Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach

This thesis argues for two main points: (1) 1. Licensing relations are sisterhood relations 2. All phrases in Dutch have the structure in (2), where YP precedes X(, and X(precedes ZP. (2) XP YP XP X(ZP The licensing relations in (1.1) include relations of theta-role assignment and licensing of Case and Agreement. The latter is assumed to take place in functional projections, as in Chomsky (1991, 1993). (1.1) is studied in connection with the syntax of Dutch, but is assumed to be universally correct. It is argued that the functional domain of Dutch sentences includes (at least) agreement projections for subjects (AgrSP) and objects (AgrOP), a projection for licensing tense (TP), and projections for licensing 'topics' (TopP) and wh-elements (WhP). These projections are ordered in the sequence WhP-TopP-AgrSP-TP-AgrOP. According to (1.2), both the functional projections and the lexical projections in Dutch are organized as in (2), i.e. the structure of Dutch is head initial. If Kayne (1994) is correct, this is also a universally correct statement about language. (The replacement of traditional X' by XP goes back at least to Hoekstra 1991.) 2. Licensing Relations It follows from (1.1) that specifier-head agreement (in the technical sense) does not exist. That is, YP in (2) is not licensed by X(but by the combination of X(and ZP, XP. This XP is called the Projection of X((the top XP node is called Segment). Descriptively, spec-head agreement still exists, in the sense that a subject agrees with AgrS (which in turn agrees with the verb, cf. Chomsky 1993). Therefore, the XP Projection must have access to the features of X(that are relevant in the agreement relation (in our example, the AgrSP Projection must have access to the N-features of AgrS). Languages may differ in whether X(is accessible to its Projection or not. The following is proposed: (3) 1. A functional head. is [±accessible] 2. A [-accessible] functional head. is made [+accessible] by removing the V-features of .