LINGUIST List 22.5037 Wed Dec 14 2011 Review: Syntax: Branigan (2011) Editor for this issue: Joseph Salmons <jsalmonslinguistlist.org> This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the book review staff directly. Directory         1.     Atakan Ince , Provocative Syntax Message 1: Provocative Syntax Date: 14-Dec-2011 From: Atakan Ince <inceatakangmail.com> Subject: Provocative Syntax E-mail this message to a friend Discuss this message Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/22/22-37.html AUTHOR: Branigan, Phil TITLE: Provocative Syntax SERIES TITLE: Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, Monograph Sixty-One PUBLISHER: The MIT Press YEAR: 2011 Atakan İnce, Columbia, MD, USA SUMMARY Phil Branigan's "Provocative Syntax" offers a new theory of syntactic movement that does away with (1) Extended Projection Principle (EPP) as a to-be-checked feature to motivate movement, and (2) Specifier (Spec) position in a phrase as a position to be filled in. EPP was first introduced as the requirement that each sentence have a subject and then was transformed into the requirement that each head have a Spec to be filled in. The book contains a preface and five chapters. The first chapter is the "Introduction". Chapter 2 is called "Provocation", Chapter 3 "Provocative Case Studies", while 4 and 5 are "Force and Provocation" and "Provoking Trace Deletion", respectively. Chapter 1, Introduction, introduces Chomsky's most recent theory of movement (Chomsky 2008), which has two components: an Agree relation between Probe-Goal and EPP. Branigan argues that EPP, as a representational constraint, in unnecessary to motivate movement. Chapter 2, Provocation, gives the key proposal of the book. In Branigan's theory of movement, unlike Chomsky's (2008), a separate copy is generated as a result of the Agree between Probe and Goal. The key concept is provocation, which generates a copy of the Goal whenever an Agree relation is established between Probe and Goal. This new copy forms a chain with the original copy and then merges in the root of the existing structure to 'form a single phrase marker'. Thus, Branigan notes, there is no need to fill in a Specifier position. In this view, movement is a side effect of creating a second copy of the Goal. An uninterpretable feature is provocative if it requires an external match as well as an internal match (i.e., one which is in its search domain). The external match can be either a copy of the internal match or a separate item coming from the Numeration (wh-expletives in German). In any case, the external match and the internal match form a chain since they agree with the same Probe. In this chapter, Branigan also introduces the operation Refine, which turns an A'-chain into an operator-variable chain. Via this operation, the internal copy gives up its operator content, and the external copy loses its predicational content. As to head movement, he first makes the assumption that the computational system prefers phrasal movement to head movement, and that, therefore, head movement is possible only in cases where phrasal movement is not. Head movement, then, occurs only in cases where the Goal is the head of the complement of the Probe, complement-to-Spec movement being illicit since a phrase cannot merge with the same head more than once (Pesetsky & Torrego 2007). Since a head cannot merge in Spec, it adjoins to the Probe head. In Chapter 3, Provocative Case Studies, Branigan documents cases where head movement occurs instead of phrasal movement, and provides a derivation for these cases under the provocation-based movement theory. One such case is Quotative Inversion in English: 1. "Who's on first?" asked Abbott. In these constructions, an operator (OP) moves to Tense Phrase (TP) since Tense (T) bears unvalued provocative OP features. Since OP externally merges in TP, Subject cannot merge in TP to value the unvalued phi-features of T. However, since agreement occurs between the v-V complex and Subject and this complex bears the relevant interpretable phi-features, the verbal complex moves to T. Other constructions where head movement occurs because Subject cannot move are Negative Inversion constructions (2a-b), topicalization in Germanic (3), root wh-questions (4) (where A'-movement and A-movement target the same phrase: Finiteness Phrase (FinP)), and German long topicalization (5): 2. a. No tastier moose stew have I ever sampled. b. Never would I support such an amendment. 3. Dat boek heeft Hans gelezen. this book has Hans read 4. Where should we meet? 5. Den Maler glaube ich, mag Petra t. the painter think I likes Petra 'I think Petra likes the painter.' In Chapter 4, Force and Provocation, Branigan gives the differences between symmetric and asymmetric Germanic languages with respect to A'-movement and provides a provocation-based account of these differences. In symmetric Germanic languages, V2-phenomenon occurs not only with bridge verbs but also with abridge verbs in embedded clauses as well as in relative clauses. In asymmetric languages, V2-phenomenon is restricted only to bridge verbs. He also provides examples of cases where a probe provokes multiple elements (two phrases or one phrase and one head). One such case is multiple wh-fronting in Slavic. In these cases, he proposes, the relevant functional heads are [+multiple provocative], i.e. they can provoke multiple elements. In the other case, both a head and phrase within its complement move to the head and specifier positions of a higher phrase, respectively. This gives us the derivation of embedded wh-questions in asymmetric Germanic languages. For Branigan, the main difference between symmetric and asymmetric Germanic languages depends on the base position of complementizers: complementizers merge in Force position in symmetric Germanic languages and in Finiteness (Fin) position, as a reflection of interpretable [force] ([iforce]) features of this head, in asymmetric Germanic languages. In asymmetric Germanic languages, both Fin and the wh-phrase (and relative operators in relative clauses), both with [iforce] features, move to ForceP, which is [+ multiple provocative]. In symmetric Germanic languages (Yiddish, Icelandic), on the other hand, only the wh-phrase moves to ForceP but Fin cannot because it does not bear [iforce] features. Branigan also suggests a similar analysis for Subjects and Topics in these languages: Topics and Subjects both move to Spec, FinP; however, in each instance, Fin has different feature specifications. The evidence for Fin-to-Force movement in asymmetric Germanic languages comes from complementizer agreement (Dutch, German), asymmetric coordination (Dutch), multiple complementizers (Dutch). As to the distribution of embedded V2 clauses, he gives a provocation-based account: when there is an intervening phrase (and its head) between ForceP and FinP, Force cannot provoke Fin since head movement is blocked, and the derivation crashes. The central argument of Chapter 5, Provoking Trace Deletion, is that syntactic structure produces operator-variable chains, leaving minimal amount of work for the interface. In the following example, 6. . . . FcP[ which tent Fc [ the bike was traded for]] (p. 120) the movement chain includes the provoking Force head and two distinct copies of 'which tent': 7. (which tent(1), Force, which tent(2)) (p. 120) For LF to interpret this chain, certain structure is deleted, providing the following: 8. (WH x, DP[ D[ x ] N[ tent ]]) (p. 120) After deletion, the second member of the chain provides the variable. In the rest of the chapter, he focuses on that-trace effects as well as on how intermediary copies in successive-cyclic A'-movement are interpreted under Refine: intermediary copies of a phrase, that function as operator, are deleted/ignored under his Clause Edge Interpretation Convention: 9. Clause Edge Interpretation Convention (CEIC) In the left periphery of a clause, only categories external to a force marker can be ignored. (p. 127) That-trace effects are instances of failure of deletion of these intermediary copies in A'-movement. In the following example (7a, p. 125), the intermediary copy of the wh-phrase occurs to the left of the force marker 'that' (10b) and, therefore, can be ignored: 10. a. Whom should I say that Pam has invited? b. FinP[ wh x should I say FcP[ wh x that . . . ] (p. 127) In the case of that-trace effects, the intermediary copy of the moved phrase occurs to the right of the force marker and cannot be ignored: 11. a. *Which horse do you think FinP[ t Fin TP[ t will win the race]]? (p. 129) b. FcP[ which x that FinP[ which x . . . Since CEIC cannot ignore the copy of the wh-phrase to the right of 'that', the derivation crashes. EVALUATION All in all, Branigan's book is a great achievement in that it accounts for a vast set of phenomena from different languages, especially Germanic languages. It is a study that researchers and students working in the framework the Minimalist Program needs to read. The work puts forward quite challenging ideas such as (i) elimination of EPP, (ii) copies as distinct elements (tokens), elimination of Specifier (Spec) position as a position-to-be-filled-in, among others. It also gives a very neat theory of head movement in Narrow Syntax. I now point out one implication and a few problematic aspects of Branigan's theory. One aspect of the theory presented in the book is that Specifier positions are not positions that need to be filled in and, therefore, motivate movement. They are rather created as a result of the movement operation. In a sense, this eliminates the difference between movement (to Spec) and adjunction in terms of phrase structural representation. In adjunction, neither is there a position to be filled in. Nor is it required to assume that adjunction creates segments. It also eliminates the question 'Why is Spec always leftward?', requiring a new explanation for why A-movement and A'-movement are leftward. However, Branigan's theory has some wrinkles with respect to theta-role assignment. In the case of A-movement, Branigan assumes that theta-role assignment can occur at two levels: Narrow Syntax (NS) and Logical Form (LF) (see the discussion on p. 16). This is a non-minimalistic assumption and reminiscent of a similar problem with Government-Binding theory: in GB the same theta role was assigned to the DP member of an expletive-associate chain in Deep Structure (DS) and then to the chain itself in Logical Form (LF), for instance (Brody, 1993). As to expletive-associate chains in partial wh-movement in Germanic languages, Branigan contends that the wh-expletive in a higher position is pronounced because it is not homophonous with its associate. Under this view, if there is more than one wh-expletive in a structure, only one of them is supposed to be pronounced. However, the data shows the opposite (ex. 12). Therefore, his analysis requires some refinement with respect to (conditions on) which members of a chain can be pronounced in PF: 12. Was glaubst du was er sagt wen Irina liebt? what believe you what he says who Irina loves 'Who do you believe that he says that Irina loves?' (p. 18) Also, in his theory, A-movement occurs due to the provocative unvalued phi-features of the Probe, EPP being eliminated. However, in the following data from Catalan, Fin agrees with a Nominative object when the Dative Experiencer sits in Spec, FinP (ex. 13); similarly, Fin agrees with a Nominative Object when the Subject is non-Nominative in Icelandic (ex. 14): 13. Li agraden les pellicules. 3sg-dat like-3pl the films 'He likes films.' (Fortuny 2008: 82) 14. Mig sækir syfja. me-ACC seeks-3sg sleepiness-NOM 'I am/feel sleepy.' (Woolford 2003: 543) Under Branigan's theory, it is unclear what motivates movement of non-Nominative Subjects to the canonical Subject position. If it were phi-features, Fin would not be expected to agree with the object. I believe his theory will be much neater if he develops an analysis for the puzzling data above. All in all, Branigan's work is a good read and meticulous study. REFERENCES Brody, Michael. 1993. Θ-theory and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(1): 1-23. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistics Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133-167. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Fortuny, Jordi. 2008. The Emergence of Order in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian, and W. Wilkins, eds., Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation, 262-294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Woolford, Ellen. 2003. Nominative objects and case locality. In W. Browne et. al., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 11: 539-568. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. ABOUT THE REVIEWER Atakan İnce is a freelance linguist and translator. He received his PhD in linguistics from the University of Maryland. His research interests are in ellipsis and agreement in Turkish within a generative framework. Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 14-Dec-2011       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.