Syntax circle: Syntax Beyond Merge: Objects

Code of Conduct for ZAS events: The ZAS is committed to fair, respectful, and professional interaction at its events. Therefore, please observe the Code of Conduct for this event.

Abstract

A question arises for contemporary syntactic theory that derive syntactic structure from the recursive combination (“Merger”) of constituents:  How much of syntactic well-formedness should be computed at the point of Merger in a derivation and how much should be determined from constraints or rules computed over the resulting Merged tree structures?  I am investigating an approach to syntax in which syntactic well-formedness involves strictly local conditions on linear projections of Merged trees, following the lead of T. Graf’s work within Tier-based Strictly Local grammars.  Within generative grammar, principles that involve “c-command” relations between constituents already refer to a linear path through a tree; I generalize the use of such paths to two linear projections from the hiearchical tree structure.  The first involves just phrases and the heads that combine with phrases; this is the c-command projection.  The second involves heads that Merge with other heads; this is the head projection.  Linearization of constituents involves both projections, with the c-command projection ordered by (some version of) Kayne’s “Linear Correspondence Algorithm” (higher is lefter) and the head projection ordered by a bottom-up linerization process as in Kalin’s recent work that implements a version of Brody’s “Mirror” (higher is righter; lower heads order to the left of higher heads, cyclically, until Mirroring stops and higher heads within the cyclic domain are ordered as prefixes, obeying Baker’s Mirror Principle).  The two linearizations interact and combine because the relationship between a verb or preposition and its object is part of both projections.  Objects are ordered adjacent to the V or P.  Generally, then, the linear order of phrases follows c-command.  However, objects in languages like English and French must appear adjacent to the verb, leading to situations in which indirect object follow direct objects while still c-commanding them.  And pronouns in Mainland Scandavian are positioned in connection to a tensed verb that Mirrors to V2 position, escaping LCA order with respect to adverbs and yielding object shift and Holmberg’s Generalization.

This talk will support the two projection hypothesis with data from Korean honorific case marking and French participle and reflexive passives.  For Korean, the distinction between honorific spec-head agreement on the c-command projection and accusative case checking on the head projection provides an account of the lack of honorific case on objects (as opposed to specifiers).  For French, the licensing of A-traces by the participle head on the head projection limits partciple passive to objects.  However, the licensing of A-traces in construction with the se reflexive clitic allows A-movement from specifier positions in se passives.