Contrary to recent work in Distributed Morphology adopting Early Root Insertion (the notion that Roots are present from the outset of the syntactic derivation), we argue that Late Insertion applies to Roots just like other morphemes. We support this conclusion with empirical evidence (Root suppletion and hyponymous direct objects in noun incorporation and related constructions) and conceptual considerations (including the beneficial obviation of readjustment operations and the possibility that narrow syntax is universal). Additional data (Latin semideponent verbs) allow us to recast Embick’s (2000) licensing analysis of Latin deponent verbs as a further argument for Late Root Insertion.

Wu and Bodomo (2009) argue against claims made in Cheng and Sybesma 1999 . Gebhardt (2011) has contested their arguments related to the status of classifiers and the question whether all nouns in Chinese are mass. In this reply, we discuss some of the points Wu and Bodomo raise, arguing that (a) sortal classifiers are not lexical elements; (b) generic interpretation is not the same as kind interpretation; (c) demonstrative noun phrases do not have the same distribution and interpretation as definite noun phrases in Mandarin and Cantonese; and (d) the DP structure that Wu and Bodomo propose runs into serious problems with phrasal possessors. Finally, we discuss an alternative approach to the structure of the nominal domain in Chinese languages.

Starting from the observation that the constraints on VP-ellipsis (VPE) closely match those on VP-topicalization (VPT), Johnson (2001) proposes a movement account for VPE: in order for a VP to be deleted, it must first undergo topicalization. We show that although this proposal is attractive, making VPE dependent on VPT is problematic because VPE and VPT are not distributionally equivalent. While VPT targets the left periphery and consequently is subject to constraints on movement, VPE is not so restricted. We outline some alternatives for capturing the observed parallelism in the licensing of VPT and VPE.

Some version of the following claim is almost universally assumed: a quantifier must c-command any pronoun that it binds. Yet as I show, the evidence motivating this claim is not particularly strong. In addition, I gather here a wide variety of systematic counterexamples, some well-known, others new. I conclude that c-command is not relevant for quantificational binding in English (nor is any refinement or extension of c-command).

I argue that Bošković’s (2011c) generalization concerning the island-voiding effect of incorporation can be captured naturally within minimalist bare phrase structure if head movement (a) is a syntactic operation and (b) leaves no trace/copy. É. Kiss’s (2008) ‘‘domain-flattening’’ phenomena are also expected under the proposed account. Further empirical consequences are discussed.

The theoretical aim of this article is to integrate the singulative into the theory of division proposed by Borer (2005) and other theoretical linguists (e.g., Krifka 1995 , Doetjes 1996 , 1997 , Chierchia 1998 , Cheng and Sybesma 1999 ). To illustrate my claim, I offer a brief case study of Ojibwe, an Algonquian language, which I argue uses gender shift (from inanimate to animate) to mark singulativization. Singulatives, as morphological markers, are primarily known from Celtic, Afro-Asiatic, and Nilo-Saharan languages, but are not a known feature of Algonquian languages. Further support for my claim that the grammar of Algonquian languages embeds a singulative system comes from Fox (Mesquakie).

We make these observations: (a) The direct embedding of a syntactic category X in itself (X-within-X) is surprisingly rare in human language, if it exists at all. (b) Indirect self-embedding (mediated by a sequence of other categories, and usually a phase boundary) systematically goes along with intensionality effects; the embedding and the embedded XP exhibit different behavior at the semantic interface. We argue that these constraints on recursion follow from the way in which single-cycle derivations organize semantic information in grammar.

Several proposals suggest a φ-feature dependency between C 0 and T 0 (see, e.g., Zwart 1993 , Chomsky 2008 ). In most (if not all) of these proposals, the core piece of empirical evidence is complementizer agreement (CA). On the basis of two sets of CA data, CA with coordinated subjects and CA with external possessors, we conclude that there is no φ-feature dependency between C 0 and T 0 ; instead, C 0 and T 0 must each be endowed with a discrete set of φ-features.

Bresnan and Nikitina (2009) and Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) show that, contrary to standard assumptions, fixed-theme idioms may appear in to -constructions under certain pragmatic circumstances. Bruening (2010a) contends that the cases they present are in fact R(ightward)-dative shifts, double object constructions with the object projected to the right. In this article, we argue that Bruening’s proposed theoretical apparatus is unnecessarily complex and ad hoc and falls short of explaining the main facts it is supposed to deal with, massively overgenerating. A regular PP structure is argued to be empirically more adequate and conceptually simpler, avoiding the main problems of the R-dative shift analysis. New empirical evidence concerning pairlist readings and scope freezing also suggests that the empirical facts about idioms should be reconsidered in completely different terms.

We argue that the gapping-like constructions in the nominal domain (nominal gapping: NG) and regular gapping constructions seen in clauses (verbal gapping: VG) show quite different properties. First, VG obeys the Coordination Constraint but NG does not. Second, in terms of locality, NG allows free embedding but VG does not. Third, the scope properties exhibited in VG are not seen in NG. Fourth, socalled cross-conjunct binding, which is sometimes taken as strong evidence for the across-the-board movement analysis of VG, is not seen in NG in the same way as in VG, even in the environments where locality requirements for across-the-board movement are met. We argue that the derivation of NG does not involve across-the-board movement. Instead, NG is best analyzed as involving ellipsis.

Benmamoun and Lorimor (2006) dispute the claim made in Ackema and Neeleman 2003 that certain agreement alternations in Standard Arabic, and various related phenomena, can successfully be analyzed in terms of postsyntactic spell-out rules that are sensitive to prosodic structure. In this reply, we argue that the data discussed by Benmamoun and Lorimor do not warrant their conclusion, and in fact provide further evidence in favor of our original analysis.

A survey of a number of the world’s languages reveals that only those languages that have a transitive verb used to express possession (i.e., Have-languages) also have a transitive verb ‘need’. No Be-language lacking a transitive verb for possession has a transitive verb ‘need’. This generalization suggests a Hale and Keyser ( 1993 , 2002 )–style incorporation approach, whereby nominal ‘need’ incorporates to an unpronounced verbal HAVE, yielding transitive verbal ‘need’.

In this article, I discuss the interaction of locality phenomena with the left periphery in Italian as elaborated in Rizzi 1997 , 2001a , 2004b . It turns out that long-distance crossing possibilities fully predict the local orderings entailed by Rizzi’s left-peripheral template. In fact, both descriptive gains (in terms of topic positions) and explanatory gains (regarding the position and behavior of topics and of Rizzi’s (2001a) Int) can be made if local ordering is reduced to locality. This suggests that the left-peripheral template should be derived from some appropriate theory of locality and should not be taken as a theoretical primitive.

This article shows that accusative case and object agreement are not closely related in Amharic, a language in which both are morphologically overt. This suggests that it is wrong to generalize Chomsky’s claim that agreement and case are both manifestations of the same Agree relation from subjects to objects across the board. I show that object agreements in Amharic are the true manifestations of Agree (not pronominal clitics), whereas accusative case is assigned independently, to the lower of two nominals in the same domain. The relationship between case and agreement can thus vary parametrically.

Hornstein (1999) put forward two thought-provoking ideas that generated a stimulating debate on control: (a) A-movement out of CP complements of control verbs is a design feature of Universal Grammar as first suggested by Kuno (1976) , and (b) obligatory control (OC) is an instance of A-movement. This article presents new evidence from Kirundi (Bantu) that supports (a) but defies (b), a paradox that is only apparent. Four sets of facts are discussed: antilocality in promise- constructions, control obviation in inverse OC constructions, passivization in transitive expletive OC constructions, and OC in long-distance inversion constructions. These facts are shown to challenge the movement account of OC while supporting (a) and the PRO-based account.

A computational model by Hayes and Wilson (2008) seemingly captures a diverse range of phonotactic phenomena without variables, contrasting with the presumptions of many formal theories. Here, we examine the plausibility of this approach by comparing generalizations of identity restrictions by this architecture and human learners. Whereas humans generalize identity restrictions broadly, to both native and nonnative phonemes, the original model and several related variants failed to generalize to nonnative phonemes. In contrast, a revised model equipped with variables more closely matches human behavior. These findings suggest that, like syntax, phonological grammars are endowed with algebraic relations among variables that support across-the-board generalizations.

Why and its counterparts in some languages are argued to be externally merged in a low left-peripheral specifier of a dedicated functional category and subsequently moved to a criterial position higher in the left-peripheral space. The analysis considers both short- and long-distance construals of why , asymmetries of why -extraction in finite and nonfinite complement clauses, the position of ‘why’ in a multiple wh -movement language like Romanian, and the differences between why and how come . The analysis sharpens the formal differences between movement to a criterial position and movement out of cyclic domains via escape hatches.

We propose an analysis that derives Cinque's (2005) typology of linear orders involving a demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun through four Optimality Theory constraints requiring leftward alignment of these items. We show that remnant movement is ungrammatical whenever it produces universally suboptimal alignments, compared with remnant-movement-free structures. Any movement is permitted, but only the best alignment configurations surface as grammatical. We also show that Cinque's original analysis must encode the structural derivations of all attested orders as parametric values of the associated languages. Our analysis need not make similar structural stipulations, as the different attested structures emerge from constraint reranking.

Wu and Bodomo (2009) dispute Cheng and Sybesma's (1999, 2005) analysis of Chinese numeral classifiers as being able to function as definite articles. While I agree with Wu and Bodomo's overall conclusion, here I focus on parts of their argument that do not stand up to scrutiny and distract from their main point. In particular, I argue that Wu and Bodomo's conclusion that numeral classifiers are lexical items is incorrect. Also, I question their apparent conclusion that the availability of numeral classifiers in a language indicates that that language's nouns are inherently mass.

The question of whether the subject stays in its thematic position within the VP or moves to Spec, TP is difficult to answer with respect to free word order languages such as Japanese because the surface constituent orders in these languages do not necessarily provide sufficient information to determine syntactic positions. In this article, we present psycholinguistic evidence for the theoretical hypothesis that, in Japanese, the subject must move to Spec, TP in sentences with the subject-objectverb word order, but may stay within the VP in sentences with the object-subject-verb word order.