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

26
1.4 Repairs at the interface
By and large, the well-formedness of a syntactic structure is decided by the
fixed content of lexical items. In the Minimalist Program, syntactic wellformedness
is determined by the possible ways of assembling and relating lexical
items in the syntax, and by the Full Interpretation requirements imposed on the
outcome. These two sources comprise the licensing conditions of other frameworks,
such as the X-bar and Case theory of Government and Binding. In syntax it
seems particularly clear that in the general case, well-formedness is not relativizable
to a given choice of lexical items or to a given target meaning, but absolute.
Syntactic structures may fail in many ways, and usually there is available neither a
repair that presses into service otherwise unavailable structures or interpretations,
nor a violation that suspends a well-formedness condition. Syntactic examples the
Coordinate Structure Constraint (34) and the Case Filter (35); extra-syntactic ones
come from a prosodic (36) and a binding constraint on pronouns (37). Violations
of the constraints are impossible; the potential repairs (in bold) do not help.
(34) a. Who set out for Pohjola __ along with Niera's son?
b. *Who set out for Pohjola __/he and Niera's son?
(Coordinate Structure Constraint)
(35) a. They showed sevenACC to be a prime.
b. *They showed herACC (*for) seven to be a prime.
(Case Filter, section 5.9)
(36) a. We bet (Kate) our book collection (*to/*for Kate).
b. We bet (*Kate) it (*to/*for Kate).
(Prosodic constraint on pronouns, section 2.1)
(37) a. Billi and Mary must be ashamed of him*i / *himselfi / hisi behaviour.
b. If wei+X each voted for *mei / *myselfi / *himi, how come we lost?
c. Nienori described them*i+j / *themselves / theiri+j meeting to Turinj.
d. Youi introduced mej to ?*usi+j/*ourselvesi+j/*themi+j/ouri+j group.
(Condition B in overlapping reference, section 4.4)
Such 'hard' ungrammaticality is the problem of unspeakable, 'ineffable' arrangements
of lexical items. It suggests that syntactic well-formedness involves
inviolable constraints and fixed properties of lexical items, not violable constraints
or modifiable lexical properties. That is that usual perspective on syntax, shared
by the core approaches of frameworks as diverse as Government and Binding, Relational
Grammar, and Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. It is not the only
perspective. Optimality Theory is a system specifically designed to permit constraint
violations. Early work in the Minimalist Program entertained limited violable
economy principles over both content and structure, favoring most economical
structures or derivations when possible, but permitting less economical ones as
last resort (Chomsky 1995, Cardinaletti and Starke 1999, Krifka 1998). Subsequent
inquiry revealed that some were unnecessary, incorrect, or the wrong way of
looking at a phenomenon (Reinhart 1995, 2006, Chomsky 1995, 2000a, Collins