole argument
X
VP
pecifier of a higher projection (30). The remnant VP can then move
, TP, whereby V and T end up adjacent
NP on the surface (31). In the
VX remnant
tN PVP VP, either to
ep the deep structure object moves above the
30
d, outer specifier of TP or the specifier
TP of a higher projection (32).
XP
(31) VP
NP
V
X
tN PVP
V
T
VP
TP
tN PNP
T
V
tN P
XP
X XP
tV P
TPV t
NP
qua adjunction can create complex words
withNP
both suffixation and prefixation,
X phrasal
tV P movement analyumption that movement
is
always
up
and
to
the
left,
VP
T is notXP
nly account for suffixation. This
to say that such analyses cannot capture
HM qua adjunction can
complex words with both suffixation and prefixation,
V them
tcreate
n: it is possible to view
N P as base-generated structures, with the higher head
e assumption that movement is always
up and to the left, phrasal movement analyNPsupport.
nto the lower head for phonological
X tV P(It is important that in these cases
n
only
account
for
suffixation.
This
is
not
toconstituent.)
say that such
analyses
cannot
capture
29
fier
position
must
beWhile
occupied
by
anadjunction
overtsuffixation
The
point iswords
that the
HM
qua
canand
create
complex
with both suffixation and prefixation, on the
Mation:
qua
adjunction
can not
create
complex
words
with
both
prefixation,
it
is
possible
to
view
them
as
base-generated
structures,
with
the
higher
head
assumption
that
movement
is always
upinternal
and to the
left, phrasal
movement analyses can only account for
words
of prefixing
andissuffixing
willphrasal
have
different
structures.
sumption
that movement
always uplanguages
and
to the
left,
movement
analyng
onto
the
lower
head
for
phonological
support.
(It
is
important
that
in
these
cases
is not
toanalyses
say that
such capture
analyses cannot capture prefixation: it is possible to view them as
nly account for suffixation. suffixation.
This is not toThis
say that
such
cannot
pecifier
position
must
not
occupiedstructures,
by
an overt
constituent.)
The point
is onto
that the lower head for phonological support.
base-generated
with
thehigher
higher
head
leaning
on: it is possible
to view
them
asbe
base-generated
structures,
with
the
head
XP
(It
is suffixing
important
that
in these
cases
specifier
positionstructures.
must not be occupied by an overt constituent.)
nto the
lowerofhead
for phonological
support.languages
(It
is important
in the
these
cases internal
lex
words
prefixing
and
willthat
have
different
fier position must not be occupied
by anis
overt
The point
is that
the
The point
theYP
complex
words
of prefixing
and suffixing languages will have different internal
Xthatconstituent.)
words of prefixing and suffixing
languages will have different
internal structures.
structures.
XP
prefixY
XP
(i)
X stem YP
X
YPprefixely, the NP could move to Spec,
not be required in the strucprefix-VP. Then XP would
Y
Y produce the surface word order “subject
movement to Spec, TP would directly
stem
stem violate anti-locality,
verb”. NP movement to Spec, VP would
however.
30
Alternatively,
the
NPThen
could
move
to Spec,
VP.
Then XP would
be required in the structure: VP ­movement
vely, the NPthe
could
to Spec,
VP.
XP
would
not beXP
required
innot
the strucnatively,
NPmove
could
move
toThen
Spec,
VP.
would
be required
in thenot
strucmovement
to Spec,toTPSpec,
would
directly
the
surface
wordthe
order
“surface
subjectword
to TP
Spec,
TPproduce
would
directly
produce
the
wordorder
order ““subject
VP
movement
would
directly
produce
surface
subject precedes verb”. NP movement to Spec,
verb”. NP movement to Spec,
wouldviolate
violate anti-locality,
however.
VPVP
would
anti-locality,
however.
des verb”. NP movement to Spec, VP would violate anti-locality, however.
Art. 65, page 18 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Éva Dékány
TP
(32)
NP
TP
VP
V tN P
T
XP
tN P
X
tV P
a transitive verb,
there
is also verb,
a vP in
theisstructure.
Inthe
thisstructure.
case theIn this case the remnant VP could
With
a transitive
there
also a vP in
nant VP could move
movetotoSpec,
Spec,TP
TPover
overvP
vPfollowed
followedby
bysubject
subject movement
movement to a higher position. This would
higher position.be
This
would
be
a
case
of
long
HM
(see
Mahajan
2003
a case of long HM (see Mahajan 2003 for such an
analysis). Alternatively, there could
uch an analysis).
therefrom
couldVPbeand
object-evacuation
from
beAlternatively,
object-evacuation
subject-evacuation
from vP, followed by remnant vP
nd subject-evacuation
from
vP,
followed
by
remnant
vP
movement
to
movement to Spec, TP.
, TP.
3.4.2 The pros and cons of this approach
straightforwardly solves the problem of the Extension Condition (the
The pros andThis
consapproach
of this approach
movement extends the root of the tree) as well as the problem with the Chain Uniformity
approach straightforwardly
solves
problem
offoot
the Extension
CondiCondition (both
thethe
head
and the
of the chain
are unambiguously phrasal) and the
(the movement extends
the
root
of
the
tree)
as
well
as
the
problem
with
c-command condition (the moved phrase c-commands
its trace). It also solves the problem
Chain Uniformitywith
Condition
(both
the
head
and
the
foot
of
the
chain
are
the A-over-A Principle: the head is not extracted from its maximal projection bearing
mbiguously phrasal)
and the
c-command
conditionInstead,
(the moved
phrase
the same
label
and same features.
the whole
phrase moves. The phrasal movemmands its trace).
It
also
solves
the
problem
with
the
A-over-A
Princiment analysis can also potentially avoid violation of anti-locality; whether this is the case
the head is not extracted
from
maximal
projection
bearing
the position.
same
depends on
howitsfar
the phrase
moves from
its base
Cases that involve movement
and same features.
Instead,
the
whole
phrase
moves.
The
phrasal
mofrom the complement to the specifier of the same head do violate anti-locality.
ent analysis can also potentially avoid vilation of anti-locality; whether
Remnant XP-movement, however, does not straightforwardly predict the constraints
s the case depends on how far the phrase moves from its base position.
that have been observed on the HM operation and that make it different from garden
s that involve movement from the complement to the specifier of the
variety XP-movement (Section 1.2). Firstly, HM is more local than phrasal movement: the
e head do violate anti-locality.
former cannot skip intervening heads, while the latter can move across phrasal positions
emnant XP-movement, however, does not straightforwardly predict the
on the way. The phrasal movement approach thus predicts massive anti-mirror effects for
traints that have been observed on the HM operation and that make
morphologically complex heads. While relevant cases have been argued to exist (see e.g.
fferent from garden variety XP-movement (Section 1.2). Firstly, HM
Muriungi 2008), they are not as frequent as one might expect in this analysis. One way
ore local than phrasal movement: the former cannot skip intervening
to tackle this issue is to assume that the relevant features are arranged in the tree such
s, while the latter can move across phrasal positions on the way. The
that their checking/valuation will always give rise to a short movement. Another possibilsal movement approach
thus predicts massive anti-mirror effects for
ity
is
to
assume
thatrelevant
the Headcases
Movement
Constraint
phologically complex heads. While
have been
arguedistowrong. Long head movement has
been
defended
in
Rivero
(1991;
1993);
Rivero
& Terzi
(2005); Roberts (2010); Harizanov
(see e.g. Muriungi 2008), they are not as frequent as one might
expect
Preminger
(2017),
among others.
is analysis. One(2016)
way toand
tackle
this issue
is to assume
that the relevant
As
discussed
in
Section
(1),
it
has long
been assumed
ures are arranged in the tree such that their checking
/ valuation
will that the HM operation must be
as this canAnother
capture the
observation
that there
is no excorporation from complex
ys give rise to aroll-up,
short movement.
possibility
is to assume
that
heads.
Phrasal
movement,
on
the
other
hand,
can
be
either
roll-up or successive cyclic.
Head Movement Constraint is wrong. Long head movement has been
One could assume that excorporation would leave a suffix dangling without the proper
host, and would violate a morphological constraint. This would not extend to all cases
of incorporation, however, as in some cases neither the incorporee (the noun or noun
phrase) nor the lexical item incorporated into (the verb) is a morphologically bound
element. Koopman & Szabolcsi (2000: 40) argue for another solution, namely that if YP
is the moving phrase that contains only an overt head, then “Either there is no higher
head that attracts YP, or if there is one, YP is already buried in specifiers by the time that
head is merged and thus cannot extract on its own anyway”. On this view, however, it
remains a coincidence that phrases that feature only an overt head are always involved
in feature checking/valuation relations that yield such a configuration. One way out of
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 19 of 43
this problem is to admit excorporation into the grammar. This view is held by Roberts
(1991; 2010) (but see Roberts 2010 for acknowledgement that the data in Roberts 1991
can be analyzed in other ways). This, however, remains controversial: Julien (2002)
argues extensively that excorporation does not exist. For a possible solution to these
problems, see Funakoshi (2014). Finally, there is some evidence from neurolinguistic
experiments that Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasics treat phrasal and head chains differently (Grodzinsky & Finkel 1998). This is again not predicted under the phrasal movement analysis.
This approach also raises new problems regarding the triggers and the landing
sites of the evacuating movements. In most cases, there are no plausible triggers;
the movement only takes place to create the right word order, and the phrase whose
specifier serves as the landing site cannot be motivated on independent grounds. An
important exception that explicitly addresses the issue of (object evacuating) triggers
and landing sites is Mahajan (2003). His proposal adopts Sportiche’s (1997) idea
that verbs combine with bare nouns only, and determiner heads occupy positions in
the clausal spine. In order for the noun to be associated with its determiner, it has
to move out of the VP to the DET head. Mahajan proposes that this is the trigger for
object evacuation.31 In many cases, however, constituents other than objects also
have to undergo evacuating movements, and these movements also require triggers
and landing sites. The evacuating movements also often do not show reconstruction
effects, which raises the question if the surface orders in question should really be
modeled via movements.
4 HM as a combination of a syntactic and a post-syntactic operation
In this section we turn to an analysis in which data like (1b) to (4b) arise via syntactic
movement of a head to a specifier position, followed by a rebracketing operation that creates the morphologically complex head. This approach is pursued in Matushansky (2006);
Vicente (2007) and Gallego (2010), among others.
4.1 The mechanics
In Section 2 we have seen that in BPS head-adjunction violates the Chain Uniformity Condition. Some researchers suggest that this condition is too strong (or wrong), however.
Matushansky (2006); Vicente (2007); Gallego (2010) and others propose that heads move
to phrasal (specifier) positions rather than adjoin to higher heads. v-to-T, for instance,
involves v moving to Spec, TP, as in (34) (the results of the earlier V-to-v step are not
shown here).32 This step is followed by a rebracketing operation called morphological
merger (m-merger). M-merger forms a complex head out of the moving head and the head
whose specifier serves as the landing site (35). The output of HM to specifier followed
by rebracketing is a head adjunction structure, just like in the case of the GB-style headadjunction approach.33
In Mahajan’s analysis object movement out of VP happens only in SVO languages; in SOV languages the
object moves only as far as Spec, VP and is carried along with VP-fronting to Spec, TP. He suggests that SOV
languages have no object evacuation because they have no DET heads. This proposal would be falsified by
SOV languages with a definite article.
32
See Preminger (2017) for an analysis in which this movement is allowed only if the moved head is in a nonbranching phrase, and Harizanov (2014) for a proposal in which this movement can also affect branching
maximal projections.
33
Toyoshima (2001) proposes a strong lexicalist analysis in which there is no m-merger: the complete inflected
word is inserted into the low head position and then moves to the specifier of an empty head.
31
Art. 65, page 20 of 43
s to head movement
hes to head movement
hes to head movement
TP
TP
TP vP
T
T
vP
Tsubject vP
v XP
subject v XP
TP subject
v XP
TP
(34)
TP
vi
vP
vi T
vP
vi T
T
vP
subject
t XP
subject i t XP
TPsubject i
ti XP
TP
TP vP
(35)
T
(33)
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
29
29
29
T
vP
vi TT subject vP
vi T subject ti XP
ti XP
vi T in
subject
r is subject to the constraints
(36). When
these conditions are
ti XP
er is subject
to the This
constraints
in (36).
When these
conditions
are
merger
is obligatory.
means that
movement
of a head
is always
ger
is
subject
to
the
constraints
in
(36).
When
these
conditions
are
merger
is obligatory.
Thisismeans
movement
of ainhead
always
by m-merger.
M-merger
subjectthat
to the
constraints
(36).isWhen
these conditions are met, m-merger
is obligatory. This means that movement of a head is always
d-merger
by m-merger.
is
obligatory.
This
means
that
movement
of
a
head
is
always followed by m-merger.
Morphological
merger (Vicente 2007: 49)
ed by m-merger.
Morphological
merger
2007:
49) (Vicente
Two
constituents(36)
y and Morphological
x(Vicente
may undergo
m-merger
if 2007: 49)
merger
Morphological
merger
(Vicente
2007:
49)
constituents
and
x may
undergo
ifundergo m-merger if
a.Two
y and
x form a ycomplex
word,
or a subpart
of one
Two
constituents
ym-merger
and x may
Two
constituents
y
and
x
may
undergo
m-merger
if
andx xare
form
a complex
word,
or aasubpart
one or a subpart of one
b.a. y yand
linearly
a.adjacent
y and
x form
complexofword,
a. y yand
yand
and
xare
form
word,
a subpart
of one
linearly
b. adjacent
y and
x areorlinearly
adjacent
c.b.
x xstand
inaacomplex
spec-head
configuration
andxxstand
are linearly
adjacent
y and x configuration
stand in a spec-head configuration
c.b. yyand
in ac.spec-head
ome
disagreement
as
to
which
grammatical
component m-merger
c. y and x stand in a spec-head
configuration
Thereas
is to
some
disagreement
as component
to place
whichpost-syntactically.
grammatical
sMatushansky
some disagreement
which
grammatical
m-merger component m-merger is part of.
(2006)
argues
that
m-merger
takes
sf. some
asargues
towith
which
component
m-merger
(2006)
argues that
m-merger
takes
place post-syntactically. She suggests
Matushansky
(2006)
that
m-merger
takes
place post-syntactically.
ests
thatdisagreement
syntax Matushansky
interfaces
thegrammatical
post-syntactic
component
after
of.
Matushansky
(2006)
argues
that
m-merger
takes
place
post-syntactically.
that
syntax that
interfaces
with
the post-syntactic
component
after every Merge operation.
gests
that syntax
interfaces
withwhile
the post-syntactic
component
after
rge operation.
This
means
movement
and
rebracketing
ggests
that syntax
interfaces
the
post-syntactic
component
after
This
means
while
movement
andand
rebracketing
take place in different components of
Merge
operation.
This
meansthat
that
while
movement
rebracketing
e in different
components
ofwith
the
grammar,
rebracketing
can still
Merge
operation.
This
means
that
movement
and rebracketing
the
grammar,
rebracketing
can
still
immediately
the movement. She argues that
ace
different
components
of
thewhile
grammar,
rebracketing
canfollow
still
tely in
follow
the movement.
She
argues
that
rebracketing
returns
a
ace infollow
different
components
of the
rebracketing
can
still
rebracketing
returns
agrammar,
feature
and it also
involves
partial spellout of the rebrackately
movement.
She
argues
that
rebracketing
returns
a
undle,
and
it the
also
involves partial
spellout
of bundle,
the
rebracketed
struciately
follow
the
movement.
She
argues
that
rebracketing
returns
a
eted
structure,
i.e. the
complex
head.
The rebracketed
bundle,
and head.
it also
involves
partial
spellout
of the
rebracketed
struc- and spelled out structure is then
he complex
The
rebracketed
and
spelled
out
structure
is then
bundle,
and ithead.
also
involves
partial
spellout
ofwhere
the
rebracketed
handed
back
to
narrow
syntax,
the derivation
can continue.
.ack
theto
complex
The
rebracketed
and
spelled
out
structure
is structhen
narrow
syntax,
where
the
derivation
can
continue.
e.tantly,
the
complex
head.
The
rebracketed
and
spelled
out
structure
is
then
Importantly,
this
approach
both
the
syntactic and the post-syntactic component are
back toinnarrow
syntax,
where
the
derivation
can
continue.
this approach
both in
the
syntactic
and
the
post-syntactic
dortantly,
to in
narrow
syntax,
where
derivation
can
continue.
in
every
ofthe
HM.
There
are other approaches, too, in which both
thisimplicated
approach
both
theindividual
syntactic
and
post-syntactic
ntback
are implicated
in every
individual
step ofstep
HM.
There
are other
portantly,
in
this
approach
both
the
syntactic
and
the
post-syntactic
syntax
post-syntax
have
to There
esp.
nent
are in
implicated
in and
every
individual
stepaofrole
HM.
are
otherHarizanov 2016; Gribanova 2017b
es, too,
which
both
syntax
and post-syntax
have
aplay
role(see
to play
nent are
in every
individual
stepaccepted
of HM.
other
and both
Harizanov
&and
Gribanova
and
theare
references
in fn. 58). However, in these
ches,
too,implicated
in which
syntax
post-syntax
haveThere
a role
to
play
ches, too, in which
both
syntax
and
post-syntax
have
a
role
to
play
models syntax and post-syntax do not work together in any individual step of head move-
ment: each HM step is either purely syntactic or purely post-syntactic. For instance, in
these models V-to-v could be syntactic and v-to-T could be post-syntactic, but the syntactic
and post-syntactic components are never both involved in V-to-v or v-to-T.
Vicente (2007) and Gallego (2010), on the other hand, argue that m-merger takes place
in narrow syntax; post-syntax is not involved in the HM operation at all. Their analysis thus forms a natural class with the approaches surveyed in Section 3 in a way that
Matushansky’s does not. Vicente argues that complex heads are not opaque to syntactic
operations in general. For instance, parts of complex heads are accessible for binding and
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 21 of 43
coreference relations (Section 2.2.2) and possibly also variable-binding (Vicente 2007: 17,
fn. 11). Therefore spellout cannot be involved in m-merger. It is only movement that complex heads are opaque to. For Vicente (2007: 48), m-merger has a ­morpho-phonological
trigger: word formation (“it happens so that two morphemes can be spelled out as a
word”); and the no excorporation condition is a phonological restriction.34
4.2 The pros and cons of this approach
The movement to specifier plus rebracketing analysis solves many problems raised by headadjunction. It eliminates the problem with the Extension Condition because it involves a
cyclic movement: it extends the root of the tree. This analysis does not require a cumbersome definition of c-command either, as the moved head straightforwardly c-commands
its lower copy from the specifier position. Matushansky further proposes that if m-merger
is taken to return a feature bundle, then we can derive the no excorporation condition, as
syntax can move whole feature bundles but it cannot subextract from them.35 She suggests
that the Head Movement Constraint can also be derived if we assume that the movement
takes place to check a c-selectional feature on the higher head by the lower head. Since
c-selection is a relation between a head and (the head of) its complement, the moving
head will always target the next higher, selecting head. Gallego (2010) proposes that the
anti-locality problem can also be solved if after head movement both the moved head and
the target head project, creating a hybrid label, e.g. after v-to-T movement, the label is
the composite v-T. As the creation of this new label becomes possible only as a result of
the movement, anti-locality is not violated. Movement to specifier plus rebracketing still
violates the A-over-A Principle, however.
There is also an important new problem that arises with this particular approach:
rebracketing does not look like a licit syntactic operation, and it also violates the Extension
Condition. One answer to this problem is to relegate it to the post-syntactic component, as
Matushansky does. This requires syntax to interface with the post-syntactic component at
every step. Richards (2011), however, shows that this is difficult to reconcile with phase
theory.36
5 HM as post-syntactic movement
Given the problems with the head-adjunction analysis, and the conviction that the
HM operation does not have semantic effects,37 a body of literature suggests that the
operation producing data like (1b) through (3) takes place post-syntactically. These
approaches are often referred to as “PF movement” analyses. Before we begin the discussion of these approaches, it will be useful to clarify what is exactly meant by “PF” in
“PF movement”. Once this has been done in Section 5.1, I will turn to the motivations
and arguments for placing the HM operation into the post-syntactic part of grammar
in Section 5.2. The possible mechanics and a sample derivation will be the topic of
­Section 5.3, with the pros and cons discussed in Section 5.4. In Section 5.5 I will briefly
discuss some analyses of (1b)–(3) that call themselves “phonological” but do not, in
fact, involve post-syntactic displacement, and so do not belong to the same group as the
analyses in Section 5.2.
The trigger of phrasal movement, on the other hand, is the valuation of formal features.
Matushansky also proposes that m-merger involves (partial) Spell Out. Therefore excorporation would be
excluded even if the output of m-merger had analyzable syntactic structure.
36
As pointed out by a reviewer, this approach also raises the problem of how to explain the fact that movement paths are punctuated rather than uniform (Abels 2012: Chapter 2; van Urk 2015).
37
But see Section 7.
34
35
Art. 65, page 22 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
5.1 Post-syntactic movement, PF movement
According to current Minimalist ideas, syntax manipulates abstract units without
­phonological content. When the syntactic derivation reaches the point of Spell Out, the
derivation splits into two branches. One branch ships the syntactic structure to the LF
interface (LF branch), while the other branch ships the syntactic information to the PF
interface (PF branch).38
An explicit theory of the mapping from Spell Out to the PF interface is provided by
Distributed Morphology (DM). According to DM, in the early phase of the PF branch
nodes are still in the hierarchical arrangement that syntax has created. This hierarchy can
be slightly modified by a few types of morphological processes (Fusion, Fission, Lowering,
etc.) that happen due to language-specific morphological or ­morpho-phonological
requirements. This is followed by Vocabulary Insertion (the pairing of abstract nodes with
Vocabulary Items) and Linearization. After Linearization, phonological information is present in the representations, but hierarchy is not; morphemes are related to each other by
precedence and subsequence rather than c-command or dominance. Linearization is followed by various phonological processes, e.g. the building of prosodic domains. The final
product of the mapping from Spell Out to PF is Phonological Form (see Embick & Noyer
2001: Fig. 1.).
To the best of my understanding, all analyses that claim that HM is PF movement mean
that HM takes place after Spell Out, in the PF branch of grammar, but before Vocabulary
Insertion/Linearization. What this means is that HM applies in a part of grammar that
follows narrow syntax, but which still retains the hierarchy produced by syntax. There
is no analysis, as far as I understand, that claims that HM takes place after Vocabulary
Insertion/Linearization, when only precedence/subsequence information is accessible to
the representations. In the rest of this paper, post-syntactic movement and PF movement
will be used as synonymous terms and will refer to movement that takes place after Spell
Out but before Linearization.
5.2 Arguments that HM takes place after syntax
Chomsky suggests that since HM has no semantic effect, it plausibly takes place at PF
and is “conditioned by the phonetically affixal character of the inflectional categories”
­(Chomsky 2001: 38). He observes that none of the movements that he assumes to take
place at PF can iterate, and raises the possibility that lack of iteration is a property that
characterizes PF operations in general.39
Beyond this, he says very little about the nature of PF movements. He suggests that one
of the PF movements, namely Thematization/Extraposition, adjoins the internal argument
to vP in the case of rightward movement, while it substitutes the internal argument in
Spec, vP in the case of leftward movement (Chomsky 2001: 23). From this, it is clear that
this type of PF movement takes place in the part of the PF branch where hierarchy is still
retained (i.e. before Linearization), but this is never made explicit. We can assume that
heads also move in this part of the PF branch (but this is again not claimed explicity).
This is consistent with his proposal that HM does not to create a chain (Chomsky 2001:
39): post-syntactic movements in DM (such as Lowering) are assumed not to leave a trace.
While the theoretical arguments for HM being a post-syntactic movement come from the
lack of semantic effects, the empirical arguments mainly involve data from ellipsis constructions. Boeckx & Stjepanović (2001) argue that pseudogapping constructions support
38
39
This is called the Y-model of grammar.
HM is not interable in the sense that once a head has moved to the next higher head, it cannot move further
on its own. In the case of v-to-C, for instance, v can move to T, but it cannot simply move on to C from this
position; after v-to-T, it is the complex T head that moves on to C rather than v on its own.
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 23 of 43
the idea that heads move at PF. Lasnik (1999) observes that in English ­non-elliptical
sentences the verb has to raise, but in pseudogapping constructions the verb may
­
either raise or stay put and be part of the elided constituent. In Boeckx & Stejepanović’
­interpretation, this means that ellipsis can apply before HM, and since ellipsis takes place
at PF, it follows that so must HM. They do not make any suggestions as to how PF movement works, however.40
Schoorlemmer & Temmerman (2012) study verb-stranding VP-ellipsis, i.e. ellipsis that
affects all arguments and adjuncts in the verb phrase but not the main verb itself. (This
is attested e.g. in Portuguese, Irish and Semitic.) The literature agrees that this kind of
ellipsis is regular VP-ellipsis except for the fact that the verb moved out of the ellipsis site.
This kind of ellipsis, however, presents an apparent paradox. It is well known that there is
a general identity requirement on elided elements: in order to be recoverable, the element
in the ellipsis site and the corresponding element in the antecedent have to be identical.
For verbs, for instance, this means that the antecedent and the ellipsis site must contain
the same verb(al root). The apparent paradox is that in verb-stranding VP-ellipsis the
verb is not elided, but (modulo inflectional affixes) it still has to be identical to the verb in
the antecedent. Goldberg (2005) proposes that this is because at LF, the verb is within the
ellipsis site, and this forces it to be interpreted identically to the verb in the antecedent.
Schoorlemmer & Temmerman (2012) pick up on this suggestion and argue that the verb
is in the ellipsis site at LF because it does not move out of the VP either in narrow syntax
or at LF; the movement takes place at PF only (see also McCloskey 2017). This movement
thus affects the linear order but not the interpretation (and so being in the ellipsis site at
LF, the verb is subject to the identity requirement on ellipsis).41
It is interesting to note that both Boeckx & Stjepanović (2001) and Schoorlemmer &
Temmerman (2012) use VP-ellipsis and verb movement to argue that (at least in certain
cases) heads move at PF, however, in order for the Boeckx & Stjepanović (2001) analysis
to work, ellipsis has to be able to precede HM at PF (or ellipsis and HM apply at the same
time, and one has to choose between them), while for the Schoorlemmer & Temmerman
(2012) analysis, HM must be able to precede ellipsis at PF.42
That data from ellipsis support placing the HM operation into the PF component has
been seriously challenged in the recent literature. In direct opposition to Schoorlemmer
& Temmerman (2012), Gribanova (2017a) argues that the identity condition in verbstranding ellipsis is actually an argument for HM being a narrow syntactic operation.
Stripped to its essentials, her argument proceeds like this: HM influences the way parallel
domains are calculated between the antecedent and the ellipsis site, therefore it feeds LF,
therefore it must be syntactic. (The paper offers detailed argumentation which I cannot
reproduce here for reasons of space.) Relatedly, Lipták (2017) shows that the identity
condition on verbs studied by Schoorlemmer & Temmerman cannot be due to the special
nature of HM. On the one hand, the same condition also holds in answers to questions
that involve no ellipsis, therefore it is not an effect of ellipsis or HM out of an ellipsis site.
Both Chomsky (2001) and Boeckx & Stjepanović (2001) cite Grodzinsky & Finkel’s (1998) neurolinguistic
study as support for the view that HM takes place at PF. This work shows that aphasic patients treat headchains differently from XP-chains. However, the finding that HM is processed differently from ­XP-movement
does not automatically mean that the two types of movements take place in different modules of the grammar. The approaches surveyed in Section 6 are also compatible with Grodzinsky & Finkel’s findings, but
unlike Chomsky (2001), these approaches do not assume displacement at PF. It is worth noting, however,
that the results of this neurolinguistic study are problematic for phrasal movement approaches.
41
Schoorlemmer & Temmerman (2012) do not suggest, however, that every instance of HM takes place at PF,
and like Boeckx & Stjepanović (2001), make no suggestions regarding the mechanics of HM at PF.
42
Note that the two orderings are not necessarily in contradiction: both analyses could be accommodated if
HM and VP-ellipsis are freely ordered.
40
Art. 65, page 24 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
On the other hand, an identity condition also holds of certain XPs moving out of ellipsis
sites (see also Gribanova 2017a). This means that the identity requirement is independent
of heads, and so it cannot be used as an argument for the special nature of the movement
of heads.
Gribanova (2017b) points out, however, that authors who study ellipsis and come to
contradictory conclusions about the place of the HM operation in grammar (syntax or
post-syntax) are looking at different languages. She suggests that it is possible that all of
them are right for the particular cases they are studying. Specifically, two different operations may have data like (1b) to (4b) as their output, and while one of these operations
takes place in syntax, the other happens in the PF branch.43 If this is so, then data from
different languages must be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and a compelling argument
from one case does not warrant definitive conclusions about the HM operation across the
board.
5.3 The mechanics
In general, proponents of the PF movement analysis do not address the question of
what the exact mechanism of post-syntactic HM is. As Boeckx & Stjepanović (2001:
353) acknowledge, “a full-fledged theory of PF operations remains to be worked out
before the view that head movement falls outside the core computational system
can be fully endorsed”. To my knowledge, the only work that addresses this issue is
­Harizanov & Gribanova (accepted).44 This paper suggests that data which GB analyzed
with head-adjunction can arise either as a result of a syntactic operation or as a result of
a ­post-syntactic operation, and it offers an explicit discussion of what the post-syntactic
operation c­ onsists of.
Harizanov & Gribanova suggest that heads that (for language-specific reasons) have
to form a morphological word with another head are endowed with the binary morphological selection feature M. The [M:–] specification triggers adjunction to the structurally
adjacent lower head. This is, in effect, a formalization of DM’s well-known Lowering operation. The [M:+] specification, on the other hand, triggers adjunction to the structurally
adjacent higher head. This operation, called Raising, is basically the upward counterpart
of Lowering, and its effect is that a head is spelled out higher than its syntactic merge-in
position.45
(37)
Post-syntactic head Raising (Harizanov & Gribanova accepted)
[XP … X … [YP … Y [ZP … ]]] → [XP … [X Y X] [YP … [ZP … ]]]
(where Y and X are heads, X c-commands Y, and there is no head Z that
­c-commands Y and is c-commanded by X)
In this analysis the case of post-syntactic v-to-T, for instance, is triggered by a [M:+]
feature on v (38). After Raising, v and T form a complex head as in (39). It is always the
head that is amalgamated into that projects the label of the complex head, so in this case
the label will be T.
Note that Chomsky also advocates two types of HM: he suggests that head incorporation is a narrow syntactic operation. Chomsky and Gribanova, however, cut the pie of syntactic vs. post-syntactic HM operations
differently.
44
See, however, Parrott (2001) for related ideas that remained in a manuscript form. The two papers share
the core idea that PF movement happens after Spell Out but before the hierarchy is converted into linear
order. The details of execution are significantly different in the two papers, however.
45
As Harizanov & Gribanova note, Lowering and Raising could be unified into a single operation, ­Amalgamate,
but they leave working out the details for further research.
43
Z that c-commands Y and is c-commanded by X)
In this analysis the case of post-syntactic v-to-T, for instance, is triggered by
In
this analysis
of post-syntactic
instance,
is triggered
aDékány:
[M:+]
featurethe
oncase
v (38).
After Raising, v-to-T,
v and Tfor
form
a complex
headArt.65,
as by
inpage 25 of 43
Approaches to head movement
a
[M:+]
feature
on
v
(38).
After
Raising,
v
and
T
form
a
complex
head
as
in
(39). It is always the head that is amalgamated into that projects the label
(39).
is always
the head
is amalgamated
into
of theItcomplex
head,
so in that
this case
the label will
be that
T. projects the label
of the complex head, so in this case the label will be T.
(38)
TP
(38)
(38)
TP
T
T
(39)
(39)
(39)
vP
vP
v[M:+]
v[M:+]
TP
TP
T
T
VP
VP
vP
vP
v
T
VP
v
T
VP
After Raising (or Lowering) has taken place, the [M] feature on the moved
After
(or
Lowering)
has
taken
the
feature
onmoved
the lack
moved
head
is
erased(or
orLowering)
becomeshas
inactive.
Inplace,
(39)
isfeature
reflected
by
the
ofis erased
After Raising
Raising
taken
place,
thethis
[M][M]
on the
head
head
is
erased
or
becomes
inactive.
In
(39)
this
is
reflected
by
the
lack
of
[M:+]
on v.inactive.
Note also
thatthis
in (39)
there is
oneofinstance
of v.v.Note
Thisalso
is that in
or becomes
In (39)
is reflected
byonly
the lack
[M:+] on
[M:+]
on
v.
alsoinstance
that does
in of
(39)
there
only one
instance
v.does
Thisnot
is leave a
because
Raising
/ Lowering
not
leave
abecause
trace,
and
so it doesof
not
involve
(39) there
is Note
only
one
v. This
is is
Raising/Lowering
because
Raising
/ Lowering
does
not leave
a trace, and so it does not involve
trace, formation.
and
so it does
not involve
chain
formation.
chain
chain
The
output
analysis in
Theformation.
outputofofRaising
Raisingisisvery
verysimilar
similartotothe
theoutput
outputofofthe
thehead-adjunction
head-adjunction
The
output
of
Raising
is
very
similar
to
the
output
of
the
head-adjunction
Section 2,
the operation
that operation
produces the
complex
headthe
resides
in the head
post-syntactic
analysis
inbut
Section
2, but the
that
produces
complex
analysis
in
Section
2,
but
the
operation
that
produces
the
complex
head
component
rather
than
in
narrow
syntax.
resides in the post-syntactic component rather than in narrow syntax.
resides in the post-syntactic component rather than in narrow syntax.
5.4 The pros and cons of this approach
5.4
The 2pros
andseen
cons
ofthe
this
approach
In Section
we have
that
GB-style
head-adjunction analysis violates several
5.4
The
pros
and
cons
of
this
approach
syntactic principles. If the HM operation does not take place in narrow syntax, then by
46
46
In Section 2 we have seen that the GB-style head-adjunction analysis viodefinition,
it
violate
any
syntactic
principles
and can pose noanalysis
problems
for syntax.
In
Section
2 cannot
we
have
seen
that
the
GB-style
head-adjunction
violates
several
syntactic
principles.
If
the
HM
operation
does
not
take
place
Thereseveral
is, therefore,
littleprinciples.
point in checking
post-syntactic
HM
our place
original list of
lates
syntactic
If the
HM
operation
doesagainst
not take
inproblems:
narrow syntax,
then
bybe
definition,
it46cannot
violate
any
syntactic
princiall
of
them
will
eliminated.
In
and
of
itself,
however,
this
does
not mean
in
narrow
syntax,
then
by definition,
it cannot
violate
any syntactic
principles
and
can
pose
no
problems
for
syntax.
There
is,
therefore,
little
point
in
that placing the HM operation into the post-syntactic component is superior. The posited
ples
and can pose no problems
for syntax.
Therelist
is, of
therefore,
little
in
checking
HM we
against
our original
problems:
all point
ofoperations,
them
operationpost-syntactic
must fit with what
independently
know about
post-syntactic
and
46
checking
post-syntactic
HM
against
our
originalthis
list of
problems:
allthat
of them
will
be
eliminated.
In
and
of
itself,
however,
does
not
mean
plathe theory working with it should be internally consistent and constrained, making the
will be eliminated.46 In and of itself, however, this does not mean that plaempirical
predictions.
Itright
may seem
that the
Extension Condition, the c-command condition, the Chain Uniformity
In DM,
all
post-syntactic
operations
arec-command
highly
local
in nature.
Raising
fits with this view
It may
seem
that
Extension
Condition,
the
Chain
Condition
and
thethe
A-over-A
Principle
are violated
in the
PFcondition,
branch.
Ifthe
these
are Uniformity
constraints
Condition
the A-over-A
are violated
in the heads.
PF branch.
these are
constraints
because and
it operates
onlyPrinciple
on structurally
adjacent
TheIfHead
Movement
Constraint
and the no excorporation condition are baked into the definition of Raising, so these constraints will always be obeyed. Raising also delivers the Mirror Generalization: Harizanov
& Gribanova suggest that like other post-syntactic operations, Raising also proceeds bottom up, which means that lower heads will be closer to the stem than higher heads.
There are, however, some general architectural issues with DM that naturally, hold of
this approach, too. The first issue is that post-syntactic operations that work on the hierarchical representation (i.e. all operations before Vocabulary Insertion) are triggered by
morpho-phonological properties of Vocabulary Items, but at the point that these operations are in effect, Vocabulary Items have not yet been paired with terminals. In other
words, these operations, including Raising, involve look-ahead. One might argue that
Raising (and Lowering) is exempt from this problem. Harizanov & Gribanova (accepted:
22) argue that the M feature triggering post-syntactic head-adjunction is “one of the features in the feature bundle that constitutes the lexical item and … the lexical item comes
46
It may seem that the Extension Condition, the c-command condition, the Chain Uniformity Condition and
the A-over-A Principle are violated in the PF branch. If these are constraints on hierarchical representations in general, then post-syntactic HM violates them. If, however, these constraints hold strictly of narrow
­syntax, then post-syntactic movements do not fall under their purview.
Art. 65, page 26 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
specified with a value for M from the lexicon”. Therefore the derivation can simply make
reference to a feature that is inherently part of the terminal; it does not have to know
about properties of actual Vocabulary Items, and so no look-adhead is involved.47 This
is problematic because M is not a syntactic feature in the sense that syntax does not
make reference to or manipulate it, and recent Minimalist work aims to eliminate all
non-syntactic features from narrow syntax.48 The second issue is whether post-syntactic
operations are indeed indispensable, or we could make do without them and so ­simplify
the model or grammar. Theories of syntax without post-syntactic operations are pursued
both within DM (Julien 2002) and outside of DM (e.g. in Nanosyntax, see Caha 2009
and Starke 2009; 2014). Whether post-syntactic operations are well motivated is, in the
end, an empirical question: they are if their properties can be shown to be systematically
­different from those in syntax.
5.5 Analyses that involve PF movement in name only
Some use the term “PF movement” or “phonological movement” to characterize their
alternative to head-adjunction, but the operation they posit does not, in fact, involve postsyntactic movement. Here I will briefly discuss two of them, because it is important to see
how they differ from the analyses surveyed earlier in this section.
Building on ideas in Hale & Keyser (2002), Harley (2004) proposes an analysis that she
considers to be “a natural candidate for a Minimalist, phonological head-movement mechanism” (Harley 2004: 240). In short, the analysis works as follows. Each head in syntax is
endowed with a position-of-exponence; a kind of place-holder for phonological features
that will be filled in during post-syntactic Vocabulary Insertion. In line with BPS, an XP is
assumed to have all the features that its head X does, including the position-of-exponence
of the head. When XP is merged with a head α whose position-of-exponence is defective, a
Conflation mechanism takes effect: XP’s position-of-exponence is merged into α’s positionof-exponence. As XP has the same position-of-exponence as its head, Conflation means
that α acquires the position-of-exponence of X, the next head down. After conflation X’s
position-of-exponence will be present in the tree both at X and at α, and as usual for elements with multiple copies, only the highest one is pronounced. This means that X will be
spelled out at the next higher head, α.
It is clear that Harley’s analysis does not involve movement in the PF branch: the operation that is responsible for a head being pronounced higher than its merge position takes
place during the narrow syntactic derivation. In fact, Harley claims that her analysis does
not involve any movement at all (Harley 2004: fn. 5 and Harley 2013: 73).49 Conflation
can be said to be a phonological operation in the sense that only the phonology-related
subpart of the head is affected by it.
Zwart (2001) argues that head movement has two subtypes: syntactic and phonological
head movement. The term “phonological head movement”, however, is potentially misleading, as this type of movement, too, takes place in syntax rather than in the PF branch
In order to eliminate the look-ahead problem, this approach could be extended to the features that trigger
Fusion and Fission as well.
48
It is subject to ongoing debate to what extent this is necessary or possible, however. Marantz (1995) and
Haugen & Siddiqi (2013) argue for the complete elimination of morpho-phonological features from all syntactic terminals, while Embick (2000) and Embick & Noyer (2007) suggest that this should hold for only a
subset of the terminals.
49
It is not clear that this is the case, however: Conflation, in Harley’s words, involves copying during the
derviaton plus pronunciation of the higher instance of an element – exactly the operations that are implicated in syntactic movement, too. It is true, however, that Conflation affects only part of a head (namely its
position-of-exponence) rather than the whole head.
47
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 27 of 43
after Spell Out. Zwart suggests that syntactic terminals may have two types of features:
all of them have F[ormal] features, and in addition, many of them also have LEX[ical]
features. Agree chains always involve movement of formal features. If this is all that happens, then the movement has no phonological reflex in the phonological component, thus
we get covert head movement. This is what he terms “syntactic movement”. If the highest
head in an Agree chain is defective in the sense that it has no LEX-features of its own, then
the LEX-features of the bottom of the chain also move along with the formal features. LEXfeature movement has a reflex in the phonological component, i.e. it yields overt head
movement. Zwart calls this type of movement “phonological movement”.
It is phonological, however, only to the extent that it is “triggered by requirements of
the spell-out procedure only” (Zwart 2001: 38). The movement’s target is set by syntactic mechanisms (feature-valuation), and the movement takes place in narrow syntax.
LEX-movement always accompanies movement of formal features, and in this sense,
““phonological verb movements” are a subset of “syntactic verb movements”” (Zwart
2001: 60).
Harley’s and Zwart’s analyses differ in significant details. The following points, however,
are shared by their proposals: 1) syntactic terminals are endowed with phonology-related
features (Harley’s position-of-exponence, Zwart’s LEX-features), 2) if a higher head’s phonology-related features are defective, a lower head’s phonology-related features move up
to the higher head, 3) the movement takes place in syntax, and 4) morphemes and linear
order are not manipulated in the PF branch itself.
Another potentially misleading use of the term “PF” appears in Platzack (2013). The
title of this paper is “Head movement as a phonological operation”, but his analysis does
not involve any movement either during or after syntax. Instead, it belongs to the group
of analyses discussed in Section 6.
6 Post-syntax, no movement: Direct Linearization Theories
In this section we turn to Direct Linearization Theories. These theories posit that no actual
movement is involved when a head is pronounced higher than its merge-position; the
illusion of movement arises as a result of the way syntactic structures are linearized. This
approach is pursued in Brody (2000a); Adger (2013); Ramchand (2014) and Hall (2015),
among others.
It has been an accepted thesis for a long time that syntactic representations contain only
hierarchical information, and the way the hierarchy maps onto a linear order must be
stated separately from syntactic rules. The most influential mapping rule in Minimalism
is Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), which translates asymmetric
­c-command relations into linear precedence relations.
A well-known feature of Kayne’s system is that it requires many semantically empty
movements in order to create the structures that will translate into the correct word order.
These movements have no plausible syntactic trigger and do not show reconstruction
effects (see Section 3.4 on phrasal movement). So-called Direct Linearization Theories
(DLTs, a term coined by Ramchand 2014) address this problem by i) using syntactic representations different from the familiar GB or BPS trees (so-called Telescopic representations), ii) using mapping rules different from the LCA, and iii) base-generating Kayne’s
roll-up structures (thus eliminating the need for a movement trigger and predicting the
lack of reconstruction effects). These theories are of interest to us here because they
model the upward displacement of a head’s exponent by a specific mapping rule (or in
Ramchand’s terms, Direct Linearization Statement) from syntax to linear order without
involving any movement (syntactic or post-syntactic) in the process.
Art. 65, page 28 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
6.1 The mechanics
In this section we first look at syntactic representations in DLTs, then discuss how these
structures are mapped onto linear order. This discussion will lead to the analysis of data
like (1b) to (4b) in DLTs.
In both GB-style and BPS representations, if a head has both a complement and a
Approaches to head movement
41
­specifier, then the head, the intermediate projection, and the phrase are represented by
Approaches to head movement
41
Approaches
to head
movement in the structure.
41
separate levels
of projection
(40)
(40)
(40)
Government and Binding
Government
andBinding
Binding
Government
and
AP
Government and Binding
AP
XP AP A′
XP
XP
(41)
(41)
(41)
(41)
A′′
A A BP
A
BP
A YP BP B′
YP
B′
YP B B′CP
B CP
Bare Phrase Structure
B CP
Bare Phrase Structure
A
BareAPhrase
PhraseStructure
Structure
Bare
A
X
X
AA
X A A B
A
B
A Y B B
Y
B
Y BB C
B C
B Cgiven
The
principle,
giveninin(42),
(42),states
states
that
this
is not
necessary:
The Telescope
Telescope principle,
that
this
is not
necessary:
oneone
node
represent
both
the
head
and
the
maximal
projection
even
if
the
node
can
represent
both
the
head
and
the
maximal
projection
even
ifone
the
The
principle,given
giveninin(42),
(42),
states
that
is not
necessary:
The Telescope
Telescope principle,
states
that
thisthis
is not
necessary:
one node
can rephead has
aa complement
head
both
complement
anda aspecifier.
specifier.
node
can both
represent
both the and
head
and
the maximal projection even if the
resent both the head and the maximal projection even if the head has both a complement
head
both a complement and a specifier.
and ahas
specifier.
(42)
Telescope
(42)
Telescope
A
both
as as
a head
andand
as aas a
A single
single copy
copyofofaalexical
lexicalitem
itemcan
canserve
serve
both
a head
(42)
Telescope
(42)
Telescope
phrase.
(Brody
2000a:
41)
phrase.
(Brody
2000a:
41)item
singlecopy
copyofof
a lexical
as a and
head
as a (Brody
AA single
a lexical
item
can can
serveserve
both both
as a head
as and
a phrase.
phrase.
(Brody
2000a: 41) (40) and (41) to be replaced by (43).
Telescope
allows
representations
2000a:
41)
Telescope
allows
representationslike
like (40) and (41) to be replaced by (43).
By
convention,
in
DLT
trees
specifiers
are
represented
with
leftward
sloping
By
convention,
inrepresentations
DLT trees specifiers
are
represented
with
leftward
sloping
Telescope
allows
like
(40)
and
(41)(41)
to betoreplaced
by (43).
By
convention,
Telescope
allows
representations
like
(40)
and
be
replaced
by
(43).
lines, while complements are represented with rightward sloping lines.
In
lines,
while
complements
are
represented
with
rightward
sloping
lines.
In
in DLT
trees
specifiers
are
represented
with
sloping
lines,
while
complements
are
By
convention,
inin
DLT
trees
specifiers
are leftward
represented
with
leftward
sloping
(43)
the
node
A
and
of
itself
represents
a head,
while
taken
together
(43)
the
node
A
in
and
of
itself
represents
a
head,
while
taken
together
represented
with
rightward
sloping
lines.
In
(43)
the
node
A
in
and
of
itself
represents
a
lines,
while
complements
are represented
with rightward
lines.
with its
dependents,
the specifier
X and the complement
B, it sloping
represents
the In
with
its
dependents,
the specifier
and the complement
B,
represents
the
head,the
while
taken
together
its X
dependents,
specifier
X it
and
thetogether
complement
B, it
(43)
node
A in
and
ofwith
itself
represents
athe
head,
while
taken
phrasal
level.
phrasal
level.
represents
the
phrasal
level.
with its dependents, the specifier X and the complement B, it represents the
(43)
Telescopic representation
phrasal
level.
(43)
Telescopic
representation
(43)
Telescopic
representation
A
A
(43)
Telescopic
representation
X A B
X
B
Y
X
BC
Y C
C the structural relationship between a selecting head and a selected head
As shown byY(43),
is that of immediate domination rather than c-command. The heads in a structure form
one uninterrupted line; specifiers dangle from this line to the left rather than ­intervene
between heads, as in traditional representations.
own by (43), the structural relationship between a selecting head and a
by (43), the structural relationship between a selecting head and a
ed head is that ofDékány:
immediate
domination
rather than c-command. The
Approaches
to headrather
movement
Art.65, page 29 of 43
ead is that of immediate
domination
than c-command. The
s in a structure form one uninterrupted line; specifiers dangle from
a structure form one uninterrupted line; specifiers dangle from
ine to the left rather than intervene between heads, as in traditional
o the left rather than intervene between heads, as in traditional
sentations.
ations.
to athe
specific
example,
the standardof
representation
pplied to a specificApplied
example,
standard
representation
(44), fea- of (44), featuring an ­unergative
d
to
a
specific
example,
the
standard
representation
of
(44),
feaverb,isisreplaced
replaced in
in DLTs
DLTs by
g an unergative verb,
by (45).
(45).
unergative verb, is replaced in DLTs by (45).
TP
(44)
TP
subj
subj
T′
T
T′
vP
vP
subj
v′
′
subj
v
v VP
v VP
V′
′
V
V
V
T
T
(45)
subj
v
subj
v
subj V
subj V
th cases, the subject moves from the specifier of vP to the specifier of
hichthe
gives
rise tomoves
phrasal
chain.
ses,
subject
from
the
of vPfrom
to the
Ina both
cases,
thespecifier
subject moves
thespecifier
specifierof
of vP to the specifier of TP, which gives
etgives
us now
torise
thetomapping
rise turn
to a phrasal
achain.
phrasal rules
chain.from hierarchy to linear order.
first
Direct
says
when rules
mapped
toorder.
a linear to linear order. The first Direct
now
turn Linearization
to the mapping
rules
hierarchy
to
linear
Let usStatement
now
turnfrom
to
thethat
mapping
from
hierarchy
, a specifier
precedes
its head.Statement
Direct
Linearization
Statement
says that says
when
mapped
to a linear
Linearization
that
when mapped
to a linear order, a specifier precedes its
pecifier precedes head.
its head.
Direct Linearization Statement for specifiers
The
specifier and
its constituents
precedeStatement
the head.for
(Brody
2000a:
irect
Linearization
Statement
specifiers
(46)
Directfor
Linearization
specifiers
40)
he specifier and its constituents
precede
theconstituents
head. (Brody
2000a:
The specifier
and its
precede
the head. (Brody 2000a: 40)
0)
econd Direct Linearization
regulates the
linearization
of the
The secondStatement
Direct Linearization
Statement
regulates
the linearization of the head and its
and
its
complement.
complement.
d Direct Linearization Statement regulates the linearization of the
its complement.
Direct Linearization Statement for complements
T
(47)
Direct Linearization Statement for complements
The
complements
and
itscomplements
constituents
follow
[the head].follow
(Brody
The
and
its constituents
[the head]. (Brody 2000a: 40)
irect
Linearization
Statement
for complements
2000a:
40)
he complements and its constituents follow [the head]. (Brody
The two Direct Linearization Statements in (46) and (47) yield a ­specifier-head-complement
000a: 40)
order, like the LCA, but the hierarchical relation that they take to be the basis for
­linearization is immediate dominance rather than c-command.50
The third Linearization Statement regulates morpheme order within morphologically
complex words.
(48)
Mirror Axiom
The syntactic relation “X complement of Y” is identical to an inverse-order
­morphological relation “X specifier of Y.” (Brody 2000a: 42)
A morpheme is the morphological specifier of the morpheme that it immediately ­precedes
within a morphologically complex word. Thus in a morphological word of the form V+v+T,
V is the morphological specifier of v, and v, in turn, is the morphological specifier of T.
It follows from Mirror that if the exponents of a series of heads form a ­morphologically
50
See Bury (2003) for an exception: he allows the complement-head-specifier linearization as well.
Art. 65, page 30 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
complex word (i.e. are involved in an affixation or incorporation relationship), then the
order of the morphemes within the morphological word will be the inverse of the syntactic hierarchy. In other words, (48) ensures that the relationship between morphology
and syntax obeys Baker’s Mirror Principle. As Brody points out, Mirror in Baker’s work is
a generalization over the observed data. In DLTs, on the other hand, Mirror is a genuine
principle; morphological structures that do not conform to it cannot be generated.51
A sample representation of V-to-T is given in (49). Here the subject John has moved
from Spec, vP to Spec, TP. In order to make the exposition more transparent, I follow
Bowers (1993); Hale & Keyser (1993); Arad (1996) and Den Dikken (2015), among others, and represent the object Mary as a specifier of V (hence the left-sloping line), but
nothing crucial hinges on this.52 The heads V, v, and T have separate exponents; those of
44
Éva Dékány
T and v have an affixal requirement.
(49)
(49)
T-s
John
John
v-
Vlove
Mary
Due
morphologicalrules
rules
English,
when
mapped
Due to
to the
the language-specific
language-specific morphological
ofof
English,
when
mapped
to a linear
to
a
linear
order,
the
exponents
of
T,
v
and
V
will
have
to
form
a
morphoorder, the exponents of T, v and V will have to form a morphological word. By (48), the
logical
By (48), the
order
the morphemes
order ofword.
the morphemes
within
theof
morphological
wordwithin
will be the
the morphologiinverse of the syntaccal
word will that
be the
thelove
syntactic
hierarchy,
that is, V+v+T
tic hierarchy,
is, Vinverse
+ v + of
T=
+ ∅ + s.
So in the sentence
John loves=
Mary, the
love+
+s. So incomplex
the sentence
morphologically
complex
morphologically
word John
loves loves
spellsMary,
out allthe
of T,
v, and V.
word
spells
out
all of
T, isv,inand
V. of the three positions loves will be pronounced.
Theloves
question
that
arises
now
which
In DLT
head that
complex
a potential
spell-outloves
position
The any
question
that aarises
nowword
is inspells
whichout
of isthe
three positions
will for that
word:
in (49) allInofDLT
T, v,any
andhead
V arethat
possible
in principle
as a spell-out
position for loves.
be
pronounced.
a complex
word spells
out is a potential
What
the
actual
spell-out
position
will
be
is
regulated
by
the
Positioning
algorithm.
spell-out position for that word: in (49) all of T, v, and V are possible
in
principle as a spell-out position for loves. What the actual spell-out position
(50)be isPositioning
will
regulatedAlgorithm
by the Positioning algorithm.
(50)
Pronounce an element E (a word or a chain) in the lowest position P such that
all
higher positions
P’ of E are weak. (Abels 2003: 270)
Positioning
Algorithm
Pronounce an element E (a word or a chain) in the lowest position
Positioning says that the actual spell-out position depends on whether there is a strong
P such that all higher positions P’ of E are weak. (Abels 2003: 270)
head in the complement line. If so, then the spell-out position will be at the highest strong
head. For graphic
convenience,
headsposition
are marked
with aon
diacritic
in syntactic
Positioning
says that
the actualstrong
spell-out
depends
whether
there trees
(@,
→,
or
*,
varying
across
works
in
the
DLT
family).
If
there
is
no
strong
head in the
is a strong head in the complement line. If so, then the spell-out position
complement
then the
morphological
in question
spells out
in the
lowest head.
will
be at theline,
highest
strong
head. For word
graphic
convenience,
strong
heads
That is, in absence of a strong head, or if the highest strong head is V, then loves spells
are marked with a diacritic in syntactic trees (@, →, or *, varying across
out down in V, and (if the object stays low and the subject moves to Spec, TP, as in
works in the DLT family). If there is no strong head in the complement line,
English), SOV order arises (51). If the highest strong head is v, then loves spells out in v,
then the morphological word in question spells out in the lowest head.
yielding the SVO word order of English (52). (By (46) the object still precedes V, but now
That is, in absence of a strong head, or if the highest strong head is V,
loves spells out in a higher head, and so it precedes V and everything that V dominates).
then loves spells out down in V, and (if the object stays low and the subject
Finally, if the highest strong head is T, then loves spells out at T, delivering the SVO word
moves to Spec, TP, as in English), SOV order arises (51). If the highest strong
order of French (53).
head is v, then loves spells out in v, yielding the SVO word order of English
(52).
(By (46) the object still precedes V, but now loves spells out in a higher
51
Exceptional cases in which the morpheme order does not plausibly correspond to the mirror order of the
head,
andprojections
so it precedes
V and
everything
V dominates.)
Finally,
syntactic
must involve
phrasal
movement,that
as discussed
in Brody (2000a:
34). if the
52
See alsostrong
Brody (2000a).
highest
head is T, then loves spells out at T, delivering the SVO word
order of French (53).
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Approaches to head movement
Approaches
to head
movement
Approaches
to head
movement
(51)
(51)
(51)
(51)
subj
subj
subj
T
T T
subj
subj
subj
(52)
(52)
(52)
(52)
Art.65, page 31 of 43
45
45 45
v
v v
V(@)loves
V(@)loves
V(@)loves
obj
objobj
T
T T
subj
v(@)loves
subj
v(@)loves
subj
v(@)loves
subj
V
subj
subj V V
obj
objobj
(53)
(53)
(53)
(53)
T(@)loves
T(@)loves
T(@)loves
subj
v
subj
subj v v
subj
V
subj
V
subj
V
obj
objobj
As shown by the examples above, when the complement line contains a
As As
shown
byby
the
examples
above,
when
the
complement
line
contains
a ahead that
by
the
above,
when
the
complement
line
contains
strong
head
that
isexamples
not theabove,
lowest
head,
ascomplement
in
(52)
andline
(53),
then
expoAs shown
shown
the
examples
when
the
contains
athe
strong
strong
head
that
is
not
the
lowest
head,
as
in
(52)
andand
(53),
then
expostrong
head
that
is
not
the
head,
as then
in
(53),
then
the
expo-below @
nents
ofthe
heads
below
@as
appear
higher
than
the(52)
heads
themselves.
However,
is not
lowest
head,
inlowest
(52)
and
(53),
the
exponents
ofthe
the
heads
nents
of heads
below
@
appear
higher
than
the
heads
themselves.
However,
nents
ofmovement
heads
below
@heads
appear
higher
than
the
heads
themselves.
However,
no
real
takes
place;
no
chain
formation
isno
involved.
The
syntax
appear
higher
than
the
themselves.
However,
real movement
takesofplace; no
no no
real
movement
takes
place;
no
chain
formation
is
involved.
The
syntax
ofwith
realformation
movement
takes
place;
chain
is involved.
The
syntax
of “V-to-v
chain
The no
syntax
of“formation
languages
with
“no Vand
movement”,
languages
with “isnoinvolved.
V movement”,
with
V-to-v movement”
with
“V-to-T
languages
with
“no
V movement”,
with
“V-to-v
movement”
andand
with
“V-to-T
languages
with
“with
no
V“V-to-T
movement”,
with
“isV-to-v
movement”
with
“V-to-T
movement”
and
movement”
exactly
the same.
movement”
is
exactly
the same.
movement”
is exactly
the
same.
ItItisisimportant
thatthat
(52)
and
(53) (53)
do not
PF movement
either. The
morphemes
movement”
is exactly
the
same.
important
(52)
and
doinvolve
not involve
PF movement
either.
It
is
important
that
(52)
and
(53)
do
not
involve
PF
movement
either.
that
make
up
a
morphologically
complex
word
do
not
come
together
by
movement
It
is
important
that
(52)
and
(53)
do
not
involve
PF
movement
either.
The morphemes
make up a morphologically complex word do not come under
TheThe
morphemes
that
make
up
a morphologically
complex
word
do
not
come
one
terminal
at
any
point;
they
simply
placed
next
to each
other
at
Phonetic
morphemes
that
make
up
aare
morphologically
complex
word
not
come
together
by movement
under
one
terminal
at any
point;
they
aredo
simply
pla-Form by
53
the
mapping
rule
that
translates
syntactic
hierarchy
into
linear
order.
together
by
movement
under
one
terminal
at
any
point;
they
are
simply
platogether
by each
movement
under
one terminal
any
point; they
placed next to
other at
Phonetic
Form byat
the
mapping
rule are
thatsimply
translates
53
Readers
are
also
encouraged
to
check
(2013)rule
for
a related
theory. Like the
cedced
next
to each
other
at
Phonetic
Form
byPlatzack
thethe
mapping
that
translates
next
to
each
other
atlinear
Phonetic
Form
by
mapping
rule
that
translates
syntactic
hierarchy
into
order.
53 uses
53
DLTs inhierarchy
this
section,
Platzack’s
theory
direct linearization statements (his Spell-out
syntactic
into
linear
order.
syntactic
hierarchy
into
linear
order.
53
DLTs
come in1 two
lexicalist
(Brody
1997; 2000a;
b; 2004;
Brody
& Szabolcsi
Principles
andtypes:
2) that
i) make
it possible
for a head
to be
spelled
out in a2003)
higher head
2003;
Adger
et
al.
2010;
Bye
&
Svenonius
2012;
1997;
2000a;
b;
2004;
Brody
&
Szabolcsi
DLTs
come
in
two
types:
lexicalist
(Brody
1997;
2000a;
b;
2004;
Brody
&
Szabolcsi
2003)
within its own extended projection, with the spell-out position marked2003)
with
a diacritic
2013; Ramchand
2014;
Hall
2015).
The
two
approaches
lead
syntactic
andAdger
non-lexicalist
(Abels
2003;
Bury
2003;
Adger
et al.
Bye
&to
Svenonius
2012;
and
non-lexicalist
(Abels
2003;
Bury
2003;
Adger
et 2010;
al. 2010;
Bye
&different
Svenonius
2012;
(which
he
calls
an EPP
feature),
andThe
ii)two
ensure
that
within
the
morphological
word, sufrepresentations
when2014;
the2014;
selecting
and
theThe
selected
head do
not
a morphological
Adger
2013;
Ramchand
HallHall
2015).
approaches
lead
toform
different
syntactic
Adger
2013;
Ramchand
2015).
two
approaches
lead
to different
syntactic
fixes
mirror
the
syntactic
hierarchy.
This
approach
differs
from
the
DLTs
reviewed
here
word.
This iswhen
thewhen
case
with
modal
auxiliaries
and head
thehead
vPdoindo
English,
I have
representations
the the
selecting
and
the the
selected
not
form
aformorphological
representations
selecting
and
selected
not
form
ainstance.
morphological
in This
two
it
does
not
useauxiliaries
Telescopic
structures
and for
it suggests
that
word.
isrespects:
the
casecase
with
modal
auxiliaries
andand
the
vP in
instance.
I have
word.
This
is the
with
modal
the
vP English,
in English,
for
instance.
I the
havespell-out
53 53
and
non-lexicalist
(Abels
2003;(Brody
Bury
DLTs
come
in two types:
lexicalist
marking diacritic is always on a head that enters into an Agree relation with a lower
head.
53
DLTs come in two types: lexicalist (Brody 1997; 2000a; b; 2004; Brody & Szabolcsi 2003) and non-lexicalist
(Abels 2003; Bury 2003; Adger et al. 2010; Bye & Svenonius 2012; Adger 2013; Ramchand 2014; Hall
2015). The two approaches lead to different syntactic representations when the selecting and the selected
head do not form a morphological word. This is the case with modal auxiliaries and the vP in English, for
instance. I have glossed over this difference here and used the structures of non-lexicalist approaches. This
does not affect the main points.
Art. 65, page 32 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
6.2 The pros and cons of this approach
As in the case of post-syntactic movement, many considerations raised in Section 2 are
not applicable to DLTs: in this approach the operation that displaces (the exponents of)
heads upwards does not take place in syntax, therefore no syntactic principles are violated
or syntax-internal problems arise. What needs to be considered instead is if this theory is
internally consistent, if it makes the right predictions, and if it gives rise to new problems
of its own.
DLTs capture Baker’s Mirror Generalization via Mirror in (48). The locality effect of
the HMC and the no excorporation condition also fall out from this axiom automatically.
Structures that do not conform to the HMC or which involve genuine excorporation simply cannot be generated.
The DLT approach captures the long-standing observation that the upward displacement of (the exponent of) a head is local in the sense that phrasal movement is not, and
in contrast ot phrasal movement, it can only operate in a roll-up fashion (no excorporation). In DLTs, these differences arise because phrasal movement and the displacement
of (the exponents of) heads are completely different mechanisms: the former takes place
in syntax and gives rise to chains, while the latter does not. This view is also compatible
with Grodzinsky & Finkel’s (1998) findings that aphasics treat phrasal movement and the
displacement of (the exponents of) heads differently.
In DLTs heads are spelled out in positions other than their merge position as a byproduct of a spell-out instruction to phonology. This makes the strong prediction that for
heads, the dissociation between the position of merge and the position of exponence will
never have any semantic effects and will never alter syntactic locality domains. We will
see in Section 7 that there are arguments both for and against interpretive and localitychanging effects of the HM operation, and arriving at definite conclusions is not easy
because the arguments are often quite involved and rely on rather subtle judgments. It
is clear, however, which side of the debate DLTs come down on: similarly to the postsyntactic movement approach, they predict that such effects will not arise.
There are also some problems that arise internal to DLTs. The spell-out instruction @
is probably part of the featural content of the relevant heads, and is therefore present in
the syntactic representation. But since the position of pronunciation becomes relevant
only after narrow syntax, a pronunciation-related feature should have no place in narrow
syntax.54 Furthermore, whether a particular head is strong or weak still cannot be reduced
to an independent property.
7 How can we tell if HM is in syntax or not?
As already mentioned in Section 1, currently the biggest question is whether data like
(1b) through (4b) should be modeled by a narrow syntactic operation or not. Two types of
evidence have been brought to bear on this question: possible semantic effects and interaction with syntactic locality. In this section we will briefly look at these in turn.
7.1 Semantic effects
The idea that the HM operation is not part of syntax can be entertained at all because it
appears to have no semantic effects. As semantic interpretation is computed at LF, and LF
has a syntactic (hierarchical) representation, if HM turns out to have semantic effects, it
54
A reviewer mentions that “a spelled-out sequence of heads implies that there are grammatical operations
applying to non-constitutents” as a further problem. While the sequence of heads that will form a morphological word is indeed a non-constituent, there is no grammatical (or other) operation that applies to that
non-constituent. Each head is mapped onto linear structure on its own. After linearization they end up next
to each other in the string, and their phonological exponents amalgamate into a morphological word.
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 33 of 43
must be a syntactic operation and cannot be relegated to the PF branch or the translation
rules between the syntactic hierarchy and linear order.
Matushansky (2006) suggests that in spite of taking place in narrow syntax, head movement often lacks a semantic effect because several cases (including verb movement)
involve displacement of a non-scopal element, and so the logical possibility that movement leads to a new interpretation does not arise in the first place. In this respect, HM
is similar to A-movement, which also characteristically lacks semantic effects, but it is
nevertheless part of narrow syntax.
There are also several cases in which HM has been argued to have interpretive effects.
The relevant empirical domains include i) the generic vs. existential interpretation of
determinerless plural subjects in English and Spanish (Benedicto 1998), ii) the scope
of modals relative to negation (Lechner 2006; 2007; Iatridou & Zeijlstra 2013), iii) the
licensing of NPI subjects by English subject-auxiliary inversion (Roberts 2010; Matyiku
2014), iv) quantifier scope interaction between aspectual raising verbs and quantified
subjects (Szabolcsi 2010: Chapter 3 and Szabolcsi 2011), v) the way parallelism domains
are calculated in ellipsis (Hartman 2011; Gribanova 2017a), and vi) verb cluster formation in German long passives (Bhatt & Keine 2015; Keine & Bhatt 2016). Space prevents
me from summarizing their arguments here; I refer the interested reader to the cited
papers for the details.
Whether these works offer conclusive evidence for HM being a syntactic operation
depends on the correctness of their basic (as well as auxiliary) assumptions and the correctness of the details of their analyses (cf. also Platzack 2013: 34, fn. 12). Hall (2015),
for instance, argues in detail that the interpretive effects studied in Benedicto (1998);
Lechner (2007); Roberts (2010) and Hartman (2011) can be captured my means other
than movement. McCloskey (2016) reviews the arguments for semantic effects in Lechner
(2007) and Iatridou & Zeijlstra (2013) and suggests that they are not conclusive, in part
because the two studies need to make contradictory assumptions about the obligatoriness
of reconstruction. Another case when two different proposals for semantic effects actually
weaken each other is Lechner (2007) versus Roberts (2010). Both papers use the scopal
interaction of negation with some other element in English to make a case for HM taking place in syntax, neither explicitly assumes more than one NegP in the language, and
the position of NegP is crucial for both authors. However, while Lechner (2006; 2007)
places NegP above TP, Roberts (2010) uses the opposite hierarchy.55 As pointed out by a
reviewer, the NPI-licensing effects discussed in Roberts (2010) and Matyiku (2014) are
not necessarily strong either, as (at least in some dialects) English NPIs do not have to be
c-commanded by their licensor (Henry 1995; Hickey 2007).
7.2 Interaction with locality
There are two different types of arguments in the literature that use locality to make a
case that HM is a syntactic operation. The first type of argument is that the HM operation
is licensed by and complies with syntactic locality principles. Preminger (2017) argues
that the locality principle called Principle of Minimal Compliance (Richards 1998; 2001)
is directly relevant for the licensing of HM. This principle states that if a certain position is
involved in more than one syntactic dependency (movement or Agree relation), then only
the first one has to meet locality criteria; the next dependencies targeting that position
need not. The reader will recall from Section 2 that head-adjunction poses a problem for
the A-over-A Principle. Preminger argues that HM happens only when a head H is either
55
Lechner posits two NegPs when there are two morphologically negative expressions in the clause, e.g. in No
guest didn’t show up, but in these cases both NegPs are above T.
Art. 65, page 34 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
c-selected or agreed with by a higher head, and there is a second dependency between
a higher head and H, too. In such a case, the first dependency, c-selection or Agree, will
target HP, in compliance with the A-over-A Principle. But the Principle of Minimal Compliance allows the second dependency between the higher head and H to violate locality, therefore this second dependency can target (and move) the head in violation of the
A-over-A Principle. Crucially, the Principle of Minimal Compliance is a general locality
condition that also holds of phrasal movement. Therefore the fact that the HM operation also complies with it means that it must take place where general locality principles
apply: in narrow syntax.56
The second type of argument is that the operation of head movement interacts with
locality in a dynamic way, specifically, it can change locality domains in syntax. While
executing the details differently, Den Dikken (2007); Gallego (2010); Stepanov (2012)
and Mathew (2015) share the core idea that movement of a phase head “Ph” extends
the phase boundary up to the landing site (this has been called phase extension or phase
sliding).57 This movement affects locality because the specifier of PhP is on the phase
edge before movement of Ph but ends up in the phase domain after the movement. Due
to the Phase Impenetrability Condition, movement of Ph makes Spec, PhP inaccessible for
further operations that would have been able to affect it had Ph stayed in situ. If HM can
indeed shift the phase boundary and affect locality, then it must be a syntactic operation.
Similarly to the semantic effects discussed above, locality-based arguments make a case
for syntactic HM only to the extent that the proposed analyses are on the right track.
7.3 Interim summary
Whether the HM operation can have semantic effects or it can interact with locality
domains are crucial questions for two reasons. Firstly, debates about HM are often too
focused on the theory-internal issues, and leave room for the individual’s perception of
what is a more elegant or parsimonius solution to a problem. The issues brought up in this
section bring empirical data into the discussion.
Secondly, if the answer to either of the above questions is a clear, unambiguous “yes”,
then the PF movement approach and DLTs become non-starters. These approaches are
built on the premise that HM is semantically and syntactically inert, and so they predict
that it cannot have an effect on interpretation or locality. Any strong evidence to the
contrary will serve as a knock-down argument against these approaches, leaving only
syntactic alternatives in the competing arena.
8 Conclusion: Where are we now and how to proceed?
This overview article surveyed the traditional head-adjunction model of HM, the problems
with this model, and the various alternative analyses that the problems have lead to in
the literature. The different approaches that have been discussed are summarized in (54).
(54)
56
57
• syntax, movement
– head-adjunction
– same output as head-adjunction but via a different mechanism
* sideward movement
* defective goal
– different output than head-adjunction
* reprojection
* phrasal movement
See also Harizanov & Gribanova (accepted) on syntactic head movement and the A-over-A Principle.
This idea goes back to Chomsky (1986) where it is suggested that verb movement can alter a barrier.
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 35 of 43
• interplay of syntactic movement and a post-syntactic operation (movement to
specifier plus rebracketing)
• post-syntax, movement (Raising)
• post-syntax, no movement (DLTs)
Right now, the most crucial discussion in the literature is whether the HM operation is
part of narrow syntax or not. This question can be probed by examining if the operation
has effects on interpretation or locality, but there is disagreement in the literature about
how compelling the arguments for such effects are. We can proceed forward by finding
the best analysis for the data in the literature cited in Section 7, a task of future research.
If HM can be conclusively shown to obey different constraints and have different properties than syntactic operations, then there is motivation to place it outside syntax. If not,
then it should be treated as part of narrow syntax.
Recent research suggests that in the end, we might not be able to give a simple answer to
the question of whether HM is a syntactic operation or not because the data that GB-style
head-adjunction was meant to capture have heterogenous properties; they should not
(and cannot) be accounted for with a single operation. Harizanov (2016); Gribanova
(2017b) and Harizanov & Gribanova (accepted) propose that on the one hand, there is
genuine syntactic movement of heads, which is characterized by the following constellation of properties: i) it is not subject to the HMC, ii) it targets specifiers, iii) it has semantic effects, iv) it is driven by non-morphological properties of heads (e.g. by discourse
properties) and relatedly v) it does not result in morphological word formation. On the
other hand, there is also a post-syntactic operation on heads (the Raising discussed in
Section 5.3), which has the opposite properties: i) it obeys the HMC, ii) it yields headadjunction structures, iii) it has no semantic effects, iv) it is driven by morphological
properties of heads, and v) it results in “morphological growth” of the head involved
(word formation).58,59 If these properties indeed cluster together this way, then we have
an empirically grounded, new and exciting perspective on HM. Checking the strong predictions (e.g. the lack of data for which morphological word formation goes together with
semantic effects) of this approach on a large sample of empirical material will be the task
of future research.
Abbreviations
3fS = third person feminine subject agreement, 3n = third person neutral agreement,
3s = third singular agreement, 3sS = third singular subject agreement, acc = accusative, adj = adjectival suffix, asp = aspect, caus = casuative, coll = collective, f =
feminine, ind = indicative mood, m = masculine, pl = plural subject agreement, pot
= potential suffix, pre = prefix, prog = progressive, pst = past, suf = nominal inflectional suffix
There are also other researchers who suggest that more than one type of operation might be needed to cover
all the data. As we have seen in Section 5.2, Chomsky advocates PF movement of heads, but he suggests
that incorporation should be kept in narrow syntax. Bury (2003) also makes use of both a syntactic and a
post-syntactic HM operation: he suggests that reprojection and the DLT-style approach are both necessary.
Roberts (2010) is an example that uses different types of syntactic operations (the Agree-based defective
goal appraoch as well as reprojection and remnant movement), but he does not exclude the possibility
that there are also some cases that involve post-syntactic movement of heads. However, it is Harizanov &
­Gribanova (accepted) that is the most constrained of these proposals.
59
If there is indeed such a bifurcation in HM, then showing that some cases of HM have an effect on semantics
or locality will not be a knock-down argument against post-syntactic movement and DLT approaches, but it
will give them a limited area of application.
58
Art. 65, page 36 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank three anonymous Glossa reviewers and Marcel den Dikken for
useful comments. Work on this article has been supported by the Premium Postdoctoral
Fellowship Programme of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, which is hereby gratefully
acknowledged.
Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests to declare.
References
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Storrs, CT:
University of Connecticut dissertation.
Abels, Klaus. 2012. Phases. An essay of cyclicity in syntax (Linguistische Arbeiten 543).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110284225
Abels, Klaus & Ad. Neeleman. 2009. Universal 20 without the LCA. In José M. Brucart,
Anna Gavarró & Jaume Solà (eds.), Merging features: Computation, interpretation, and
acquisition, 60–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acp
rof:oso/9780199553266.003.0004
Adger, David. 2013. A syntax of substance (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 64). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262018616.001.0001
Adger, David, Daniel Harbour & Laurel J. Watkins. 2010. Mirrors and microparameters: Phrase structure beyond free word order (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 122).
­Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aelbrecht, Loebke & Marcel den Dikken. 2013. Preposition doubling in Flemish and its
implications for the syntax of Dutch PPs. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics
16(1). 33–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-013-9054-2
Arad, Maya. 1996. A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface. UCL
­Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 1–30.
Baker, Mark C. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic
Inquiry 16. 373–416.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark C. 2009. Is head movement still needed for noun incorporation? Lingua
119(2). 148–165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.010
Benedicto, Elena E. 1998. Verb movement and its effects on determinerless plural
­subjects. In Armin Schwegler, Bernard Tranel & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.),
Romance ­linguistics: Theoretical perspectives, 25–40. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
­Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.160.04ben
Bentzen, Kristine. 2007. Order and structure in embedded clauses in Northern Norwegian.
Tromsø: CASTL, University of Tromsø dissertation.
Bhatt, Rajesh & Stefan Keine. 2015. Verb cluster formation and the semantics of head
movement. In Ulrike Steindl, Thomas Borer, Huilin Fang, Alfredo Garcia Pardo, Peter
Guekguezian, Brian Hsu, Charlie O’Hara & Iris Chuoying Ouyang (eds.), Proceedings of
the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 82–91. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts. 2010. Subjects, tense and verbmovement. In Theresa
Biberauer, Anders Holmberg & Michelle Sheenan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null
­subjects in minimalist theory, 263–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Boston, MA: MIT
dissertation.
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 37 of 43
Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Samuel Brown. 1997. Interarboreal operations: Head
­movement and the extension requirement. Linguistic Inquiry 28(2). 345–356.
Boeckx, Cedric & Sandra Stjepanović. 2001. Head–ing toward PF. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2).
345–355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001799
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 591–656.
Brody, Michael. 1997. Mirror theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9. 1–48.
Brody, Michael. 2000a. Mirror Theory: Syntactic representation in Perfect Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1). 29–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554280
Brody, Michael. 2000b. Word order, restructuring and Mirror Theory. In Peter ­Svenonius
(ed.), The derivation of VO and OV (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 31), 27–44.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/
la.31.02bro
Brody, Michael. 2004. “Roll-up” structures and morphological words. In Katalin É. Kiss
& Henk C. Riemsdijk (eds.), Verb clusters: A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch,
147–171. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/
la.69.09bro
Brody, Michael & Anna Szabolcsi. 2003. Overt scope in Hungarian. Syntax 6(1). 19–51.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00055
Bury, Dirk. 2003. Phrase structure and derived heads. London: University College London dissertation. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz?_s=ca3SQsYc01fgKfn_&_k=HRjxGJCOGuZloPSv.
Bye, Patrik & Peter Svenonius. 2012. Non-concatenative morphology as an epiphenomenon. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 427–495.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. Tromsø: CASTL, University of Tromsø
­dissertation.
Chesi, Christiano. 2004. Phases and cartography in linguistic computation: Toward a
­cognitively motivated computational model of linguistic competence. Siena: University of
Siena ­dissertation.
Chesi, Christiano. 2015. On directionality of phrase structure building. Journal of
­Psycholinguistic Research 44(1). 65–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-0149330-6
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Stephen R. Anderson & Paul
Kiparsky (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 13). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale &
Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of
­Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David
Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays in honor of Howard Lasnik,
89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life
in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic
Inquiry 36(3). 315–332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396917
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The syntax of adjectives: A comparative study (Linguistic Inquiry
Monograph 57). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014168.001.0001
Art. 65, page 38 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
den Dikken, Marcel. 2007. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head
movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 1–41. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1515/TL.2007.001
den Dikken, Marcel. 2015. Raising the subject of the “object-of” relation. In Ángel J.
­Gallego & Dennis Ott (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 77. 50 years later:
­Reflections on Chomsky’s Aspects, 85–98. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
den Dikken, Marcel. 2018. Dependency and directionality (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donati, Catherina. 2006. On wh-head movement. In Lisa Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.),
Wh-movement: Moving on, 21–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Embick, David. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic
Inquiry 31(2). 185–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554343
Embick, David & Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1).
1–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry
32(4). 555–595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901753373005
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntaxmorphology
interface. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic
interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0010
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2004. Münchhaussen-style head movement and the analysis of verb
second. In Ralf Vogel (ed.), Linguistics in Potsdam 22: Three papers on German verb
­movement, 9–49. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.
Fiengo, Robert. 1977. On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 35–62.
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2014. Syntactic head movement and its consequences. College Park, MD:
University of Maryland dissertation.
Gallego, Ángel J. 2010. Phase theory (Linguistic Aktuell/Linguistics Today 152). ­Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.152
Georgi, Doreen & Gereon Müller. 2010. Noun-phrase structure by reprojection. Syntax
13(1). 1–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00132.x
Goldberg, Lotus M. 2005. Verb-stranding VP ellipsis: A cross-linguistic study. Montreal:
McGill University dissertation.
Gribanova, Vera. 2017a. Head movement and ellipsis in the expression of Russian
­polarity focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35(4). 1079–1121. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9361-4
Gribanova, Vera. 2017b. Head movement, ellipsis, and identity. Ms., Stanford University.
Grodzinsky, Yosef & Lisa Finkel. 1998. The neurology of empty categories: Aphasics’
­failure to detect ungrammaticality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10(2). 281–292.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/089892998562708
Grohman, Kleanthes K. 2001. On predication, derivation and anti-locality. ZAS Papers in
Linguistics 26. 87–112.
Grohman, Kleanthes K. 2002. Anti-locality and clause types. Theoretical Linguistics 28(1).
43–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2002.28.1.43
Grohman, Kleanthes K. 2003a. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.66
Grohman, Kleanthes K. 2003b. Successive cyclicity under (anti-)local considerations.
­Syntax 6(3). 260–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2003.00063.x
Grohman, Kleanthes K. 2011. Anti-locality: Too-close relations in grammar. In Cedric
Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 260–290. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.013.0012
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 39 of 43
Hale, Ken & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On the argument structure and the lexical
­expression of syntactic relations. In Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view
from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. ­Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Hale, Ken & Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure.
­Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hall, David. 2015. Spelling out the Noun Phrase: Interpretation, word order, and the problem
of “meaningless movement”. London: Queen Mary, University of London dissertation.
Halle, Moris & Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 275–288.
Harizanov, Boris. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface:
­A-movement and morphological merger in Bulgarian. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 32(4). 1033–1088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9249-5
Harizanov, Boris. 2016. Head movement to specifier positions in Bulgarian participle
fronting. Handout of a talk presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the LSA. January
2016, Washington DC. https://stanford.edu/~bharizan/pdfs/Harizanov_2016_LSA_
handout.pdf.
Harizanov, Boris & Vera Gribanova. accepted. Whither head movement? Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory.
Harley, Heidi. 2004. Merge, conflation and head movement: The First Sister Principle
revisited. In Keir Moulton & Matthew Wolf (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 34 1. 239–254.
Amherst, MA: GLSA. http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/PDFs/HarleyNELS2003.
pdf.
Harley, Heidi. 2013. Getting morphemes in order: Merger, affixation, and head
­movement. In Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), Diagnosing syntax (Oxford
Studies in Theoretical Linguistics), 44–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hartman, Jeremy. 2011. The semantic uniformity of traces: Evidence from ellipsis parallelism. Linguistic Inquiry 42(3). 367–388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00050
Haugen, Jason D. & Daniel Siddiqi. 2013. Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry
44(3). 493–517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00136
Henry, Alison. 1995. Belfast English and standard English. Dialect variation and parameter
setting. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Hickey, Raymond. 2007. Irish English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551048
Iatridou, Sabine & Hedde Zeijlstra. 2013. Negation, polarity, and deontic modals. Linguistic Inquiry 44(4). 529–568. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00138
Iorio, David Edy. 2015. Subject and object marking in Bembe. Newcastle: Newcastle
­University dissertation.
Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation (Oxford Studies in Comparative
Syntax). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard & Jan-Yves Pollock. 2001. New thoughts on stylistic inversion. In Aafke
Hulk & Jan-Yves Pollock (eds.), Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal
Grammar, 107–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keine, Stefan & Rajesh Bhatt. 2016. Interpreting verb clusters. Natural Language and
­Linguistic Theory 34(4). 1445–1492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9326-4
Koeneman, Olaf Nicolaas Cornelis Johannes. 2000. The flexible nature of verb movement.
Utrecht: University of Utrecht dissertation.
Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The syntax of verbs: From verb-movement rules in the Kru languages
to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
Art. 65, page 40 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Koopman, Hilda Judith & Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal complexes (Current Studies in
­Linguistics 34). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Landau, Idan. 2006. Chain resoltuion in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Syntax 9(1). 32–66. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00084.x
Lapointe, Steven. 1980. A theory of grammatical agreement. Boston, MA: MIT dissertation.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. On feature strength: Three minimalist approaches to overt movement.
Linguistic Inquiry 30(2). 197–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554039
Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic
Inquiry 15(2). 235–289.
Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito. 1991. On the subject of infinitives. In Lise Dobrin, Lynn
Nichols & Rosa Rodriguez (eds.), Papers from the twentyseventh regional meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society, 324–343. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lechner, Winfried. 2006. An interpretive effect of head movement. In Mara Frascarelli
(ed.), Phases of interpretation, 45–71. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.2.45
Lechner, Winfried. 2007. Interpretive effects of head movement. Ms., University of
­Tübingen, version 2. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000178.
Lipták, Anikó. 2017. Identifying identity conditions in and outside ellipsis: A case study
of Hungarian. Talk delivered at BLINC 2. Budapest, June 2017.
Livitz, Inna. 2011. Incorporating PRO: A defective-goal analysis. In Neil Myler & Jim
Wood (eds.), NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 95–119. New York, NY: New York
University.
Mahajan, Anoop. 2003. Word order and (remnant) VP movement. In Simin Karimi (ed.),
Word order and scrambling (Explaining Linguistics 4), 217–237. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Marantz, Alec. 1995. A late note on Late Insertion. In Young-Sun Kim, Byung-Choon Lee,
Kyoung-Jae Lee, Kyun-Kwon Yang & Jong-Kuri Yoon (eds.), Explorations in generative
grammar, 396–413. Seoul: Hankuk.
Massam, Diane. 2000. VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean word order. In Andrew Carnie
& Eithne Guilfoyle (eds.), The syntax of verb-initial languages, 97–116. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mathew, Rosmin. 2015. Head movement in sytax. John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1075/la.224
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1).
69–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321184
Matushansky, Ora. 2011. Ian Roberts, Agreement and head movement: Clitics,
­incorporation, and defective goals (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 59). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2010. Pp. x+290. Journal of Linguistics 47(2). 538–545. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0022226711000120
Matyiku, Sabina. 2014. Semantic effects of head movement in negative auxiliary ­inversion
constructions. Handout of a talk delivered at WCCFL 32. March 4, 2014. http://campuspress.yale.edu/sabina/files/2015/05/Matyiku-2014-WCCFL32-2fvz1xi.pdf.
McCloskey, James. 1984. Raising, subcategorization and selection in modern Irish. N
­ atural
Language and Linguistic Theory 1(4). 441–485.
McCloskey, Jim. 2016. Interpretation and the typology of head movement: A
­re-assessment. Handout of a talk presented at the Workshop on the Status of Head
­Movement in Linguistic Theory. http://ohlone.ucsc.edu/~jim/papers.html.
McCloskey, Jim. 2017. Ellipsis, polarity, and the cartography of verb-initial orders in
Irish. In Enoch Aboh, Eric Haeberli, Manuela Schönenberger & Genoveva Puskás (eds.),
Elements of comparative syntax: Theory and description (Studies in Generative Grammar
127), 99–151. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504037-005
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 41 of 43
Müller, Gereon. 2004. Verb-second as vP-first. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics
7(3). 179–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JCOM.0000016453.71478.3a
Muriungi, Peter Kinyua. 2008. Phrasal movement inside Bantu verbs. Deriving affix scope and
order in Kîîtharaka. Tromsø: CASTL, University of Tromsø dissertation.
Nilsen, Øystein. 2003. Eliminating positions. Utrecht: Utrecht University dissertation.
Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist
Program. College Park, MD: University of Maryland dissertation.
Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2). 303–344. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001780
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Parrott, Jeffrey. 2001. A morphological theory of head movement. Ms., Georgetown
­University, Washington D.C.
Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories (Linguistic
Inquiry Monograph 66). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/
mitpress/9780262019729.001.0001
Phillips, Colin. 1996. Linear order and constituency. Boston, MA: MIT dissertation.
Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34(1). 37–90. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903763255922
Platzack, Christer. 2013. Head movement as a phonological operation. In Lisa Lai-Shen
Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), Diagnosing syntax (Oxford Studies in Theoretical
­Linguistics), 21–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/
acprof:oso/9780199602490.003.0002
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP.
Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365–424.
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 2006. Subject clitics and complex inversion. In Martin Everaert &
Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax IV. 601–659. Oxford:
Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch67
Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising: An inquiry into one rule of English grammar and its theoretical
implications (Current Studies in Linguistics 5). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Postal, Paul. 2004. Skeptical linguistic essays. New York: Oxford University Press.
Preminger, Omer. 2017. What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head
­movement, and locality. Ms., University of Maryland. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003221.
Rackowski, Andrea & Lisa Travis. 2000. V-initial languages: X or XP movement and
­adverbial placement. In Andrew Carnie & Eithne Guilfoyle (eds.), The syntax of
­verb-initial languages, 117–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2014. Deriving variable linearization: A commentary on Simpson and
Syed (2013). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32(1). 263–282. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11049-013-9225-5
Richards, Marc. 2011. Deriving the edge: What’s in a phase? Syntax 14(1). 74–95. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2010.00146.x
Richards, Norvin. 1998. The Principle of Minimal Compliance. Linguistic Inquiry 29(4).
599–629. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553897
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1988. A head-movement approach to construct-state noun phrases.
­Linguistics 26(6). 909–929. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1988.26.6.909
Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1991. Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak.
The Linguistic Review 8(2–4). 319–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1991.8.2-4.319
Art. 65, page 42 of 43
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1993. Long head movement vs. V2 and null subjects in Old Romance.
Lingua 89(2–3). 113–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90053-Y
Rivero, Maria-Luisa & Arhonto Terzi. 2005. Imperatives, V-movement and ­logical
mood. Journal of Linguistics 31(2). 301–332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0022226700015620
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roberts, Ian. 1991. Excorporation and minimality. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1). 209–218.
Roberts, Ian. 2001. Head movement. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.),
­Handbook of ­
syntactic theory, 112–147. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1002/9780470756416.ch5
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals
(Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 59). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Runner, Jeffrey. 1998. Noun Phrase licensing and interpretation. New York: Garland.
Schoorlemmer, Erik & Tanja Temmerman. 2012. Head movement as a PFphenomenon:
Evidence from identity under ellipsis. In Jaehoon Choi, E. Alan Hogue, Jeffrey ­Punske,
Deniz Tat, Jessamyn Schertz & Alex Trueman (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, 232–240. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings
­Project.
Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua 114(12). 1465–1526. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.019
Skinner, Tobin R. 2009. Investigations of downward movement. Montreal: McGill University
dissertation.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1997. Reconstruction and constituent structure. Handout of a talk
presented at MIT. October 1997. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/sportich/
papers/mittalk97.pdf.
Sportiche, Dominique. 2005. Division of labor between merge and move: Strict ­locality
of selection and apparent reconstruction paradoxes. In Nathan Klinedinst & Greg
­Kobele (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop Divisions of Linguistic Labor: The la Bretesche
­workshop, 159–262. lingbuzz/000163.
Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language.
­Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers in Linguistics 36(1). 1–6. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.7557/12.213
Starke, Michal. 2014. Towards elegant parameters: Language variation reduces to the size
of lexicaly-stored trees. In Carme M. Picallo (ed.), Linguistic variation in the Minimalist
Framework (Oxford Linguistics), 140–152. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.003.0007
Stepanov, Arthur. 2012. Voiding island effects via Head Movement. Linguistic Inquiry
43(4). 680–693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00111
Surányi, Balázs. 2005. Head movement and reprojection. In Annales Universitatis
­Scientiarum Budapestenesis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae. Sectio linguistica. Tomus XXIV,
313–342. Budapest: ELTE.
Surányi, Balázs. 2008. The theory of head movement and cyclic spell out. In Jutta
­Hartmann, Veronika Hegedűs & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Sounds of silence: Empty
elements in syntax and phonology, 289–332. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2010. Quantification (Research Surveys in Linguistics). New York:
­Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781681
Dékány: Approaches to head movement
Art.65, page 43 of 43
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2011. Certain verbs are syntactically explicit quantifiers. In Barbara H.
Partee, Michael Glanzberg & Jurǵis Šķilters (eds.), Formal semantics and ­pragmatics.
Discourse, context and models. The Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic
­
and ­communication 6. 1–26. Manhattan, KS: New Prairie Press. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1565
Toyoshima, Takashi. 2001. Head-to-Spec movement. In Galina M. Alexandrova & Olga
Arnaudova (eds.), The minimalist parameter. Selected papers from the Open Linguistics Forum, Ottawa, 12–23 March 1997, 115–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.192.10toy
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Boston, MA: MIT
­dissertation.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and reason: An introduction to Minimalist syntax. ­Cambridge,
MA and London: MIT Press.
van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study in Dinka Bor.
Boston, MA: MIT dissertation.
Vicente, Luis. 2007. The syntax of heads and phrases: A study of verb (phrase) fronting.
Leiden: Leiden University dissertation. http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/002244/bookpart.pdf.
Walkden, George. 2014. Language contact and the loss of strict V2. Paper presented at the
16th International Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference. Budapest, July 2014.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2001. Syntactic and phonological verb movement. Syntax 4(1). 34–62.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00036
How to cite this article: Dékány, Éva. 2018. Approaches to head movement: A critical assessment. Glossa: a journal of
general linguistics 3(1): 65. 1–43, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.316
Submitted: 19 December 2016
Accepted: 12 February 2018
Published: 24 May 2018
Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics is a peer-reviewed open access journal
published by Ubiquity Press.
OPEN ACCESS