BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Agree constrains Merge: the case of categorial features - Dr Phoev
 os Panagiotidis
DTSTART:20070220T180000Z
DTEND:20070220T193000Z
UID:TALK6616@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Dr Theresa Biberauer
DESCRIPTION:*Agree constrains Merge: the case of categorial features*\n\nA
 gree is an operation initiated by an active feature F\, (of) the Probe\, s
 canning the accessible part of the derivation (its ‘domain’) for a mat
 ching feature F'\, (of) the Goal. In Chomsky (2000: 122)\, and as reiterat
 ed in Richards & Biberauer (2005:121)\, it is explicitly stated that the P
 robe must c-command the Goal. This follows from the basic assumption that 
 Merge\, an incremental bottom-up structure building operation\, is respons
 ible for the construction of syntactic structures. Hence:\n(1)	The Probe m
 ust always c-command the Goal – never the other way round.\nIn the rever
 se scenario\, we would have a derivation where a potential Probe is merged
  and has to ‘wait’ for a suitable Goal\, effectively scanning the deri
 vation ‘upwards’ after every application of Merge\, therefore incorpor
 ating look-ahead\, a redundant and costly assumption (Collins 1997).\nThe 
 statement in (1) can be conceived as a more special case of the requiremen
 t that the Probe project (Chomsky 2000: 133-4\; Chomsky 2004: 109\; Donati
  2006) and that the Probe must be a _head_: a lexical item (LI) rather tha
 n a syntactic object (SO). Thus\, after the application of Merge:\n(2)	The
  Probe\, a head\, projects.\nUnder the received view that the Probe is a f
 eature _uninterpretable_ at the LF interface\, it emerges that (1) and (2)
  must give rise to a host of far-reaching empirical consequences. One of t
 hem has to do with _categorial features_. Following Panagiotidis (2002) 
 – in turn harking back to Chomsky’s (1995: 269) “affixal features”
  – let us argue that functional categories carry uninterpretable version
 s [uN] and [uV] of categorial features [N] and [V]\, which we can take to 
 be features either on the lexical categories ‘noun’ and ‘verb’ or 
 on Marantz’s (2000) ‘nominaliser’ and ‘verbaliser’. Uninterpreta
 ble  [uN] and [uV] on\, say\, D and T respectively\, will act us Probes\, 
 scanning their Agree domain for suitable Goals. In the standard cases\, th
 ese Goals will be [N] and [V] on nouns and verbs. Let us informally dub th
 is relation ‘categorial Agree’ and examine its effects.\nDespite havin
 g received little attention so far\, e.g. a mention in Baker (2003:269)\, 
 a robust generalization is that lexical categories\, such as nouns and ver
 bs\, always appear at the _bottom_ of a projection line and never somewher
 e in its middle. By (1) above\, we can explain this as follows: if the Pro
 be\, say an uninterpretable categorial feature [uV]\, does not c-command a
  Goal\, such as [V]\, it will fail to agree with it and\, remaining unchec
 ked\, will lead the derivation to crash.	\n\nThe above considerations stra
 ightforwardly exclude the possibility of ‘late Merge’ of a lexical hea
 d in a tree\, as its interpretable categorial feature would have to act as
  a Goal for a Probe in already merged non-c-commanding functional heads\, 
 contra (1). The impossibility of mid-projection lexical heads is thus capt
 ured in a non-stipulative fashion. \nBacktracking\, consider now the _firs
 t_ application of the Merge operation in a given workspace. This will have
  to involve merging two heads\, two LIs. If it is the case that functional
  categories carry uninterpretable versions of categorial features\, then w
 e can predict which head will project in the case when _two heads_\, two L
 Is\, one functional and one lexical\, merge. The functional head contains 
 an uninterpretable categorial feature\, hence _it is a Probe for categoria
 l Agree_\; as a result\, by (2)\, the functional head will always be the o
 ne projecting. Again\, no extra assumptions are needed.\nIf the above argu
 ments are in the right direction\, we can furthermore elaborate our unders
 tanding of the operation Agree in general. Consider the case discussed abo
 ve again. What would prevent the [uV] feature of\, say\, _will_ from probi
 ng the [uV] one of _Asp_\, establishing an Agree relation with it? In othe
 r words\, why can the [uV] feature of _Asp_ not act as a Goal for Agree 
 – or the other way round? The above questions abstractly rehearse Abney
 ’s (1987) observation that there are no functional heads “without a co
 mplement”: _there are no projections without a lexical head_ (and its in
 terpretable categorial feature). Given the above\, a cost-free explanation
  is that _uninterpretable features cannot check off each other_ (on what h
 appens with Case features\, see Pesetsky & Torrego 2004\; 2005). We can ex
 press the above as a constraint on Agree:\n\n(3)	Uninterpretable features 
 cannot act as Goals for Agree.\n\n*References*\n\nAbney\, Steven P. 1987. 
 _The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect._ MIT PhD Thesis. \n\nBa
 ker\, Mark 2003. _Lexical Categories: verbs\, nouns and adjectives._ CUP.\
 n\nChomsky\, Noam 1995. _The Minimalist Program._ MIT Press.\n\nChomsky\, 
 Noam 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Martin\, R.\, Michaels\
 , D. and J. Uriagereka (eds.) _Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax i
 n honor of Howard Lasnik._ MIT Press. 89-155\n\nChomsky\, Noam 2004. Beyon
 d explanatory adequacy. In Belletti\, A.\, (ed.) _Structures and beyond: t
 he cartography of syntactic structures 3._ OUP. 104-131\n\nCollins\, Chris
  1997. _Local Economy._ MIT Press.\n\nDonati\, Caterina 2006. _Labels and 
 Merge._ Talk delivered at the InterPhases conference\, Uni. of Cyprus.\n\n
 Marantz\, Alec 2000. _Reconstructing the lexical domain with a single gene
 rative engine._ ms. MIT.\n\nPanagiotidis\, Phoevos 2002. _Pronouns\, Cliti
 cs and Empty Nouns._ Benjamins.\n\nPesetsky\, David & Torrego\, Esther 200
 4. Tense\, Case and the nature of syntactic categories. In Guéron\, Jacqu
 eline & Lecarme\, Jacqueline (eds.) _The syntax of time._ MIT Press.  495-
 537\n\nPesetsky\, David & Torrego\, Esther 2005. _Subcategorization phenom
 ena and Case-theory effects: some possible explanations._ Talk delivered a
 t LAGB 2005\, Cambridge.\n\nRichards\, Marc & Biberauer\, Theresa 2005. Ex
 plaining _Expl_. In: Den Dikken\, Marcel & Tortora\, Christina (eds.) _The
  function of function words and functional categories._ Benjamins. 115-153
 .\n
LOCATION:G-R06\, English Faculty
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR