Relativized Prosodic Domains: A Late-Insertion Account of German Plurals

In late-insertion, realizational models of morphology such as Distributed Morphology (DM), the insertion of Vocabulary Items (VIs) is conditioned by cyclic operations in the syntax. This paper explores whether an isomorphic relationship can be established between cyclic operations such as phases and prosodic domains. In the spirit of D’Alessandro and Scheer’s (2015) proposal of a Modular Phase Impenetrability Condition (MPIC), we strive to provide an analysis in which prosodic boundaries in even smaller, word-level-like syntactic structures—the ‘lexical domain’—can be identified solely within the syntax. We propose a DM-account for the distribution of nominal plural exponency in German, which reveals a dominant trend for a trochaic-foot structure for all but -s-plural exponents (Wiese 2001, 2009). Inspired by Gouskova’s (2019) and Svenonius’ (2016) work concerning the prosody–morphology interface, we argue that the index of a Prosodic Word ω in non-s-plurals is associated with a specific feature configuration. We propose that only a n[+pl(ural)] configuration, in which the nominalizing head n hosts the SynSem-feature Num(ber)[+pl(ural)], rather than a general cyclic categorizing phase head such as n, indexes a Prosodic Word ω for nominal plural exponents in (Standard) German. Based on this empirical evidence from German plural exponency, we argue that (i) prosodic boundaries can be established directly by syntactic structures, (ii) these prosodic boundaries condition VI insertion during the initial stages of Spell-Out, and (iii) prosodic domains are based on individual languages’ syntactic structures and feature configurations, and are thus relativized and language-specific in nature.

Agree, Move and the Scope of the Phase Impenetrability Condition

This paper addresses a certain contradiction in the application of the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) to domains involving the long-distance Genitive of Negation (GoN) and wh-movement in Polish. It appears that in syntactic domains of the tensed sentence including an infinitive complement, there is a tension between a long-distance dependency (holding between NEG in the main clause and the embedded object in genitive) and a cyclic operation of wh-movement. The operation of wh-movement, a classic example of Chomsky’s Move, observes cyclicity and the PIC, judging by the standard tests based on reconstruction (Chomsky 1995; Heycock 1995; Fox 1999; Safir 1999; Legate 2003; Witkoś 2003; Lebeaux 2009), while the Agree-based case marking requires the PIC to be inoperative in exactly the same context and in the same domain. Both operations place contradictory requirements on the PIC, which implies that this condition does not apply to them in the same manner: it always holds of Move but does not always hold of Agree.

On some problems of rule ordering in Finnish grammar

Finnish wh-movement exhibits internal roll-up movement with pied-piping and is therefore overtly successive-cyclic. On the other hand, its morphosyntax is nonlocal, suggesting countercyclic behavior. The existence of overtly cyclic computations and nonlocal agreement penetrating nearly every cyclic domain constitutes a near contradiction in this language. A solution is proposed which partially resurrects the notion of d-structure: grammatical operations are cyclic and operate in small phases (as indicated by Finnish successive cyclic wh-movement), but some operations, Agree in particular, access leftover copies of elements in situ and are not restricted by the phase impenetrability condition (PIC). PIC restricts operator/A-bar movement, not morphosyntax.

Movement from the Double Object Construction Is Not Fully Symmetrical

A movement asymmetry arises in some languages that are otherwise symmetrical for both A- and Ā-movement in the double object construction, including Norwegian, North-West British English, and a range of Bantu languages including Zulu and Lubukusu: a Theme object can be Ā-moved out of a Recipient (Goal) passive, but not vice versa. Our explanation of this asymmetry is based on phase theory— more specifically, a stricter version of the Phase Impenetrability Condition proposed by Chomsky (2001) . The effect is that, in a Theme passive, a Recipient object destined for the C-domain gets trapped within the lower V-related phase by movement of the Theme. The same effect is observed in Italian, a language in which only Theme passives are possible. A similar effect is also found in some Bantu languages in connection with object marking/agreement: object agreement with the Theme in a Recipient passive is possible, but not vice versa. We show that this, too, can be understood within the theory that we articulate.

Nested phase interpretation and the PIC

This chapter investigates phonological, morphological, and syntactic phenomena, aiming to demonstrate that the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2001) is epiphenomenal. The chapter therefore builds on the argumentation in Bošković (2007, 2014). It is demonstrated that the PIC cannot hold in the syntax, as the operations Merge (Late Adjunction), Move (post-spell-out movement), and Agree (long-distance Agree) can all be shown to cross phase boundaries. Morphological operations such as the anti-cyclic merger of morphemes (Late Adjunction) and spell-out of lower copies of a chain demonstrate the same permeability of the previously interpreted domains of phases. In the pure phonology, data displaying the effects of Phonological Merger (Newell and Piggott 2014) and Infixation demonstrate that phonological domains are not opaque for phonological operations, and that this transparency is not limited to phonological edges.

A Criterial Freezing approach to subject extraction in Jordanian Arabic

Using the Criterial Freezing approach to movement and chain formation (Rizzi 2005, 2006, 2014; Rizzi and Shlonsky 2006, 2007), this study explores the strategies Jordanian Arabic makes available for subject extraction. I argue that subject extraction in this variety of Arabic is constrained by the postulated D-linking condition of the Subject Criterion – i.e., [spec,SubjP] is filled by an element with the same D(iscourse)-linking status as that of the subject wh-word (D-linked vs. non-D-linked). In case of questions with a D-linked wh-word, [spec,SubjP] can be filled by the D-linked particle illi or a deictic (time-point/place-point) adjunct. Unlike time-point adjuncts, the use of place-point adjuncts to fill [spec,SubjP] is subject to the effects of the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2001), given their low base positions. In contrast, in case of questions with a non-D-linked wh-word, I assume that [spec,SubjP] is filled by an expletive pro.

Getting Really Edgy: On the Edge of the Edge

The article argues that in constructions where there is more than one phrase at a phasal edge, only the highest edge is available for movement and anaphor binding. This shows that only the outermost edge counts as the edge of a phase for the Phase Impenetrability Condition ( PIC). The article also demonstrates that moving the element that counts as the phasal edge in multiple specifier/adjunct cases can affect the PIC status of the remaining edges. These conclusions provide a new argument for the contextuality of phasehood. A number of recent works have argued that the phasal status of a phrase can be affected by the syntactic context in which it occurs. This article goes one step further: it shows that the concept of phasal edge, more precisely the status of a specifier/adjunct regarding the PIC, can also be affected by the syntactic context in which the specifier/adjunct occurs. The article also discusses several issues regarding the syntax and semantics of adjectives, possessors, and demonstratives, including what Partee (2006) calls familiar demonstratives, as well as anaphor binding.

Modular PIC

This article argues that there can only be one chunk-defining device in grammar: a theory cannot afford to have the same work done twice, once by phases, a second time by prosodic constituency. As it stands, however, phase theory is unable to describe all phonologically relevant chunks; these are too small and too diverse to be delineated. To qualify as the only chunk-defining device in grammar, phase theory therefore needs to be made more flexible—that is, to be adapted to the demands of phonology. To allow phase theory to describe all phonologically relevant chunks, we propose the separation of the Spell-Out operation from the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC). When Spell-Out occurs, every access point may or may not be associated with a PIC at PF, and the same optional endowment with a PIC holds for syntax. This is what we call Modular PIC. Empirically, on the basis of Abruzzese raddoppiamento fonosintattico and data from Bantu, we show that PIC effects in syntax and phonology are entirely independent: a given Spell-Out operation may leave traces in both modules, in either one, or in neither.

A note on the Genitive of Quantification in Polish and derivational phases

The major objective of this article is to discuss the status of nominal projections in Polish within the phase theory, with a special reference to the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) (Chomsky 2000, 2001). Throughout the paper, it is argued that certain case marking properties internal to Polish QPs showing the Genitive of Quantification in particular, indicate that they do not observe the PIC in that the NP-complement domain to Q in [QP Q [NP]] is still available for operations of narrow syntax at the derivational stage when the verbal projection is formed. In consequence, the transfer of the NP-complement domain to Q to PF/LF is delayed. Moreover, an attempt is made to show, on the basis of binding facts and extraction, that internal structure of Polish nominals including possessives does not exactly follow the proposals made in Bošković (2005, 2009, 2013, 2014) for analogous Serbo-Croatian cases. Instead, it is proposed that Polish nominals feature a more complex architecture typical of a subclass of SC nominals, namely higher numerals. Crucially, Polish nominals are more complex than an NP with multiple levels of adjunction.

From the Complex NP Constraint to everything: On deep extractions across categories

The article establishes a new generalization concerning domains from which extraction is possible. Taking as the starting point the well-known difference between NPs and VPs regarding extraction, where extraction from Complex NPs is not possible while extraction from Complex VPs is possible, the article argues that the former represents a pervasive pattern found in many contexts, the latter being highly exceptional. More precisely, extraction is impossible not only from clausal but all complements of nouns. Furthermore, it is impossible from complements of prepositions and adjectives as well as ergative verbs. A deduction of the impossibility of extraction from the complements of lexical heads (other than non-ergative verbs) is proposed based on a new approach to phases (i.e. to what counts as a phase) and the Phase-Impenetrability Condition, as well as a particular implementation of