On a Weak-Phases Paradox
Tomonori Otsuka
Kyushu University
Chomsky (2008) introduces a theoretical assumption of Feature Inheritance; a phasehead has an Edge Feature (EF) and an uninterpretable Agreement Feature (u-AF), the latterof which is transmitted onto a head of the complement. Richards (2007) offers theoreticalsupport for this by arguing that u-AF has to be Transferred when checked and that thisrequires it to be in a complement of a phase because the phase head is not transferred then.
This framework, however, causes a paradox concerning weak-phases. In Phase Theory,
two types of phases exist, namely strong- and weak-phases. In weak-phases, the Phase
Impenetrability Condition (PIC), which bans access of syntactic operations of a relevant phase
to a complement of another lower phase, does not hold. Thus, as shown in (1), the DP’s
A-movement from inside of the complement of the weak-phase vP is accepted.
(1) John was hit.
okJohni was [vP [VP hit ti]]
PIC follows from the assumption that an upper phase cannot access a lower phase’scomplement since it is transferred once the lower phase is formed. Therefore, the absence ofPIC violation suggests that Transfer is not triggered. Since checked u-AFs have to beTransferred, Transfer cannot be separated from feature-checking. Thus, weak-phases’ nottriggering Transfer implies their not involving feature-checking. This logic is schematized in(2).
(2) uninterpretable features → checking → Transfer
・If weak-phase heads involve feature-checking, they should trigger Transfer⇒weak-phases cannot involve feature-checking so that they cannot trigger Transfer
Legate (2003), however, shows the examples in (3) and claims that weak-phase heads
have an EF. In order to be interpreted properly, wh-elements in (3) must have an intermediate
copy between every man and her. (3a) has the intermediate position marked as “^,” whereas(3b) does not, resulting in an unacceptable sentence. Since these are passive sentences, thisimplies that the intermediate position in (3a) is the Spec-vP and therefore vP must have an EFto attract the wh-element. In addition, the inflection on V in French in (4) implies that v has au-AF as well, since in Chomsky’s (2008) framework, only phase heads can have u-features thatare transmitted onto the head of the complement.
(3) a.

[At which of the parties that hei invited Maryj to] was every mani ^ introduced to herj * ?

b. * [At which of the parties that hei invited Maryj to] was shej * introduced to every mani * ?
(Legate (2003))(4) LesThechaisesontétérepaintés.

chairs.fem.pl

have.pl.

beenrepainted.fem.pl.fem.pl‘The chairs were repainted.’(Boeckx (2008))

Here we face a paradox; as (3) and (4) show, weak-phases do have an EF and a u-AF,whereas (2) means that weak-phases should not involve feature-checking. In this presentation,
I demonstrate that the paradox can be explained by the introduction of Feature-Copying,
which is an extension of Feature Inheritance. I assume that weak-phase heads themselves do
not have features but that they receive them from strong-phase heads above.
Feature-Copying

Strong-Phase

Weak-Phase

Strong-Phase

Weak-Phase

Head

Head

Head

Head

{EF, u-AF}{ ,{EF, u-AF}{EF, u-AF}}⇒

Additionally, because weak-phase heads serve as strong-phase heads after they getfeatures, Feature-Copying induces two possibilities; 1) a weak-phase head triggers operations
simultaneously with an upper strong-phase head, 2) a weak-phase head triggers operations
independently. With this mechanism, I demonstrate that a variety of phenomena can be
explained. One of them is a case variety in Japanese shown in (5).
(5) a. Taro-wa Hanako-outsukushi-i
toomot-ta.
Taro-TOP Hanako-ACC beautiful-be COMP consider-PAST‘Taro considered that Hanako (ACC) was beautiful’b. Taro-wa Hanako-ga
utsukushi-i
toomot-ta.
Taro-TOP Hanako-NOM beautiful-be COMP consider-PAST(Ura (2007))‘Taro considered that Hanako (NOM) was beautiful’In (5), Hanako can have either Nominative or Accusative case. Since Nominative case isassigned in (5b), the embedded clause must project to CP. If so, because inflectional patterns
are the same in (5a, b), the null-hypothesis suggests that both embedded clauses are CP.
Following Ura’s (2007) basic idea, I propose that verbs in this construction always selectweak-phase CP and that the two patterns of case manifestation can be explained by the two
induced possibilities of Feature-Copying noted above. Moreover, without Feature-Copying,
Accusative case assignment in (5a) causes PIC violation or Improper Movement.
(6) a. Taro-wa [VP Hanako-oi [CP [TP ti utsukushi-i] to] omot-ta]
PIC violation
Transfer Domainb. Taro-wa [VP Hanako-oi [CP ti [TP ti utsukushi-i] to] omot-ta]
Improper Movement
Transfer Domain
References
Boeckx, Cedric (2008) Understanding Minimalist Syntax: Lessons from Locality inLong-Distance Dependencies, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. by Freidin
et al, 133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Legate, J. Anne (2003) “Some Interface Properties of the Phase,” Linguistic Inquiry34,506-516.
Ura, Hiroyuki (2007) “Long-Distance Case Assignment in Japanese and Its Dialectal
Variation,” Gengo kenkyu 131, 1-43.
Richards, Marc D. (2007) “On Feature Inheritance: An Argument from the Phase
Impenetrability Condition,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 563-572.