To appear in Tetsuya Sano et al., (eds.) An Enterprise in the Cognitive Science of Language: A
Festschrift for Yukio Otsu, Tokyo: Hituzi Syoboo.

Order in Narrow Syntax and PF:
Toward a Theory of Word Order Variations*Kensuke Takita

1. Introduction
This paper addresses the question of how syntactic structures are linearized in alanguage, focusing on the three schematic structures in (1).
(1)

a. [XP ... X0 [YP ... Y0 [ZP ... Z0 ...]]]: Consistently head-initial orderb. [XP ... [YP ... Y0 [ZP ... Z0 ...]] X0]: Mixed orderc. [XP ... [YP ... [ZP ... ... Z0] Y0] X0]: Consistently head-final order

The structure in (1a) schematizes languages like Italian, and the one in (1c)Japanese. The one in (1b) is found in Chinese languages like Mandarin andTaiwanese. (1b) is particularly interesting given the Head Parameter, since in thisstructure, XP seems to be head-final, whereas YP and ZP seem to be head-initial.
Recently, several researchers have argued that the surface head-final
structures in Chinese languages are derived by the underlying head-initialstructures (see Simpson and Wu 2002, Lin 2006 and Takita 2007b, among others).
Furthermore, claiming that the head-final type C0 is the head of higher CP in themultiple-CP layers (Rizzi 1997), and that the surface head-final order is derived
by movement of the lower CP to the Spec of the higher CP, Hsieh (2006) and
Hsieh and Sybesma (2007) propose an analysis which employs Moro’s (2000)
idea of Dynamic Antisymmetry. To be more specific, assuming that each C0 in themultiple CP is a phase (Chomsky 2000, 2001), they propose the Max spell out
principle, which states that the entire phase is spelled out if all the uninterpretablefeatures have been checked within it, and it forces the lower CP to be an “atom,”which is invisible to the computational system. When this atom is Merged withthe higher C0, the “point of symmetry” emerges, so the lower CP moves for1

“symmetry-breaking.” Let us call this the Dynamic Antisymmetry (DA)-analysis.
The basic tenet of the DA-analysis is that Syntactic Objects (SOs) are not orderedin narrow syntax, and linear order is determined by some linearization procedure
like the LCA (Kayne 1994) on the way to the PF-interface.
Given the DA-analysis, an interesting question arises; how to explain theordering in (1a) and (1c)? According to the DA-analysis, a head-final structure
signals that there is a point of symmetry, i.e., a phase. If so, the following
consequence should be obtained; the consistent head-directionality in (1a) and(1c) suggests that there is no phase in (1a) and that each maximal projection is aphase in (1c). This is both theoretically and empirically undesirable, given thatphase heads are restricted to C0 and v0 (Chomsky 2000, 2001). Furthermore,
recent studies argue that something like the Head Parameter is necessary (seeSaito and Fukui 1998 for a comparison of English and Japanese; for Mandarin
and Japanese, see Lin, Murasugi and Saito 2006 and Takita 2007a). In this paper,
we try to explain the three ordering patterns in (1) unifying the insight of theDA-analysis with the theory which incorporates the effects of the HeadParameter.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we point out that Italianseems to be a counterexample to the DA-analysis, but it can be dealt with byparameterizing the “symmetry breaker.” Then, Section 3 shows that Japanese is areal counterexample, and argues for Saito and Fukui’s (1998) formulation ofMerge. Finally, to reconcile the two analyses, we propose that it should be
parameterized whether Merge determines the order. Section 4 is a conclusion.
2. Ordering in PF: Chinese and Italian
2.1. DA-analysis of ChineseFirst, let us clarify the DA-analysis of Chinese. Hsieh (2006) and Hsieh andSybesma (2007) discuss that Chinese languages have two types of C0:(2)

Head-initial CP (Hsieh 2006: 3)
a. wo zhidao [CP (shuo) [TP ni shi Taiwan ren]]
I knowCOMP
you be Taiwan people‘I know that you are Taiwanese.’2(Mandarin)

(3)b. hit-king hothelu b.etang [CP *(kong) [TP ciann kui]] (Taiwanese)that-CL
hotel NEG.can
COMPvery expensive‘That hotel is not likely to be very expensive.’
Head-final CP (Hsieh and Sybesma 2007: 4)
a. dàodĭ
shì shénme dōngxi ne?
(Mandarin)in.the.end be whatthing SFP
‘What on earth is it then?’b. ima b.ohuantui ma honn
(Taiwanese)s/he too NEG.have objection SFP SFP‘(you know,) s/he did not have any objection, either, right?’

The complementizer-type C0 shuo and kong in (2) precede the embedded clauses,
whereas the sentence-final particles (SFPs) ne, ma, and honn in (3), which
express speaker-oriented information (see also Li 2006), follow the clauses.
Besides, in some circumstances they can occur in a same clause (Hsieh 2006: 4):(4)

a. [CP ruguo shuo [TP ni
bu chi-fan] de-hua], ... (Mandarin)
IFADV
COMP
you NEG eat-meal IF‘If you don’t eat, (then) ...’
b. [CP kong [TP abing patli]la](Taiwanese)
COMP
p.n. know Chinese character SFP‘(I am surprised that) Abing knows (how to read) Chinese character!’

Notice that these examples instantiate the schematic structure in (1b).
To explain them uniformly, the DA-analysis proposes that Chinese languages
have the underlying structure in (5a), and that CP2 moves to Spec, CP1, as in (5b).
(5)

a. [CP1 C10 [CP2 ... C20 [TP ...]]],
where C1 = SFPs and C2 = complementizer types.
b. [CP1 [CP2 ... C20 [TP ...]] [C’1 C10
tCP2]]

Thus, C10s always appear sentence-finally, even if C20 is morphologically null.
The reason why CP2 moves comes from the combination of the Max spell out
3principle in (6) and the theory of symmetry-breaking.
(6)

Max Spell Out (Hsieh and Sybesma 2007: 10)
Always spell out the entire phase. Phases are spelled out as soon as all
uninterpretable features have been removed.

Given (6), phases are spelled out once it has completed, rendering its internal
structure inaccessible. Thus, CP2 in (7a) turns into an atom x, or a “giant lexicalcompound” in the sense of Uriagereka (1999). At the next step in (7b), the atom x
is Merged with C10. Given the LCA, (7b) is unlinearizable since x and C10
mutually c-command each other. One way to rescue the structure is to move x toSpec, CP1, creating an asymmetric c-command relation, as in (7c). This
movement is called symmetry-breaking movement.
(7)a. [CP2 C20 [TP ... ]]
b.
CP1
C1 0

SPELL-OUT

x (= CP2)c.
CP1x (= CP2)x (= CP2)
C1 0

C’1
tx (= CP2)

Given that traces are not counted for linearization, (7c) is linearizable. In this way,
they solve the mysterious mixed ordering in Chinese languages.
2.2. An Apparent Counterexample and a Solution
As mentioned above, however, Italian poses a problem to the analysis. Since
Rizzi’s (1997, 1999) works, Italian is also proposed to have the following highly
structured CP (Top = topic, Int = interrogative, Foc = focus, and Fin = finiteness):(8)

Fine Structure of the Left Periphery (adapted from Rizzi 1999: 3)[Force [(Top*) [Int [(Top*) [Foc [(Top*) [Fin [IP ...]]]]]]]]che ‘that’se ‘if’di ‘of’4

The examples in (9) and (10) illustrate that che ‘that’ must precede both Clitic
Left Dislocated (CLLD, Cinque 1990) topics which are in Spec, TopP (indicatedby underlines) and Contrastive foci which are in Spec, FocP (indicated bycapitals). Hence, ForceP is assumed to be the structurally highest, as in (8).
(9)

(10)

Relative Order of che ‘that’ and CLLDed Topics (Rizzi 1999: 1)
a. Maria crede che, il tuo libro, lo potrà leggere.
‘Maria believes that, your book, she will be able to read it.’b. * Maria crede, il tuo libro, che lo potrà leggere.
‘Maria believes, your book, that (she) will be able to read it.’
Relative Order of che ‘that’ and Contrastive Foci (Rizzi 1999: 2)
a. Credo che QUESTO avreste dovuto dirgi (non qualcos’altro).
‘I believe that THIS you should have said to him, not something else.’
b. * Credo QUESTO che avreste dovuto dirgli (non qualcos’altro).
‘I believe THIS that you should have said to him, not something else.’

On the other hand, as shown in (11), the head of FinP di ‘of’, which selects an
infinitival as its complement, cannot precede a CLLDed topic.
(11)

Relative Order of di ‘of’ and CLLDed Topics (Rizzi 1999: 1-2)
a. *Maria crede di, il tuo libro, poterlo leggere.
‘Maria believes of, your book, to be able to read it.’b. Maria crede, il tuo libro, di poterlo leggere.
‘Maria believes, your book, of to be able to read it.’Thus, FinP is claimed to be the lowest in the hierarchy.1
Finally, it can be confirmed by the examples in (12) and (13) that the head of
IntP se ‘if’, which introduces an embedded yes/no-question, is located in-betweenche ‘that’ and di ‘of’, and is structurally higher than FocusP.
(12)

Relative Order of se ‘if’ and CLLDed Topics (Rizzi 1999: 3)
a. Non so se, a Gianni, avrebbero potuto dirgli la verità.
‘I don’t know if to Gianni, they could have said the truth.’
5

(13)

b. Non so, a Gianni, se avrebbero potuto dirgli la verità.
‘I don’t know, to Gianni, if they could have said the truth.’
Relative Order of se ‘if’ and Contrastive Foci (Rizzi 1999: 2)
a. Mi domando se QUESTO gli volessero dire (non qualcos’altro).
‘I wonder if THIS they wanted to say to him, not something else.’
b. * Mi domando QUESTO se gli volessero dire (non qualcos’altro).
‘I wonder THIS if they wanted to say to him, not something else.’

By transitivity, the fact that both orderings of se ‘if’ and a CLLDed topic are
possible in (12) suggests that se ‘if’ occupies a position higher than di ‘of’ andlower than che ‘that’. Meanwhile, the position has to be higher than FocP, whichhosts focused phrases, because se ‘if’ cannot follow the focused phase. Based onthese facts, Rizzi (1997, 1999) proposes the structure in (8).
Recall that under the DA-analysis, if there are multiple-CP layers, the lower
CP has to move, rendering the higher C0 sentence-final. Given that “thecomplementizer system minimally consists of a specification of force, accessible
to higher selection, and a specification of finiteness, selecting a finite (ornon-finite) IP” (Rizzi 1997: 325), at least two C0s, i.e., Force0 and Fin0, have tobe projected in a non-truncated structure. Therefore, in Italian, che ‘that’ and se‘if’ should follow the entire clause, contrary to the facts:(14)

Order of C10 and its Complement in Italiana. ... [CP1 C10 [CP2 C20 [TP ...]]]
unexpected under the DA-analysis
00b. * ... [CP1 [CP2 C2 [TP ...]] C1 ]expected under the DA-analysis

Note that the fact that only (14a) is attested in Italian cannot be attributed to thefact the lower C20 is morphologically null because the higher C10 in Chinese also
follows its complement even if C20 is null (see (3)). Another possible explanation
is to claim that the lower C20 in Italian is not a phase. If so, however, it is unclear
why C20 is a phase in Chinese and it is not in Italian.
We claim that Italian is NOT a counterexample, however. In fact, we argue
that Italian completes the DA-analysis. First, let us reconsider what moves in
Chinese and why it moves. (15) schematically illustrates the derivation of the6relevant Chinese examples (see also (7)).
(15)

Derivation of C10-final Structures
a. [CP2 C20 [TP ... ]] SPELL-OUT
x (= CP2): CP2 turns into an atom x.
b. [CP1 C10 x]: C10 Merges with x, rendering the structure unlinearizable.
c. [CP1 x [C’1 C10 tx]]: Movement of x breaks the symmetry.

Here, x (= CP2) moves to linearize the structure. That is, CP2 is a “symmetry
breaker.” Notice that there is another way to break the symmetry; to move C10.
(16)

Derivation of C10-initial Structures
a. [CP2 C20 [TP ... ]] SPELL-OUT
x (= CP2): CP2 turns into an atom x.
b. [CP1 C10 x]: C10 Merges with x, rendering the structure unlinearizable.
c. [CP1 C10 [C’1 tC10 x]]: Movement of C10 breaks the symmetry.

This derivation results in consistently head-initial structures in (1a). Thus, we
propose that the difference between Chinese and Italian can be captured byproposing the following parameter:(17)

Symmetry Breaker Parameter
If a structure contains a point of symmetry, break it bya. moving a phrasal atom (= Chinese), orb. moving a head atom (= Italian).

This parameter is natural since it exhausts all the logical possibilities. Otherwise,
it has to be explained why only the phrasal atoms can break the symmetry.
One may claim that the reason why a head cannot be a symmetry breaker isdue to the ban on Head-to-Spec movement. If this is correct, however, thedifference between Chinese and Italian is left unexplained. Besides, the ban itself
is subject to a question (see Matushansky 2006 and references cited therein).
Despite this, suppose that Head-to-Spec movement is generally illicit. Evenso, the proposed Head-to-Spec movement can be licit, however. Let us reconsider
why Head-to-Spec movement has been prohibited in the literature. The structures7

in (18a) and (18b) schematize two possibilities of Head-to-Spec movement.
(18)

a.

XP
Y0

b.
X0

X’
X0

X’
tX0

YP
tY0

XP

...

YP
...

In (18a), Y0 moves to Spec, XP, whose head is distinct from Y0. Under the Bare
Phrase Structure theory (Chomsky 1995), projections are defined relationally.
Thus, in (18a) Y0 is maximal in its landing site, but it is not in its original position.
Hence, this movement is illicit, violating the Uniformity Condition on Chains(Chomsky 1995), which requires each link of a chain to be uniform. On the other
hand, in (18b), X0 moves to the Spec of itself, and this is what happens in (16c).
In this case, X0 can be a maximal projection in the both positions, because both
positions are dominated by XP. Therefore, this movement can be licit.
Summarizing this section, we first reviewed the DA-analysis briefly, andpointed out that Italian seems to be problematic. Then, by proposing theSymmetry Breaker Parameter, we argued that the problem can be solved.
3. Ordering in Narrow Syntax: Japanese
As we have shown above, out of the three types of ordering in (1), (1a) and (1b)can be captured by the revised DA-analysis. This section discusses the orderingin (1c), i.e., the Japanese-type, arguing that the revised DA-analysis fails to
explain this pattern unless it assumes that T0 is also a phase head. To capture thisordering, we claim that Saito and Fukui’s (1998) formulation of Merge isnecessary. Meanwhile, to maintain the revised DA-analysis of Chinese and
Italian-type languages, we also propose a parameter that distinguishes Japanesefrom Chinese/Italian, which we call the Ordering Merge Parameter.
83.1. A Real Counterexample
The Japanese example in (19) instantiates the consistently head-final order in (1c)under the standard analysis of Japanese syntax.2(19)

a. Taroo-ga [CP [TP Hanako-ga [vP hon-okat] -ta] to]it-ta.
p.n.-NOM
p.n.-NOM
book-ACC buy -PAST COMP say-PAST‘Taro said that Hanako bought a book.’b. ... [CP ... [TP ... [vP ... V0] T0] C0] ...

What is crucial here is that T0 -ta and C0 to follow vP and TP respectively. Let us
consider how this ordering is analyzed under the revised DA-analysis.
If we assume that phase heads are only C0 and v0, and an uninterpretable Casefeature [CASE] on a subject is checked by T0, the derivation proceeds as follows:(20)

a. [vP Subj[CASE] ... V0]: vP is not spelled out because of [CASE]
b. [TP Subj[CASE] T0 [vP tsubj ... V0]]: T0 is Merged with vP.
c. [CP C0 [TP Subj[CASE] T0 [vP tSubj ... V0]]]: C0 is Merged with TP.

Max spell out does not allow the whole vP to be spelled out in (20a), since [CASE]
on the subject is not checked. As a result, its internal structure is visible when T0
is Merged with it, so that T0 can asymmetrically c-command its interior.
Therefore, the structure can be linearized with T0-V0 order, contrary to the fact.
The same thing happens when C0 and TP are Merged, since T0 is not a phase by
assumption, so that C0 can asymmetrically c-command inside of TP.
Suppose that vP can be spelled out in some way. The fact that T0 follows vPsuggests that in Japanese, a phrasal atom breaks the symmetry. If so, however, thefact C0 follows TP suggests that T0 is also a phase head. This is obviously
undesirable under the view of restricting the phase candidates. Besides, if TP isalso a phase, why C20 precedes TP in Chinese-type languages is left unexplained.
3.2. Solution and Consequence
Recall that the DA-analysis crucially assumes that SOs are not ordered within
narrow syntax, but they are ordered on the way to the PF-interface by the LCA.
9

This assumption is natural since Merge is an operation on sets, creating anunordered set, and linear order does not play any role in the LF-interface. In thismodel, the PF-interface is equipped with some kind of a linearization procedure,
which is applied to the otherwise unpronounceable output of narrow syntax.
This model, however, is not free from objections. Saito and Fukui (1998)
propose the following definition of Merge, which incorporates the effects of the
Head Parameter (Saito and Fukui 1998: 452):(21)

K = {γ, <α, β>}, where γ {α, β}a. γ = α: head-initial, left-headedb. γ = β: head-final, right-headed

That is, Merge directly specifies the order of a selector and a selectee. Note that
under this definition of Merge, we call it Ordering Merge, SOs have been alreadyordered in narrow syntax. Hence, the input to the LF-interface also has an order.
Following Saito and Fukui (1998), suppose that Japanese selects the value of(21b). This choice correctly derives the structure in (19b) with the required order.
Note that the troublesome symmetry-breaking movement of vP and TP, whichshould be unavoidable under the DA-analysis, is no longer necessary under theOrdering Merge analysis. It is not necessary because symmetry-breaking
movement takes place is to make the structure linearizable, but the structure has
already been linearizable via Ordering Merge. Hence, no movement is required.
The next question, then, is whether it is possible to reconcile these twoanalyses. Let us consider the following two points; (i) relations between linear
orders and the LF-interface, and (ii) points of linearization in the grammar.
For the first point, the DA-analysis assumes that linear order plays no role,and it does not even under the Ordering Merge analysis. The crucial difference iswhether the input to the LF-interface has linear order or not. Meanwhile, in bothanalyses, the input can have the hierarchical structure. This input can becomputed if what semantics cares about is the hierarchy of elements alone and if
it can ignore linear order. Stated differently, the idea is that for semantics, [John[love Mary]] crucially differs from [Mary [love John]], but [John [love Mary]]
does not differ from [John [Mary love]]. If so, the two analyses are compatible.
10Concerning the second point, under the DA-analysis, linearization takes place
after spell out, while it is before spell out under the Ordering Merge analysis.
Here, we propose the following parameter to avoid this contradiction:(22)

Ordering Merge Parametera. Merge directly specifies linear order (= Japanese), orb. Merge does not specify linear order (= Chinese/Italian).

If (22a) is chosen, Ordering Merge applies, directly specifying linear order within
narrow syntax (varying whether a selector precedes a selectee or not), while if(22b) is chosen, the LCA linearizes the otherwise unpronounceable output ofnarrow syntax after spell out. The idea is that given that SOs eventually have to
be linearized until the PF-interface, and that semantics can ignore it, it should bepossible to determine linear order within narrow syntax or on the way to the
PF-interface. (23) roughly visualizes this idea (multiple spell out is omitted here).
(23)
LexicalArray

Ordering Merge applies, linearizing the structure (J)LF
PF
LCA applies, linearizing the structure (C/I)

In this way, we can unify the two analyses into one model.
One consequence of this unified analysis is that it can capture the unexpectedlack of the Subject Condition effect in Japanese, maintaining Nunes andUriagereka’s (2000) explanation of the CED-effect. They propose that subjects
and adjuncts, which are indicated by shading, have to be spelled out before they
are Merged with the clause, unless they become LCA-incompatible with respect
to the rest of the clause (slightly modified from Nunes and Uriagereka 2000: 21):(24)

a. *[CP [which politician]i did [IP [pictures of ti] upset the voters]]?
b. * [CP [which paper]i did [IP you read Don Quixote [PP before filing ti]]]?

Since the interior of them has become opaque, i.e., turned into an atom by spell
11

out, nothing can be extracted from inside.
This explanation predicts that the CED-effect should hold universally. This
expectation, however, is not borne out. It is observed that Japanese lacks the
Subject Condition effect (see Lasnik and Saito 1992, among many others):(25)

a ?? Dare-oi Mary-ga [NP John-ga ti tatai-ta koto]-o hihansi-ta
no?
who-ACC p.n.-NOM p.n.-NOM hit-PAST fact-ACC criticize-PAST Q‘(lit.) Whoi did Mary criticize [the fact that John hit ti]?’b. ?? Dare-oi Mary-ni [NP John-ga ti tatai-ta koto]-ga hihans-are-ta no?
who-ACC p.n.-by p.n.-NOM hit-past fact-NOM criticize-PASS-PAST Q‘(lit.) Whoi was [the fact that John hit ti] criticized by Mary?’

Recall that under Nunes and Uriagereka’s (2000) explanation, spell out ofsubjects is required unless the LCA cannot linearize them. Under our analysis ofJapanese, however, subjects are not required to be turned into an atom, since theirorder can be determined via Ordering Merge. Meanwhile, we can maintain theirinsight of reducing the CED to multiple spell out by assuming that English
choices Chinese/Italian value of the Ordering Merge Parameter, i.e., (22b).3
4. Concluding Remarks: Epilogue and Prologue4
Let us summarize the whole picture, combining the Ordering Merge Parameter(22) with the Symmetry Breaker Parameter (17):(26)

Does Ordering Merge apply?
Yes

No

Which way?
selector-initial

selector-final----

Japanese

Who breaks symmetry?
phrasal atoms

head atoms

Mandarin/Taiwanese Italian/English

In this way, this paper captures the three types of ordering in (1), unifying theinsight of the DA-analysis and Saito and Fukui’s (1998) idea which incorporates
the Head Parameter to the definition of Merge. It is also argued that the difference
12between Japanese and English in the Subject Condition effect can be captured
maintaining Nunes and Uriagereka’s (2000) explanation of the CED-effect.
Obviously, there are so many things to be worked out. For instance, we haveto find the “reverse Japanese,” which is consistently head-initial and allows only
rightward movement, to fulfill the leftmost branch of (26). Another task is tocompare this analysis with other theories of linearization such as Fox and
Pesetsky (2005). We leave these tasks for future research.
Notes*

First of all, I would like to show my deepest gratitude to Yukio Otsu, who led me to the

cognitive science of language. Without him, I would not be here. I also thank Giuliano Bocci,
Jean Crawford, Chisato Fuji, Tomo Fujii, Keiko Murasugi, Ian Roberts, and especially
Mamoru Saito for their comments and discussion. The usual disclaimers apply.
1

Contrastive foci cannot co-occur with di ‘of’ for an independent reason in either order. We
thank Giuliano Bocci for pointing this out.

2

The position of subjects is not relevant here. We also omit the difference between V0 and

v0 for expository purposes.
3

Yet, it is also observed that Japanese obeys the Adjunct Condition. Following Stepanov(2001), however, we assume that extraction from adjuncts is impossible because adjuncts are
introduced to the derivation after the probe has searched its domain.
4

The title of this section “Epilogue and Prologue” has been borrowed from Otsu (1981).

References
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on
minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, Juan Uriagereka, andDavid Michaels, 89-151. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael
Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’-dependences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical
Linguistics 31: 1-45.
Hsieh, Feng-Fan. 2006. Atoms and particle. Ms., MIT.
13

Hsieh, Feng-Fan, and Rint Sybesma. 2007. On the linearization of the Chinese sentence final
particles: Max spell out and why CP moves. Ms., MIT and Leiden University.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Li, Boya. 2006. Chinese final particles and the syntax of the periphery. Doctoral dissertation,
Leiden University.
Lin, T.-H. Jonah. 2006. Complement-to-specifier movement in Mandarin Chinese. Ms.,
National Tsing Hua University.
Lin, T.-H. Jonah, Keiko Murasugi, and Mamoru Saito. 2006. N’-ellipsis and the structure ofnoun phrases in Chinese and Japanese. Paper presented at Syntax Workshop, Nanzan
University, August 2006.
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head-movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69-109.
Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Nunes, Jairo, and Juan Uriagereka. 2000. Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3: 20-43.
Otsu, Yukio 1981. Universal Grammar and syntactic development in children: Toward atheory of syntactic development. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbookof generative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1999. On the position of “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. Ms.,
Università di Siena.
Saito, Mamoru, and Naoki Fukui. 1998. Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic
Inquiry 29: 439-474.
Simpson, Andrew, and Zoe Wu. 2002. IP-raising, tone sandhi and the creation of S-final
particles: Evidence for cyclic spell-out. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 67-99.
Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. The end of CED? In The Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on
Formal Linguistics 20, 524-537. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
Takita, Kensuke. 2007a. Chinese is head-initial. How about Japanese? Paper presented at
Workshop on Formal Syntax, National Tsing Hua University, March 2007.
Takita, Kensuke. 2007b. An argument for the derivational reformulation of the Proper Binding
Condition. Paper presented at 4th Workshop on Altaic in Formal Linguistics, Harvard
University, May 2007.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism, ed. Samuel Epstein andNorbert Hornstein, 251-282. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
14