Linear order is a precedence relation, namely a total strict order , defined between any terminal item (word/morpheme) in a pronounced sentence. No consensus either on the source of this constraint (Phonetic Form [PF] requirement or part of core syntax) or on its unicity (§31. Linearization - Idsardi & Raimi) is present yet. The mainstream perspective considers linearization as a byproduct of the monodimensional reduction, imposed by the Sensory Motor (SM) system, of the bidimensional (dominance and sisterhood) phrase structure. In these pages, I present what I believe to be the least common denominator of the minority perspective that considers a relevant part of linearization as strictly dependent on the asymmetric nature of the hierarchical structure. From this viewpoint, the induction of linear order is in fact a component of narrow syntax. Eventually, I discuss the hypothesis that the source of the relevant asymmetries is the incrementality of phrase structure building as it flows in time. The chapter is structured as follows: a brief introduction to the nature of a “genuine explanation” in grammatical theorizing will set the stage (§2). The presentation of an influential hypothesis connecting asymmetric C-command with linear order, which is Kayne’s Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA; Kayne, 1994), will follow (§2). This section will show how the LCA intuition can be fruitfully maintained in minimalist (probe-goal) terms. Crucial empirical evidence will be offered in §3, suggesting that incrementality in the application of phrase structure building operation Merge justifies a genuine necessity of considering linearization as a core syntactic component. This evidence will include contrasts in constituency tests, such as coordination, fronting, and binding (Phillips, 1996, 2003; §4.1), the “leftward” bias for movement (Abels & Neeleman, 2012; Cinque, 2005; Kayne, 2020; §4.2), and subject islands, parasitic gaps constructions, and preposition-stranding vs pied-piping preferences (Bianchi & Chesi, 2014, 2015; §4.3). The relevance of the notion of phase (§13. Phase theory) and workspace in terms of linearization constraints will be discussed in §4.4. A theoretical consideration (the “telepathy paradox”) will precede the conclusion of this chapter, showing in which sense the discussed asymmetries should be necessarily originated from narrow syntax.

Linearization (as part of Core Syntax)

cristiano chesi
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2022

Abstract

Linear order is a precedence relation, namely a total strict order , defined between any terminal item (word/morpheme) in a pronounced sentence. No consensus either on the source of this constraint (Phonetic Form [PF] requirement or part of core syntax) or on its unicity (§31. Linearization - Idsardi & Raimi) is present yet. The mainstream perspective considers linearization as a byproduct of the monodimensional reduction, imposed by the Sensory Motor (SM) system, of the bidimensional (dominance and sisterhood) phrase structure. In these pages, I present what I believe to be the least common denominator of the minority perspective that considers a relevant part of linearization as strictly dependent on the asymmetric nature of the hierarchical structure. From this viewpoint, the induction of linear order is in fact a component of narrow syntax. Eventually, I discuss the hypothesis that the source of the relevant asymmetries is the incrementality of phrase structure building as it flows in time. The chapter is structured as follows: a brief introduction to the nature of a “genuine explanation” in grammatical theorizing will set the stage (§2). The presentation of an influential hypothesis connecting asymmetric C-command with linear order, which is Kayne’s Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA; Kayne, 1994), will follow (§2). This section will show how the LCA intuition can be fruitfully maintained in minimalist (probe-goal) terms. Crucial empirical evidence will be offered in §3, suggesting that incrementality in the application of phrase structure building operation Merge justifies a genuine necessity of considering linearization as a core syntactic component. This evidence will include contrasts in constituency tests, such as coordination, fronting, and binding (Phillips, 1996, 2003; §4.1), the “leftward” bias for movement (Abels & Neeleman, 2012; Cinque, 2005; Kayne, 2020; §4.2), and subject islands, parasitic gaps constructions, and preposition-stranding vs pied-piping preferences (Bianchi & Chesi, 2014, 2015; §4.3). The relevance of the notion of phase (§13. Phase theory) and workspace in terms of linearization constraints will be discussed in §4.4. A theoretical consideration (the “telepathy paradox”) will precede the conclusion of this chapter, showing in which sense the discussed asymmetries should be necessarily originated from narrow syntax.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12076/11241
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact