Keio Linguistic Colloquium (online)：
Towards a genuine explanation in linguistic theory

慶應⾔語学コロキアム オンライン開催：
⾔語理論における真の説明の探究

理論的帰結と分析 (I) シークエンス形成と等位接続構造について
⼤宗純（関⻄外国語⼤学）

omune@kansaigaidai.ac.jp
July 31, 2021
1. ⻑年に渡る未解明の問題
Two problems we haven’t been able to handle at all:[1] 無限の⾮構造的シークエンス (unbounded unstructured sequences)-E.g., John, Bill, my friends left for the vacation.
-You can get that sequence as long as you want: it’s unbounded.
-It has no structure: it is ungenerable by any MERGE based system, by phrasestructure rules, by transformational rules.
[2] 主要部移動 (head movement)-Head movement (or internal pair-Merge) is not only against SMT but also
unformulable in any framework.
-It has no semantic consequences but seems to be cyclic (e.g. V-to-T-to-C): apparent
contradiction (part of externalization or the narrow syntax?).
What would be the minimal assumptions needed to incorporate both of theseunformulable matters within the domain of explanatory theory?

2. シークエンス
Every time you see a single XP like in John ran [exp. from Chomsky 2021], it’s basicallythe limiting case of a sequence.
(1)

a. John ran.
b. John, Bill, my friends... ran, danced, took a vacation...

(2)

Form Sequence: <(&), X1,...,Xn>

Jun Omune (Kansai Gaidai University)
Consequences I: Form Sequence and coordination1

Keio Linguistic Colloquium (online)：
Towards a genuine explanation in linguistic theory

慶應⾔語学コロキアム オンライン開催：
⾔語理論における真の説明の探究(3)

a. John lives [near the border] [next to a farm] [with his family]b. John lives [near the border], [next to a farm], and [with his family]-The true coordination (3b)i)

imposes a different prosody.

ii) imposes rigid structures (cf. (4): the coordinatestructure constraint).

(4)

a. which farm does John live near the border next to ___ with his familyb. * which farm does John live near the border next to ___ and with his family

The coordinate structure constraint can be reduced to matching conditions on

coordinations. We can assume that the coordinate structure constraint is just a special
case of strict matching conditions on coordinations (Riny Huybregts). If you pull out of
one element, you’ve got to pull out all of them otherwise the matching condition ismissed.
There are some semantic properties of the matching condition (classical rhetoricalZeugma):(5)a. John arrived early, met Bill, and got a good seatà can be independent eventsb. to arrive early, meet Bill, and get a good seat seems/*seem to be what Johnwantsc.

à a single event (vP&vP)

arriving early, meeting Bill, and getting a good seat seems/*seem to be what
John wants

à a single event (NP&NP)

d. to arrive early, to meet Bill, and to get a good seat seems/seem to be what Johnwants(6)à can be independent events (TP&TP)

a. John arrived at the hospital [in an ambulance] and [in a coma]à can be independent events (PP&PP)
b. * John arrived at the hospital in [an ambulance and a coma]
à a single event (NP&NP)
c.

John arrived at the hospital in [an ambulance and his street clothes]à a single event (NP&NP)

Jun Omune (Kansai Gaidai University)
Consequences I: Form Sequence and coordination2慶應⾔語学コロキアム オンライン開催：
⾔語理論における真の説明の探究

Keio Linguistic Colloquium (online)：
Towards a genuine explanation in linguistic theory[Chomsky 2021]
・ No Democrat had won Arizona and Georgia since Clinton [in 1992 and in an upset]
respectively

・ * No Democrat had won Arizona and Georgia since Clinton in [1992 and an upset]
respectively

3. シークエンスの⽣成⼿順
Let’s turn to see how these forms are generated with the right interpretations in accord
with the strong minimalist thesis.
[Chomsky 2021](7)

John lived [[on a farm] [with his family]]

1. MERGE:{on a farm}, {with his family}

2. MERGE:{{on a farm}, {with his family}}

4. MERGE:{C,…, {XP, {{on a farm}, {with his family}}}}3. MERGE:{XP, {{on a farm}, {with his family}}}

5. Form Sequence: {C,…, {XP, <{on a farm}, {with his family}>}}(8)which farm did John live on ___ with his family(9)John lived [[on a farm] and [with his family]]

1. MERGE:{on a farm}, {with his family}

2. MERGE:{{on a farm}, {with his family}}

3. MERGE:{&, {{on a farm}, {with his family}}}

4. MERGE:{XP, {&, {{on a farm}, {with his family}}}}5. MERGE:{C,…, {XP, {&, {{on a farm}, {with his family}}}}}

6. Form Sequence: {C,…, {XP, <&, {on a farm}, {with his family}>}}(10) * which farm did John live on ___ and with his family-厳密な適合条件（strict matching condition）の特別な場合 (cf. (4))

Jun Omune (Kansai Gaidai University)
Consequences I: Form Sequence and coordination

3

Keio Linguistic Colloquium (online)：
Towards a genuine explanation in linguistic theory

慶應⾔語学コロキアム オンライン開催：
⾔語理論における真の説明の探究

One of the more complex cases, which pairs an unaccusative and a transitive:(11) John arrived and met Bill.
(12) C, {John3, {INFL, <&, {1 v, {arrive John1}}, {2 John2, {v*, {meet Bill}}}>}}[Chomsky 2021]
EM:{1 v, {arrive John1}}, {2 John2, {v*, {meet Bill}}}EM:(satisfying theta theory){{1 v, {arrive John1}}, {2 John2, {v*, {meet Bill}}}}EM:{&, {{1 v, {arrive John1}}, {2 John2, {v*, {meet Bill}}}}}

EM:(optional){INFL, {&, {{1 v, {arrive John1}}, {2 John2, {v*, {meet Bill}}}}}}IM:{John3, {INFL, {&, {{1 v, {arrive John1}}, {2 John2, {v*, {meet Bill}}}}}}}

EM:{C, {John3, {INFL, {&, {{1 v, {arrive John1}}, {2 John2, {v*, {meet Bill}}}}}}}}

FSQ:{C, {John3, {INFL, <&, {1 v, {arrive John1}}, {2 John2, {v*, {meet Bill}}}>}}}
Two Types of Sets Targeted by Form Sequence:
&YP

ZP

YP

ZP

In (12), arrive and meet are both roots. they are interpreted verbal because thecategorizer, actually the v/v* distinction, which may or may not create a phase. That’seliminable. It’s actually determined by the lexical content of the roots. So, we don’t reallyhave any need to postulate different categorizers, depending on the lexical content. It will
be v or v*. And it’s v*, it’s a phase. We use the distinction only for convenience (Chomsky2021).

[Chomsky 2019a, b]
Pair-merge probably forms <v, R> (and <n, R>) in the lexicon. R: lexical rootà Form Sequence may form <v, R> (or <R, v>) in the lexicon. See also Epstein,Kitahara & Seely 2016.
-We’re still assuming derivation to be strictly Markovian, no memory. That means theinterpretative system doesn’t know which one raised. It can’t look back and see.

Jun Omune (Kansai Gaidai University)
Consequences I: Form Sequence and coordination

4慶應⾔語学コロキアム オンライン開催：
⾔語理論における真の説明の探究

Keio Linguistic Colloquium (online)：
Towards a genuine explanation in linguistic theory-The Minimal Search operation says, “don’t delete.” That can find John3, it can’t findJohn₁ and John₂.

4. ATB削除と更なる帰結
Across-the-board (ATB) deletion falls out as a special case.
(13) what did John buy ___ and Bill hand ___ to Tom:
what1 [John bought what2 and Bill handed what3 to Tom].

注）Chomsky は(13)の派⽣を具体的には⽰していないため、以下の派⽣は Omune による誤解が含まれているかもしれない。
MERGE: {what1, {C, {&, {{John, {INFL, {John, {v*, {buy, what2}}}}}, {Bill, {INFL, {Bill,{v*, {hand, {what3, {to, Tom}}}}}}}}}}}

FSQ: {what1, {C, < &, {John, {INFL, {John, {v*, {buy, what2}}}}}, {Bill, {INFL, {Bill,{v*, {hand, {what3, {to, Tom}}}}}}} > }}}[Chomsky 2019a, b, Kitahara]

主要部移動 (INFL-to-C movement):(14) WS=[C,{EA, {IFNL, vP}}]
FSQ: [<INFL, C>,{EA, {INFL, vP}}]
EM: [{<INFL, C>,{EA, {INFL, vP}}}]

See also Omune et al. 2020(13) の派⽣で主要部移動を⽰すと、
MERGE: [ C, {&, {{John, {INFL, {John, {v*, {buy, what2}}}}}, {Bill, {INFL, {Bill, {v*,{hand, {what3, {to, Tom}}}}}}}}}}} ]FSQ: [ <INFL, C>, {&, {{John, {INFL, {John, {v*, {buy, what2}}}}}, {Bill, {INFL, {Bill,{v*, {hand, {what3, {to, Tom}}}}}}}}}}} ]MERGE: {what1, {<INFL, C>, {&, {{John, {INFL, {John, {v*, {buy, what2}}}}}, {Bill,{INFL, {Bill, {v*, {hand, {what3, {to, Tom}}}}}}}}}}}Jun Omune (Kansai Gaidai University)
Consequences I: Form Sequence and coordination

5慶應⾔語学コロキアム オンライン開催：
⾔語理論における真の説明の探究

Keio Linguistic Colloquium (online)：
Towards a genuine explanation in linguistic theory

FSQ: {what1, {<INFL, C>, < &, {John, {INFL, {John, {v*, {buy, what2}}}}}, {Bill,{INFL, {Bill, {v*, {hand, {what3, {to, Tom}}}}}}} > }}}The conjuncts share tense, but that’s not necessary.
(15) John [arrives every day at noon and met Bill yesterday].
It follows from that tense is a feature of small v (or that region (Chomsky 2021)), not ofINFL. Tense is the feature of small v because it can vary in the two cases. It’s not a featureof INFL; this thing is not T. It’s phi-features, but not T. Phi-features have to be the same,but tense doesn’t. Therefore, INFL is what used to be called AGR-S (Chomsky 2021).

[Chomsky 2021: Q&A Section]
The same analysis also applies to distinct aspectual and modal structures.
(16) John [arrived yesterday and will leave tomorrow].
The sequence shows that tense (modality, aspect) is within the paired items, while phifeatures are outside.

5. まとめシークエンス形成（Form Sequence）は⾮構造的等位接続と主要部移動を捉える最⼩限の仮説。
シークエンス形成（とそれに伴う厳密な適合条件）の帰結:
1. （真の）等位構造からの抜き出し
2. くびき語法（Zeugma）の再解釈
3. レキシコンでの語彙範疇化
4. ATB 削除

5. 主要部移動

6. 時制素性（tense）の場所

参考⽂献

Chomsky, Noam. 2019a. MIT lectures. [http://whamit.mit.edu/2019/05/06/noamchomskys-lectures-now-online/]

Jun Omune (Kansai Gaidai University)
Consequences I: Form Sequence and coordination

6慶應⾔語学コロキアム オンライン開催：
⾔語理論における真の説明の探究

Keio Linguistic Colloquium (online)：
Towards a genuine explanation in linguistic theory

Chomsky, Noam. 2019b. UCLA lectures. [https://linguistics.ucla.edu/noam-chomsky/]Chomsky, Noam. 2020. Minimalism: where we are now, and where we are going. a talkgiven at the 161st meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4F9NSVVVuw]

Chomsky, Noam. 2021. Genuine Explanations. a talk given at WCCFL 39.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6SbPKmVNVQ]
Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara & T. Daniel Seely. 2016. Phase-cancellation bypair-Merge of heads. The Linguistic Review 33. 87–102. DOI: 10.1515/tlr-2015-0015.
Omune, Jun, Hisatsugu Kitahara, Masayuki Oishi & Masashi Nomura. 2020. Pair-Merge
under MERGE. JELS 27. 270–271.

＊特に記載がない限り、本ハンドアウトの英⽂は Chomsky 2020 を基にしている。

Jun Omune (Kansai Gaidai University)
Consequences I: Form Sequence and coordination

7