Verb Movement in Narrow Syntax
direct link: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004262
I argue that verb movement should be derived in narrow syntax. The derivational system of Labeling Algorithm proposed by Chomsky (2013, 2015) allows movement to occur in narrow syntax without recourse to any movement-triggering features, contra Chomsky (2001, 2004, 2008). In this system, (both external and internal) Merge is free, even if a new semantic effect does not occur on a raised category in its raised position, contra Chomsky (2001). Thus, verb movement, which does not change a semantic interpretation in the unmarked case, should be able to occur in narrow syntax without recourse to any driving features. As we see in the Icelandic data, it is actually difficult to claim that verb movement occurs in phonology, contra Chomsky (2001). I propose a way to carry out verb movement in narrow syntax in terms of feature inheritance and copy deletion. In the Romance languages as well as languages such as English, both φ-features and tense are inherited by T, to which R(=V)+v* moves, whereas in the V2 languages, only φ-features are inherited by T with tense remaining in C, to which R+v* directly moves. In all of those languages, it is a matter of morphophonology which copy of a verbal head, the one in a higher position or the one in the v* head position, is chosen to be pronounced. I also claim that do is inserted in English to phonetically embody features such as [Q], [Foc(us)] and [Pol(arity)]. The feature that the inserted do embodies is adjacent to tense and -features in each of the relevant constructions, which accounts for why the inserted do carries tense and agreement as pointed out by the traditional literature.
|Format:||[ pdf ]|
(please use that when you cite this article)
|Published in:||To appear in Studia Linguistica|
|keywords:||verb movement, labeling algorithm, feature inheritance, copy deletion, do-support, morphology, syntax, phonology|