IS AGREE LABELING?
講師：Prof. T. Daniel Seely（Eastern Michigan University）
日時：2016 年 6 月 10 日（金）15:00-18:00
会場：慶應義塾大学三田キャンパス東館 8 階ホール
参加費無料 申込不要（使用言語：英語；セミナー形式）
This exploratory talk considers the proposal that
(1) The operation Agree is reducible to the shared prominent feature option of the PoP(+) labeling algorithm (LA).
rd
Suppose there is no separate Agree operation. Rather Agree is reducible to PoP(+)’s independently motivated (by 3factor) LA (cf. Chomsky 2014, Chomsky 2015), which itself is essentially minimal search. Such a reduction of Agreewould be part of the larger goal of maximizing the explanatory effects of simplest Merge, (see Epstein, Kitahara, Seelyrd2015, among others) combined with Bare Output Conditions and 3 factor explanations. The ultimate (and perhaps
unattainable?) goal is to posit internal to the NS as little as possible beyond simplest Merge, striving for (2):rd(2) Simplest Merge + 3 factor + interfaces = I-Language.
PoP(+) argues that labels are not represented in the syntax (see also Collins (2002), Seely (2006)). The sole structurebuilding operation, Merge, takes the simplest form: Merge(X, Y) -> {X, Y}. Merge puts two objects into a relation(into a set); there is no added (and complicating) ‘projection’ component of Merge whereby labels are created by theapplication of Merge and receive a dedicated representation in a Syntactic Object, SO (cf Seely (2006)). What
becomes of labels and projection in PoP(+)? ‘Labels’ are the means of identifying a syntactic object for interpretation.
But since interpretation takes place only at the interfaces, then labels are only required at the interfaces (and are notrequired internal to the narrow syntax); see Obata (2016) for recent discussion. PoP(+) proposes that what arereferred to as ‘labels’ are essentially the result of minimal search: “The simplest assumption is that LA is just minimal
search, presumably appropriating a third factor principle, as in Agree and other operations.” (PoP, p. 43).
We suggest a similar line of argument for Agree. Agree is required only for the interface(s) (because unvalued
features require values only at the interfaces); there is no NS internal representation of it. The conceptual ideal is this:rdwhat is traditionally called Agree is basically 3 factor minimal computation; “Agree” essentially is the Shared
Prominent Feature labeling option. We explore a number of ways of implementing a reduction of Agree to Labeling.
The basic idea is that in a SO like (3)(3) {C, {2 {n, ...}, {1 T, … }}Minimal search finds X (= n) and Y (= T) of XP, YP, where X=valued phi and Y=unvalued phi. Relative to NS, Agree justis this minimal search. Just as a label is identified via minimal search, so is ‘valuation.’ So, at this point in the derivation,
T’s unvalued phi become valued and hence T can label. What is traditionally referred to as valuation is simply a reflex
rdof identity under minimal search, itself an instantiation of the 3 factor principle of minimal computation. Ideally, nothingrd
more is needed. Agree is reduced to PoP(+) labeling (itself reduced to 3 Factor Minimal search).
The talk will provide a detailed review of labels in syntactic theory and will then review the labeling algorithm of PoP(+).
We then review the operation Agree as Probe-goal + Valuation. Next, we’ll explore the possibility of collapsing Agreewith Labeling: Agree just is the shared prominent feature option of LA, which means Agree is essentially minimal
search (3rd factor). Finally, we’ll consider challenges to the proposal including existential constructions.

主催：慶應義塾大学言語文化研究所
協力：慶應義塾大学次世代研究プロジェクト B<お問い合わせ先>〒108-8345 港区三田 2-15-45 慶應義塾大学言語文化研究所
電話：03-5427-1595 (事務室直通) メール: genbu@icl.keio.ac.jp
http://www.icl.keio.ac.jp