From Merge to MERGE
Toward a Genuine Explanation in Linguistic Theory
Keio Colloquium
07/31/2021

Yushi Sugimoto(yushis@umich.edu)

University of Michigan

1Genuine explanation(1)

Three conditions on Universal Grammar (UG)
a. Learnability: UG must be rich enough to overcome Poverty of Stimulus (POS)
b. Evolvability: UG must be simple enough, so it could have evolved.
c. Universality: UG must must be same for all possible languages(2)

Overcoming the conflict among three conditions on UG
a. Learnability: Structure Dependency suggests that there is no learning. The hierarchicalstructure formed by Merge is not learnable.
b. Evolvability: “. . . the basic structure of language should be quite simple. The result ofsome small rewiring of the brain that took place once and has not changed in the brief
since.” (Chomsky 2020)c. Universality: The variety of language comes from the externalization: “. . .sensory-motor
systems use for externalization have nothing at all to do with language” (Chomsky 2020)(3)

Strong Minimalist Thesis (Enabling function: Chomsky 2021)
a. “Ideally, it might turn out that the internal language is fixed and invariant, close to it.
That would be the optimal solution to the problem of generation of an infinite number ofthoughts.”
b. “the strong minimalist thesis holds that I-language, the system that generates thought,
keeps to Merge and language independent principles, suich as computational efficiency.
Optimally, any departure from the strong minimalist thesis should be so slight as to besusceptible to a simple account of its origin.”c. “. . .we have to make clear that we understand the computational operation on which explanation is based. Merge proves to be defective in a way that has been familiar since theorigins of the generative enterprise”

Keio Colloquium

2

From Merge to MERGE

Yushi SugimotoMerge to MERGE
(4)

(6)

Phrase Structure Grammar(5)X’-theory

a. VP → V NP, *PP→ V NP

a. cross-categorical generalizationb. X → Y Z, No restriction in principle

b. Universal endocentricity

Merge (Chomsky 2013, Epstein et al. 2014, Collins 2017)
a. Merge(X,Y) = {X,Y}b. A hidden assumption: Merge applies on workspacec. A hidden assumption: The formulation of Merge departs from standard recursion.
→ Remove• Remove is a departure from SMT and from standard recursion(7)

Empirical Evidence
a. If we assume standard recursion (e.g., propositional calculus, (Chomsky 2019b:274,fn28)),
we can generate derivations that violate any kinds of constraint on movement (islands)
i. Merge(P,Q) → {P,Q}, P, Q
ii. build up structure with P such as [. . . [Z . . . [ . . . P ] ] ] = Y
iii. WS = [P, Q, Y, {P,Q} . . .]iv. Merge(P,Y) = [ {P,Y}, Q, Y, {P,Q} . . .], where Y includes P.
b. We don’t want to assume standard recursion due to the empirical reasonsc. At the same time, we don’t want to stipulate Remove, which is a departure from SMT.

(8)

Resource Restriction (RR): (cf. Fong et al. 2019)a. Language is an organic systemb. Merge “will always add one new element to the workspace. Namely,{P, Q}, but it shouldhave no more than one new accessible element.” (Chomsky 2020)c. “. . . no operation Remove is needed. It’s effects follow from the minimal yield condition
on MERGE, principle of Resource Restriction.” (Chomsky 2020)
d. “Resource Restriction renders strictly Markovian.”(9)

MERGE(P,Q,WS) = WS’ = {{P,Q}, x1 . . .xn }, where conditions . . . hold.
a. MERGE applies to P, Q, and WS.
b. Nothing should be lost by the operationc. A member of WS is accessible in WS’
d. n (in x1 . . . xn ) should be minimale. “MERGE will always add one new element to the workspace.”2

Keio Colloquium

From Merge to MERGE

Yushi Sugimotof. “an element a can be accessible to MERGE even if it’s not part of the workspace”
i. a term of: “a term of some element x is a member of x or a member of a term of x.”
g. Accessibility for MERGE
A term of x might be inaccessible by
1. Phase impenetrability Condition (PIC)
2. Minimal search (cf. EKS 2020)(10)

Copies, Deletion and Minimal Search (Chomsky 2020)
a. “Copies are formed by internal Merge, but more generally, we can assume that copies areformed generally by MERGE.”
b. “Copies are deleted for reasons of computational efficiency, but only if they’re MERGE
configurations.”c. “minimal search, . . ., can be an operation which searches everything that’s been generated
and marks everything it finds undeletable.”d. “The only thing that minimal search can’t find is something that it’s c-commanded by ahead, the head of chain.. . .so, it doesn’t mark undeletable, therefore it deletes.”e. “You can form copies anywhere you want. You get deletion if they’re not mark undeleted
by minimal search.”

2.1

Legitimate Derivations: EM and IM(11)External Merge (EM)a.

i. WS1 = [ a, b ]ii. MERGE(a, b, WS1 ) = [ {a,b} ] = WS2

b. No violation of RR.
(12)Internal Merge (IM) (Chomsky 2019a)a.

i. WS1 = [ {c,{a,{b,d}}} ]ii. MERGE(d,{c,{a,{b,d}}}, WS1 ) = [{d,{c,{a,{b,d}}}}] = WS2

b. Minimal search → the lower copy is inaccessible.

3

Keio Colloquium

From Merge to MERGE

Yushi Sugimoto

2.2

Illegitimate Derivations(13)

Parallel Merge (cf. Citko 2005, Citko and Gračanin-Yuksek 2021)/ Sideward movement (Nunes2001, 2004)
a. WSi = [ {a,b}, c ]b. MERGE(b,c,WSi ) = [ {a,b},{b,c} ] = WSj• After parallel Merge/sideward movement, b in {b,c} and {b,c} itself are new accessible elements.

(14)

Late-Merge (cf. Lebeaux 2000)
a. WSi = [{a,b}, {c,d}]b. MERGE(a,{c,d},WSi ) = [{a,{c,d}}, {a,b}] = WSj• There are new two accessible items, i.e., a in {a,{c,d}} and {a,{c,d}} itself.

(15)

Counter-cyclic movement (cf. Chomsky 2008, 2013, Epstein et al. 2012)
a. WSi = [{a, {b, {c,d}}}]b. MERGE(d,{b,{c,d}},WSi )=[{d,{b,{c,d}}},{a,{b,{c,d}}}]=WSj• After counter-cyclic IM, there are two identical and accessible SOs, namely, {b,{c,d}}}.

3Conclusion(16)

Seeking a genuine explanation
a. MERGE is implemented in an organic system: resource restriction
b. MERGE adds one new element to the workspace (minimal yield condition).
c. All elements in WSn are accessible in WSn+1 , except for• the elements that are in PIC domain• the elements that are c-commanded by the higher copyd. “extension of Merge” yields illegitimate derivations (, which yields lethal ambiguity)4

Keio Colloquium

From Merge to MERGE

Yushi Sugimoto

References
Chomsky, N. (2008). On pheases. In R. Fredin, C. P. Otero, and M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational
issues in Linguistic Theory, Chapter 3, pp. 133–166. The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 33–49.
Chomsky, N. (2019a). Lecture at UCLA. edited transcript available at Lingbuzz.
Chomsky, N. (2019b). Some puzzling foundational issues: The reading program. Catalan Journal ofLinguistics Special Issue, 263–285.
Chomsky, N. (2020). Minimalism where we are now, and where we are going. Invited talk at at the161st meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan at Tohoku Gakuin University (online).
Chomsky, N. (2021). Genuine explanation. talk at the 39th of West Coast Conference on FormalLinguistics, University of Arizona.
Citko, B. (2005). On the nature of merge: External merge, internal merge, and parallel merge. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4), 475–496.
Citko, B. and M. Gračanin-Yuksek (2021). Merge:Binarity in (Multidominant) Syntax. MIT Press.
Collins, C. (2017). Merge(X,Y)={X,Y}. In L. Bauke and A. Blümel (Eds.), Labels and Roots, pp.
47–68. De Gruyter.
Epstein, S. D., H. Kitahara, and T. D. Seely (2012). Structure building that can’t be. In M. Uribeetxebarria and V. Valmala (Eds.), Ways of Structure Building, pp. 253–270. Oxford University Press.
Epstein, S. D., H. Kitahara, and T. D. Seely (2014). Labeling by minimal search: Implications for
successive-cyclic a-movement and the conception of the postulate “phase”. Linguistic Inquiry 45(3),463–481.
Fong, S., R. Berwick, and J. Ginsburg (2019). The combinatorics ofmerge and workspace right-sizing.
Paper presented at Evolinguistics Workshop, May 25-26, 2019.
Lebeaux, D. (2000). Language Acquisition and the Form of the grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nunes, J. (2001). Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2), 303–344.
Nunes, J. (2004). Linearization of Chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

5