How Antisymmetric Is Syntax?

Since the emergence of Kayne's (1994) stimulating proposal for an antisymmetric theory of phrase structure and linear order, much work has been devoted to arguing for or against his theory as well as discussing its empirical predictions. As a result, for a number of phenomena involving rightward positioning, such as rightward adjuncts, heavy NP shift, extraposition, postverbal subjects, and postverbal constituents in OV languages, there now exist both an approach consistent with Kayne's theory (the antisymmetric approach) and another not consistent with it (the symmetric approach). In such a situation, it is often difficult to show on empirical grounds that one approach is superior to the other (see Rochemont and Culicover 1997). In what follows, I describe this situation with respect to two well-known phenomena in English: rightward positioning of adjuncts and heavy NP shift. For each of these phenomena, the symmetric and antisymmetric approaches have been proposed, and both approaches can correctly account for the data discussed in previous studies. Here, I examine the approaches from a novel point of view, showing that data involving the licensing of negative polarity items allow us to differentiate them and to decide which is the right one for each of the two empirical domains. Interestingly, the relevant facts lead to different conclusions for the two phenomena. The results have important implications for the antisymmetric view of syntax.

[1]  原口 庄輔,et al.  Minimalism and linguistic theory , 1995 .

[2]  Richard S. Kayne The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[3]  Tanya Reinhart,et al.  The syntactic domain of anaphora , 1976 .

[4]  Maria Uribe-Echevarria,et al.  Interface licensing conditions on negative polarity items: A theory of polarity and tense interactions , 1994 .

[5]  Joāo Costa,et al.  On the behavior of adverbs in sentence-final context , 1997 .

[6]  Michael Rochemont,et al.  Deriving Dependent Right Adjuncts in English , 1997 .

[7]  Richard S. Kayne Overt vs. Covert Movements , 1998 .

[8]  R. Larson On the double object construction , 1988 .

[9]  Ortiz de Urbina Negation in Syntax : On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections , 2022 .

[10]  Masatoshi Koizumi Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax , 1998 .

[11]  John Robert Ross,et al.  Constraints on variables in syntax , 1967 .

[12]  G. Cinque Adverbs and functional heads , 1999 .

[13]  Kyle B. Johnson Object positions , 1991 .

[14]  David Pesetsky,et al.  Language-Particular processes and the earliness principle , 1989 .

[15]  Lawrence M. Solan,et al.  Pronominal Reference: Child Language and the Theory of Grammar , 1983, Journal of Child Language.

[16]  Howard Lasnik,et al.  Step by step : essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik , 2000 .

[17]  M. Saito,et al.  Order in Phrase Structure and Movement , 1998, Linguistic Inquiry.

[18]  A. Brien The last resort. , 1980, Times.

[19]  Hubert Haider,et al.  OV is More Basic than VO , 2000 .

[20]  Tanya Reinhart,et al.  Definite NP Anaphora and C. Command Domains , 1981 .

[21]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Minimalist inquiries : the framework , 1998 .

[22]  Kyle B. Johnson A review of The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1997 .

[23]  Colin Phillips,et al.  Order and structure , 1996 .

[24]  P. Branigan,et al.  Subjects and complementizers , 1992 .

[25]  Yuji Takano,et al.  Object Shift and Scrambling , 1998 .

[26]  David Pesetsky,et al.  Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades , 1994 .

[27]  Yuji Takano,et al.  Symmetry in Syntax: Merge and Demerge , 1998 .

[28]  T. Reinhart Anaphora and semantic interpretation , 1983 .

[29]  Yuji Tanaka Movement and parametric variation in syntax , 1996 .

[30]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Total Reconstruction, PF Movement, and Derivational Order , 2002, Linguistic Inquiry.

[31]  Peter Svenonius The derivation of VO and OV , 2000 .

[32]  Jeffrey T. Runner,et al.  Noun phrase licensing and interpretation , 1995 .

[33]  R. Larson Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff , 1990 .