Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info

New from Oxford University Press!


Cognitive Literary Science

Edited by Michael Burke and Emily T. Troscianko

Cognitive Literary Science "Brings together researchers in cognitive-scientific fields and with literary backgrounds for a comprehensive look at cognition and literature."

New from Cambridge University Press!


Intonation and Prosodic Structure

By Caroline Féry

Intonation and Prosodic Structure "provides a state-of-the-art survey of intonation and prosodic structure."

Review of  Peripheries

Reviewer: Jonny Butler
Book Title: Peripheries
Book Author: David Adger Cécile de Cat George Tsoulas
Publisher: Kluwer
Linguistic Field(s): Syntax
Issue Number: 15.2325

Discuss this Review
Help on Posting
Date: 11 Aug 2004 16:17:46 +0100
From: Jonny Butler
Subject: Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects

EDITOR: Adger, David; De Cat, Cécile; Tsoulas, George
TITLE: Peripheries
SUBTITLE: Syntactic edges and their effects
SERIES: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 59
PUBLISHER: Kluwer Academic Publishers
YEAR: 2004

Jonny Butler, Dept. of Language & Linguistic Science, University of

This book contains 15 papers presented at a conference on peripheral
positions at the University of York in September 2000, along with an
introductory chapter.

Chapter 1, David Adger & Cécile De Cat's ''Core questions about the
edge'', introduces the volume. It gives a rundown of general treatments
of peripheral positions obtaining in the literature, defined in very
general terms as positions at 'the edge of some syntactic domain'
(p. 2), as opposed to what the authors label 'central' positions, i.e.
positions 'deeply embedded within that domain' (ibid). These include
pretty specific notions of the periphery, such as Rizzi's (1997) 'left'
periphery, i.e. CP; generalized versions of this Rizzian idea to cover
e.g. the periphery of the nominal domain (DP); more general notions
still, such as the higher/edge parts of the clause, whatever syntactic
category we take these to be; and of course, quite far removed from
Rizzi, also the 'right' periphery of syntactic constituents. This
chapter also includes brief discussion of each of the other chapters in
the volume, usefully highlighting connections between them.

Chapter 2, Ronnie Cann, Ruth Kempson, Lutz Marten, Masayuki Otsuka, &
David Swinburne's ''On the left and on the right'', analyses left and
right clause peripheral phenomena (topicalization, relative clause
formation, 'it' extraposition, right node raising, etc.) in terms of
the authors Dynamic Syntax framework, wherein tree growth reflects the
'left to right' nature of production/processing, rather than say the
more usual hierarchic structure building treatment of generative
frameworks. They make use of two specific operations, *Adjunction and
LINK, both of which are utilized to provide analyses of left vs. right
constructions, typically treated as distinct, in very similar ways. The
numerous constructions covered include topicalization, ''hanging''
topics, pronoun/clitic doubling, ''it'' extraposition, Right Node
Raising, and relativization.

Like other analyses based in the Dynamic Syntax framework I have seen,
this requires a brain-twisting rethink of how I look at syntax, but it
is extremely interesting, and well worth the twist. It also features
the best example sentence in the volume, ''She talks too fast, Ruth
Kempson'' (p. 33).

Chapter 3, Balazs Suranyi's ''The left periphery and cyclic spellout:
the case of Hungarian'', takes issue with recent 'cartographic' analyses
of scope effects (e.g. Beghelli & Stowell 1997), particularly relating
to Hungarian (e.g. Szabolcsi 1997), wherein QP scope is taken to be
assigned via syntactic feature checking with a set of hierarchically
ordered functional clausal heads. Suranyi criticizes such analyses on
two main grounds: empirically, that low in the Hungarian clause scope
is not reflected structurally, and this requires in Szabolcsi's
treatment an apparently unconstrained iteration of the functional heads
she proposes, which lessens the motivation for having a strict
hierarchy in the first place; and theoretically, that various of the
movements required to obtain both the correct surface relations and the
correct scope relations where these don't match can be seen as
violating constraints such as the ban on Improper Movement, etc.
Suranyi instead proposes a treatment based on interactions of
Quantifier Raising (QR) and topicalization, in a framework assuming a
version of phase-based cyclic spellout (Chomsky 2000, etc.).

The analysis involves a number of assumptions which aren't without
problems - e.g. overt focalization is taken to be driven by verb
movement. In focus constructions, Suranyi claims V has a strong
uninterpretable focus feature [uFoc]. One problem is that we don't see
such a feature reflected morphologically on V. While this is not
unusual in the literature generally, Suranyi levels the criticism at
Beghelli & Stowell's treatment of distributivity that their head Dist
doesn't show up overtly. If this is a problem, I don't see why
proposing features that don't show up overtly is less of one. Leaving
this aside, Suranyi claims that in order to check this feature, V
raises out of the projection it heads (VP, or AspP if it has raised
there already), adjoins to that projection, and reprojects as FocP.
Early on, he takes the motivation for this kind of head movement to be
related to phasal spellout: a head moves out of a potential phase if it
has unchecked features that would cause that phase to crash at
spellout. However, he doesn't take VP or AspP to constitute a phase, so
the movement here seems unnecessary: there seems no reason why the
[uFoc] feature of V couldn't be dealt with in situ. Leaving this too
aside, the phrase to be focussed has a strong interpretable [iFoc]
feature, which raises and Agrees with the [uFoc] on V, but doesn't
necessarily check. Suranyi assumes all syntactic operations, including
checking, are optional. If the wrong option is taken crash will ensue,
but that is a chance that is taken. If the features do check, then the
construction is sent to spellout. If not, V must raise and reproject
again. It can either do this immediately, in which case a second
expression can be focussed, and so on seemingly ad infinitum (which
again seems problematic); or not, in which case QR can occur first.

QR is another optional operation, according to Suranyi, and as such it
can either be overt or covert. In Hungarian, we see both these options,
as opposed to say English, where it is always covert. Suranyi's
explanation for this lies in the nature of the features at the base
position of the movement. He claims that if strong features obtain on a
base position, e.g. theta-features, then there is required to be an
overt argument in argument position, essentially to support those
features. English theta-features are apparently strong, so require
arguments to be realized low down where optional raising takes place.
Hungarian theta-features, on the other hand, are apparently weak, and
so don't impose this requirement. In itself, this is somewhat
stipulative; it is also problematic theoretically, since Suranyi states
that in cases of featurally motivated movement, such as topicalization
or A-movement, movement is necessarily overt. This conflicts with
Suranyi's position that where the base-feature is strong, 'then by
definition, it requires the presence of a full category' (p. 69), i.e.
including its phonological features. In a case where both the base-
features and the attracting features are strong, then, it is required
that the moving element is realized both in the lower and the higher
position, and yet clearly this isn't what we see. While Suranyi's paper
raises some legitimate objections to the feature-based cartographic
theory of scope, then, it also introduces some new problems of its own.

Chapter 4, Joseph Emonds' ''Unspecified categories as the key to root
projections'', also argues against cartographic treatments of peripheral
positions, specifically of the higher part of the clause commonly
referred to as CP. In fact, Emonds pretty much does away with the
category CP altogether: he argues that root clauses (essentially non-
embedded finite clauses, or embedded clauses with equivalent
properties) are 'Discourse Projections', i.e. they give information
about the speaker's attitude towards the 'eventhood' of the proposition
under consideration (realis vs. irrealis). He then treats various
periphery-related transformations in terms of 'Discourse Shells', which
are defined as 'Categorially unspecified projections [that] may
immediately dominate (only) IPs specified as Discourse Projections' (p.
85). Any cateory of XP may then move to the specifier of one of these
Discourse Shells, the interpretation that XP receives (topic, focus,
etc.) then depending on independent factors. In combination with a
version of his (1976) Structure Preservation, Emonds uses this notion
of a-categorial Discourse Shells to provide elegant analyses of left
dislocation constructions, topicalization, exclamatives, focalization,
wh-movement, and verb movement. One possibly minor point remained
unclear, which was that Discourse Shells may be dominated by other
Discourse Shells. However, Emonds' definition of a Discourse Shell
above states that they 'immediately dominate (only) IPs specified as
Discourse Projections'. This seems to entail that when we have a finite
IP with a Discourse Shell on top, that is equivalent to having a finite
IP without, otherwise we couldn't add more Shells. This seems fine, but
clarification on this point would have been useful.

Chapter 5, Kook-Hee Gill & George Tsoulas's ''Peripheral effects without
peripheral syntax: the left periphery in Korean'', also also argues
against a (universal) cartographic analysis of the left periphery,
preferring instead an approach where left peripheral elements may be
hosted in the specifier of a Topic position between C and IP, or more
radically simply adjoined to IP. The left peripheral elements Gill &
Tsoulas are concerned with are '-nun' marked elements, which, when
peripherally dislocated, are interpreted as topics, with various very
specific restrictions, such as no matter how many -nun marked elements
appear in the periphery, only one gets the topic interpretation. Gill &
Tsoulas argue that treating this interpretation in terms of checking of
a [+TOPIC] feature, or anything similar, is not only theoretically
untenable, but also empirically. Rather, they argue the interactions
between movement to the relevant peripheral position and phonological
stress assignment in Korean derive the possible interpretations
straightforwardly. The theory they finally arrive at is impressively
minimal, especially given that it derives so many effects for them -
they even manage to bring short distance scrambling under the umbrella.
A few questions are left open at the end, but as they are acknowledged
and discussed this isn't a problem.

Chapter 6, Mamoru Saito's ''Japanese scrambling in a comparative
perspective'', presents arguments that Japanese (and Korean) scrambling
is a non feature driven operation. Saito first reviews evidence from
his, and others', earlier work (Saito 1989; Tada 1993; Oka 1989)
showing that Japanese/Korean scrambling (unlike in other scrambling
languages) has the property of allowing scrambled elements to undergo
radical reconstruction - that is, for scrambled elements to receive an
interpretation exactly as if they hadn't moved at all. This effect
seems optional with short (clause internal) scrambling and obligatory
with long scrambling. Saito suggests that the best candidate for a
feature that could drive this kind of movement is the P(eriphery)-
feature of Chomsky (2000): a feature that can be optionally assigned to
the head of a syntactic phase to trigger successive cyclic movement.
Chomsky (2000) assumes that the (at least intermediate) steps of such
movement are semantically vacuous. However, Saito argues that even so,
they do not allow radical reconstruction. He then goes through a
different formulation from Chomsky (2001) wherein the assignment of a
P-feature to a head must have an effect on the interpretation. Clearly
this isn't the case with the cases Saito considers, since as far as the
interpretation goes it is as if the scrambled elements hadn't moved at

Saito concludes that if the P-feature, in either guise, is the best
candidate for a feature that drives scrambling, and yet according to
his analysis it doesn't, then it really looks like Japanese/Korean
scrambling isn't feature-driven at all. The arguments are clear and
well- presented, but we are left with the niggling question of what
does drive scrambling in Japanese in that case.

Chapter 7, Enoch Aboh's ''Left or right? A view from the Kwa periphery'',
shows that Gungbe, a language of the Kwa family, has a set of rigidly
ordered topic, focus, and injunctive markers at the left periphery,
which host topics, foci, and subjects of injunction to their immediate
left, suggesting that a decomposed discourse related CP structure
obtains in this language. Aboh presents a large amount of
straightforward data backing up an analysis along these lines, his
arguments similar to those used by Rizzi (1997) to motivate his
decomposed CP structure for Italian.

More interestingly, Aboh also examines discourse markers that appear
right-peripherally. On the assumption that heads universally precede
their complements at the base (Kayne 1994), Aboh notes that if these
discourse markers too reflect CP level discourse heads, their right
peripheral nature must deriving from a leftward 'snowballing' movement
of other elements to/through their specifiers. Such a snowballing
analysis predicts that, for those elements that can appear in either
periphery, such as topic or focus markers, their right peripheral
ordering should directly mirror their left peripheral ordering, and
Aboh shows that this is correct (an effect that he shows also turns up
at the left and right edges of Gungbe nominals). Aboh analyses this
snowballing movement as a 'disguised' version of the kind of head
movement we commonly see in Romance, the distinction being whether the
head X can raise alone (Romance), or whether it has to pied-pipe its XP
(Gungbe). Aboh proposes an interesting scope related argument to
motivate the distinction between left and right peripheral realizations
of the CP heads: essentially, when, say, a Foc head is realized on the
left, with a focalized XP in its specifier, this reflects the fact that
that XP is the scope of the focus; when a Foc head is relaized on the
right, with the rest of the clause in its specifier, this reflects the
fact that the whole proposition is in the scope of focus. Interpretive
facts seem to back this up. Tellingly, this also predicts that those
discourse markers that obligatorily appear to the right in Gungbe, such
as the interrogative marker and the clausal determiner, are those that
necessarily scope over the proposition, and again this seems to be the

Chapter 8, Christer Platzack's ''Cross-linguistic word order variation
at the left periphery: the case of object first main clauses'', again
looks at the left periphery of the clause in terms of a Rizzian
exploded CP layer. Data from English, Italian, Finnish, and Swedish are
marshalled to demonstrate the variation in the ordering of non-object
constituents found in main clauses whose initial constituent is the
direct object, both cross-linguistically, and within languages
depending on the status of the object as a DP topic or a wh-word.

Platzack's general claim is that fronting a wh-object over a subject
should in general constitute a violation of Shortest Move (Kitahara
1994). This claim depends very much on some of Platzack's background
assumptions: (i) that the canonical subject position is [Spec,FinP],
i.e. an A-bar position, not [Spec,TP], an A-position; (ii) that wh-
movement is attraction to Foc of a DP from a lower A-bar position by
something like a generalized EPP-feature, not by any kind of [wh]-
feature; (iii) that wh-objects occupy an A-bar position at the left
edge of the verb phrase before movement to [Spec,FocP]. The first and
third assumption get no justification other than references to Branigan
(1996) and Nissenbaum (2000) respectively; the second claim gets around
half a page of discussion. However, with these in place, Platzack shows
how a version of Richards' (1998) Minimal Compliance offers a few ways
get round the Shortest Move violation - either by moving the
intervening XP, or moving the head of which it is a specifier - and
demonstrates how each of the languages under consideration exemplifies
one of these ways.

The paper is well-argued and elegant, though it would be nice to have
seen the background assumptions (i-iii) justified in more detail.

Chapter 9, Liliane Haegeman's ''DP-periphery and clausal periphery:
possessor doubling in West Flemish'', does very much as it says in the
title: examines the well-known DP-clause parallelism with respect to
data on possessor doubling from West Flemish (WF). Specifically,
Haegeman shows how a proposal by Gavruseva (2000) to deal with the
unavailability of possessor extraction - the phenomenon where a
possessor wh-word is wh-moved out of a possessive DP - in Germanic
fails to account for data from WF. Gavruseva proposes that the
availability of possessor extraction out of DP in a language correlates
with the availability of movement of the possessor to the edge of DP.
Haegeman shows that in WF, this correlation doesn't hold: possessors
may move to the edge of DP, but (contrary to initial appearances) they
cannot extract out of DP. Haegeman solves this problem by reworking
Gavruseva's analysis with a more articulated DP periphery than
Gavruseva assumes, analogous to a Rizzian articulated CP, the point
being essentially that in WF, the possessor moves to a low A-position
in the DP periphery, from where extraction is impossible, whereas
languages exhibiting extraction move their possessors to a higher A-bar
position in the DP periphery, from where extraction is licit.

This is a typical Haegeman paper: the data at issue are clearly set
out, the analysis is sound and well-presented, and it's about West

Chapter 10, Cedric Boeckx & Kleanthes K. Grohmann's ''SubMove: towards a
unified analysis of scrambling and D-linking'', points out five clear
parallel behaviours displayed by D-linked wh-phrases and long-distance
scrambled elements: neither obeys superiority; both carry discourse
effects; both are, or have been argued to be, semantically vacuous in
the sense that they undergo radical reconstruction; both are
insensitive to islands; and both are accompanied by clitic doubling in
some languages. Such parallels suggest a unified analysis, and Boeckx &
Grohmann provide one, the essential ingredient being that neither type
of movement serves to check phi-features, but rather they both target
something like a TopP in an articulated CP.

To instantiate this notion, and capture the parallels, B&G propose an
operation SubMove, in which a DP complement of a D head may extract out
of the embedding DP to a higher clausal position. Somewhat along the
lines of Sportiche (1996), the stranded D may then be spelt out as a
resumptive element/clitic to the extracted DP. B&G suggest that both D-
linked wh-movement and long distance scrambling are cases of SubMove.
Assuming the embedding DP is the one that checks phi-features in the
clause, the extracted DP is predicted not to check such features, and
the parallels B&G note fall out: superiority won't kick in if the
elements to be moved are embedded inside higher DPs, since neither will
c-command the other; discourse effects follow if the element moves out
of the agreement domain of the clause (IP) to CP, often viewed as the
discourse-related part of the structure; radical reconstruction follows
if we assume that the resumptive D is in fact the relevant one for
interpretation in these cases (though without actual reconstruction);
island insensitivity is a well-known feature of resumptive structures;
and clitic doubling is the basis of the whole analysis. This is another
excellent paper, with a novel observation very nicely analysed.

Chapter 11, Peter Svenonius's ''On the edge'', seems to catch the author
on a surprisingly bad day. Like some of the other papers, it explores
the DP-clause parallelism, here in terms of phase theory (Chomsky 2000
et seq). The paper seeks to explain various strategies for moving
elements to/through phase edges, and explain why and how particular
kinds of elements can('t) get out of phases in particular languages.
Unfortunately the amount of data and theory Svenonius brings to bear
are enormous and detailed, and this might have been better off as a
monograph than a paper, so the points had room to be made. As it is,
they don't, and this is a shame because they seem like they would be
good ones if they did. A particularly bad case is the theory of
structure building proposed at the end of the paper: it is highly
intriguing, it certainly would have many ramifications for the way we
think about various aspects of syntax, and (if it works) it is
appealing. But it only takes up about a page and a half, mostly trees,
and so there really isn't much we can say about it except ''oh''. As I
say, this is a shame, and I hope Svenonius does expand this paper,
whether to a monograph or a number of other papers, since I get the
feeling I might enjoy it.

Chapter 12, Kyle Johnson's ''Clausal edges and their effects on scope'',
examines the scope rigidity that is observed between the objects in
double object constructions, i.e. the fact that whatever the scope
relations we observe between the subject (or other scope bearing
element) and either of the objects, the objects themselves invariably
scope in their surface positions relative to one another. Johnson
attempts to tie this down to the proposal that reconstruction into a
small clause is barred, because reconstruction into a theta-marked
position is barred, and small clauses only make theta-marked positions

Beyond this, I can say nothing since I frankly admit I was left
hopelessly confused by this paper. This may be down to a lack of
something on my part, but I wouldn't wish to shoulder all the
responsibility, since for example, Johnson seems to switch around his
labelling for the objects throughout, so that sometimes one object is
referred to as the (in)direct object and sometimes the other: see for
example p. 310, where we are assured in one sentence that the theory
''will allow for every permutation of scope relations ... except those
in which the indirect object falls within the scope of the direct
object: precisely the desired outcome''; and not only that, the very
next sentence tells us the theory also succeeds in ''ensuring that the
indirect object always falls within the scope of the direct object'' -
presumably NOT precisely the desired outcome, but both things are
presented as equally attractive. I remain puzzled.

Chapter 13, Valentina Bianchi & Roberto Zamparelli's ''Edge
coordinations: focus and conjunction reduction'', marks a return to form
for the volume. B&Z look at coordination structures of the type ''not
only ... but also'' made famous by Peter Cook and Dudley Moore; they
label these ''edge coordinations''. Data from English and Italian are
given, demonstrating four possible variants for this kind of
construction in each language. Edge coordinations show clear focus
effects, as reflected in the (optional) ''only'' or equivalent focalizing
element. B&Z assume they also involve deletion, assuming reasonably
enough that they involve coordination of clauses, with ''reduction'' of
parts of those clauses. They provide two possible ways for analysing
each of these things: focalization either in situ, or, following
Johnson (1996), as overt movement to a specifier of FocP; and reduction
either as ellipsis, or as across the board remnant movement to a high
CP level position [Spec,GroundP] (cf. Polletto & Pollock 1999). These
distinct analyses, they show, are empirically distinguishable, and they
also show very interestingly that they all play a part in edge
coordination, different pairings corresponding to the four different
ordering realizations for the constructions.

The paper provides a very clear, simple set of analyses for edge
coordination structures, and its demonstration that they don't require
a uniform analysis, and in fact require a non-uniform one, makes an
important point about how much we should assume theoretically when we
see pieces of data that look analogous.

Chapter 14, Theodora Alexopoulou, Edit Doron, & Caroline Heycock's
''Broad subjects and clitic left dislocation'', compares the two
phenomena named in the paper's title - ''broad subjects'' (BS) (Doron &
Heycock 1999), which being left peripheral elements in A-positions that
are associated with a clitics, and clitic left dislocation (CLLD), a
similar phenomenon except the left peripheral XP is in an A-bar
position - using data from Italian, Greek, Hebrew, and Levantine
Arabic. The authors give a couple of straightforward criteria to
distinguish the two phenomena: the peripheral XP (PXP) in CLLD is not
necessarily pronominal, whereas the PXP in BS constructions necessarily
is, and necessarily bears nominative case (where case is visible); the
PXP in CLLD is not focus stressed, and is standardly considered to have
a topic-like discourse function, whereas the PXP in BS may be focus
stressed, and can perform the discourse function either of focus or of

They then proceed to go in detail through a number of other factors
that demonstrate that BS should be distinguished as a discrete category
from CLLD. These include: BS PXPs show standard syntactic subject
behaviour, whereas CLLD PXPs do not; BS PXPs don't play a specific role
in the information structure of the clause - expected if they are
located in an A- position (i.e. in the IP layer) - CLLD PXPs do - also
expected if they are in an A-bar position (i.e. the CP layer); the PXP
in BS can be a ''bare quantifier'' (i.e. a single word quantifier with no
lexical restriction, such as ''nobody'', ''everyone'', etc.), the PXP in
CLLD can't; downward entailing quantifiers are licit as the PXP in BS,
but not CLLD; quantificational PXPs in BS can bind pronouns, unlike
CLLD; BS PXPs can be questioned (wh-moved), CLLD PXPs can't; BS PXPs
don't respect island restrictions, CLLD PXPs do, as a defining
characteristic; conversely, BS PXPs create islands, whereas CLLD PXPs
don't; BS PXPs can't bind pronouns under quantificational
reconstruction, CLLD PXPs can.

Having established the above distinctions between BS and CLLD, the
authors then go on to show that both constructions can be available in
the same language: while Greek and Italian have CLLD without BS, and
Modern Hebrew has BS without CLLD (Doron & Heycock 1999), Levantine
Arabic data split into two, some showing the characteristics of CLLD,
and some the characteristics of BS. This provides yet further argument
that the phenomena are distinct. This paper is a very carefully argued,
solid piece of work, with the data set out clearly and the analysis
following straightforwardly from it.

Chapter 15, Theodore Marinis's ''Acquiring the left periphery of the
Modern greek DP'', extends the ''bottom-up'' analysis of acquisition
initiated for the clause by Radford (1986) to acquisition of DP. Data
come from two corpora, covering five Greek children; Marinis
concentrates on the acquisition of case, nominal agreement, possessive
constructions, and determiner spreading, the phenomenon where a
definite determiner may be realized more than once within a DP,
specifically preceding the noun and any modifying adjectives. The paper
provides an analysis of the data such that first the NP, as a lexical
thematic category, is acquired, then an ''FP'' layer corresponding to IP
in the clause, then DP, taken to correspond to CP in the clause.
Marinis ties this incremental acquisition process into Platzack's
(2001) notion of ''multiple interfaces'', wherein the thematic (VP/NP),
grammatical (IP/FP), and discourse (CP/DP) layers of the structure
relate to distinct aspects of cognition. This provides a story for why
acquisition should be incremental that is rather more plausible than
just assuming one XP in some universally defined structure has to be
acquired before the next one up can be.

Chapter 16, Bernadette Plunkett's ''Early Peripheries in the absence of
C'', looks at null subjects and wh-questions in child French. It rejects
the account of Rizzi (1993) wherein the gradual disappearance of French
child null subjects is causally tied in to the maturational acquisition
of the peripheral, CP, layer of the clause (cf. Crisma 1992). Data
largely from two recent corpora are used to show that the picture isn't
as straightforward as previous studies have assumed: Plunkett provides
evidence that incremental acquisition of clause structure isn't simply
a maturational, bottom to top, process, but rather an artefact of
parameter settings. The idea is that children posit additional
functional projections on a data-driven basis, and initially employ
those projections only when a specific utterance makes it necessary.
Thus until agreement parameters in the IP layer have been fully set, CP
level parameters can't be fully set - e.g. I-C movement can't be
acquired until V-I movement is in place.

Plunkett's analysis of the incremental acquisition of agreement
features rests on a simple basic idea: settings for those features that
are most fully specified in a target language are acquired before
setting for those that are less specified. This basic idea makes some
very interesting predictions: in particular, say a child has learned
from the verbal paradigm that verbs can encode tense features (and
therefore move to I), but has yet to determine whether they encode
person or number features, then they will assume they don't. This will
disallow feature checking between an overt pronoun, with person and
number features, in [Spec,IP], and a verb without such features in I. A
null pronoun must therefore be employed. As more specific agreement
parameters are acquired, the number of null subjects will naturally
decrease; and additionally it will become possible to set the
parameters for higher functional projections, i.e. those in the CP
layer. The correlation between the loss of null subjects and the rise
in wh-questions is therefore not direct.

Plunkett's basic idea, as noted, is very straightforward but very
interesting, and it would be still more interesting to see it applied
to acquisition data from languages with different agreement paradigms,
since it ought to make different, quite specific, predictions based on
which features are realized, and to what relative degree, in any given

This is a generally excellent volume, managing to fit a bumper number
of papers inside its deceptively slim covers. There are a couple of
disappointments, as noted above, but overall the standard of the papers
is very high. The range of phenomena discussed is impressive, as is the
theoretical diversity within the papers.

I won't give an exhaustive list of typos, as occasionally appear in
Linguist List reviews: it wouldn't be very interesting, I didn't make a
note of them all, and you can find them yourself easily enough if you
really want to. There are a couple that might be mentioned though. Two
of the larger errors occur in Johnson's chapter 12: one is that he
makes crucial reference to shaded text in one of his trees, when in
fact no shaded text exists there. The editors have assured me, though,
that the shading was there in the final proofs, and disappeared
somewhere between there and publication. In fact it is clear enough
from the text where the shading would have been, so this isn't too bad.
The second is that the end of footnote 15 strays into the main text,
causing mild confusion if you try to read either. Again, though, it is
easy enough to reconstruct what should have been where. Apart from
these, there are frequent bracketing problems with citations, such as
they come out as e.g. Adger et al (2004) when they should be (Adger et
al 2004), or vice versa. These prove momentarily distracting and could
have been fixed easily enough.

Beghelli, F. & T. Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation; The
syntax of 'each' and 'every'. In A. Szabolcsi (ed.) Ways of Scope
Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 71-107

Branigan, P. 1996. Verb-second and the A-bar syntax of subjects.
Studia Linguistica NS 50, 50-79

Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D.
Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 89-155

Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale:
a life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1-52

Crisma, P. 1992. On the acquisition of wh-questions in French. Geneva
Generative Papers 1, 115-122

Doron, E. & C. Heycock. 1999. Filling and licensing multiple
specifiers. In D. Adger, B. Plunkett, & G. Tsoulas (eds.) Specifiers:
Minimalist Approaches. Oxford: OUP, 69-89

Emonds, J. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New
York: Academic Press

Gavruseva, E. 2000. On the syntax of possessor extraction. Lingua 110,

Johnson, K. 1996. In Search of the English Middle Field. Ms. Umass

Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Nissenbaum, J. 2000. Investigations of Covert Phrase Movement. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT

Oka, T. 1989. On the Spec of IP. Ms, MIT

Platzack, C. 2001. Multiple Interfaces. In N.U. & E. van der Zee (eds.)
Cognitive Interfaces: Constraints on Linking Cognitive Information.
Oxford: OUP, 21-53

Poletto, C. & J.-Y. Pollock. 1999. On the left periphery of Romance
questions. Talk presented at the Workshop on the Cartography of
Functional Projections, Pontignano, November 1999

Radford, A. 1986. Small children's small clauses. Bangor Research
Papers in Linguistics 1, 1-38

Richards, N. 1998. The Principle of Minimal Compliance. LI 29, 599-629

Rizzi, L. 1993. Some notes on linguistic theory and language
development: the case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition 3, 371-

Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L.
Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar: a handbook in generative syntax.
Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281-337

Saito, M. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A-bar movement. In
M.R. Baltin & A.S. Kroch (eds.) Alternative Conceptions of Phrase
Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 182-200

Sportiche, D. 1996. Clitic constructions. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring
(eds.) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 213-276

Szabolcsi, A. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In A. Szabolcsi (ed.)
Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 109-154

Tada, H. 1993. A/A-bar Partition in Derivation. Doctoral dissertation,
Jonny Butler is a member of the Dept. of Linguistics at the University
of York, UK. He is freshly doctored, his thesis covering
quantification, tense, aspect, modality, and phase theory. From
November 2004 he will be a postdoctoral researcher at the
Graduiertenkolleg "Sprachliche Repräsentationen und ihre
Interpretation" ("Linguistic Representations and Their Interpretation")
at the University of Stuttgart.

Amazon Store: