Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of - UMR 7023 - CNRS

178
If the interpretable properties of lexical items are used only in the external
systems where they are legible, syntax reduces to a bare assembly system: the
combinator Merge, with simple choices of ways of application like no-tampering
and cyclic spell-out, yielding recursive arrangements suitable to realization and interpretation.
The interpretation of wh-words might require them to occur in an argument
position and in a position scoping over a question (Karttunen 1977, Hagstrom
2003). Syntax may then operate without reference to these requirements. Of
the objects it blindly constructs, only those with suitable wh-chains are interpretable.
The same might go for other properties of wh-dependencies like superiority
(Chomsky 1995: 387 note 69, 2008: 151f., 161 note 52, Ginzburg and Sag 2000:
6.6.2). If so, syntax need never refer to any properties involved in wh- or perhaps
more generally A'-dependencies, any more than to thematic properties in selection
(Chomsky 2008: 151f.).
However, a certain core of syntactic dependencies is not reducible to the external
systems in this manner, among them phi-agreement, Case, perhaps Amovement
(Chomsky 2000a: 119-122, 2000b: 12-15, 2001: 3-5, 2008: 154f.; cf.
Culicover and Jackendoff 2005: 22). They have a syntactic profile like whmovement,
such as operation over phrase-structurally unbounded constrained by
cyclicity and islands, unlike both PF (e.g. opaque agreement, chapter 2), and LF
(e.g. quantifier-variable binding, chapter 1). Yet neither LF nor PF seem to motivate
them. Chomsky (2000a: 113) takes them to render the Interpretability Condition
(27)b "transparently false".
Examples (270) and (271) illustrate these observations. No interpretation accrues
to two primes or tabs in virtue of being an agreeing nominative or a nonagreeing
accusative, so these dependencies seem to lack LF motivation (chapter 1).
Even their A-movement does not seem driven by interpretation, particularly for idiom
chunks like tabs, which lack referential and quantificational content (chapter
6). PF requirements also may not be a good candidate, insofar as they may systematically
lack overt expression, as Case does on English nonpronouns, agreement
on English past tense verbs, and covert A-movement. Yet even when not
overtly realized, the dependencies are ascertainably present, for instance by the
Case Filter which can detect that a DP has Case (see below), and anaphora binding
which reveals covert or 'backward' A-movement (Polinsky and Potsdam 2006). 129
(270) a. She showed [there to be two primes-ACC in the set].
b. There were shown [to be two primes-NOM in the set].
c. Two primes-NOM were shown [to be __ in the set].
(for Icelandic examples with overt case, see section 5.5)
(271) a. I believe [there to have been tabs-ACC kept on Jane Fonda].
b. There are believed [to have been tabs-ACC kept on Jane Fonda].
c. Tabs-NOM are believed [to have been kept __ on Jane Fonda].
129 For the force of the Case Filter, see section 5.9.