論 文

Minimalist Yoda

Thomas Gross

要

旨

ヨーダとは，スター・ウォーズのキャラクターで，英語をOSV言語として話す。本文では，ミニマリスト統語論を元に，ヨーダの話す文を分析し，その統語論に関する様々な問題点を取り上げる。本論文で取り上げる構文は，並列構文・tough構文・命令文と軽動詞構文・副文である。さらに，日本語とバントゥのショーナ語の例も分析する。統語論学者の間で議論の的になっている，Kayne（1994）の「反対称性仮説」を日本語に適用し，その問題点を指摘する。
Keywords: Yoda（ ヨ ー ダ ），Japanese（ 日 本 語 ），Shona（ シ ョ ー ナ 語 ），Minimalist
Syntax（ミニマリスト統語論），Antisymmetry Hypothesis（反対称性仮説）

1. Introduction
In this paper I shall try to outline the minimalist structure of several sentences
uttered by the character Yoda in the motion picture Star Wars Episode II: Attack of theClones (May 16th 2002). Yoda is the little green-skinned and three-fingered Jedi
Master who interacts (chronologically) with Obi-wan Kenobi, the teacher of bothAnakin Skywalker, who goes on to become Darth Vader, and his son, Luke
Skywalker, the major protagonist of the Star Wars­-series.
――

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 20   In the English original, Yoda speaks a language that is not quite English, butsomething like English in an OSV word-order, though sometimes OVS word-orderis also found. Since English is a rather rigid SVO word-order language, to makeYoda’s language – and thus by inference his whole being – as mysterious and strange as
possible, while still guaranteeing a coherent reception by the audience, required adeviation from rigid English. In other languages, such as in the German version, thisworks, too, but in the Japanese version, Yoda speaks antiquated Japanese which
departs only very rarely from the canonical SOV word-order, instead of speaking alanguage with a word-order radically different from Japanese.
   This should give linguists, in particular all those working in the areas of Universal
Grammar, psycholinguistics and cognitive linguistics, some pause. In recent years, inparticular by Kayne (1994, 2000, 2004) the idea has been advanced that there are reallyno languages with strict verb-first (such as Irish) or verb-last order (such as Japanese).
If this were to be completely true, one of the questions I would put to the advocatesof this Antisymmetry Syntax Hypothesis is why a Japanese version of OSV-Yoda wasin fact not used in making the Japanese versions of the Star Wars-series. If
Antisymmetry were true, and Japanese had an SVO word-order, it should work as
OSV-Yoda with Japanese words. There has even been a proposal that Japanese was an
OVS word-order language. Thus, if Japanese was a covert SVO or OVS word-orderlanguage, why is it that Japanese native speakers do not understand utterances withsuch word orders – even if all the words were in Japanese?
   While this is indeed a worthy topic, my outline below will be more prosaic. In
the next section I will briefly outline my working assumptions for the minimalist
analysis I shall provide in section 3.

2. Minimalist Working Assumptions
Though still a ‘research project in progress’, the literature on Minimalism is already huge1.
For this reason a concise literature cannot be provided here. However, the main proposal for
Minimalism is outlined in Chomsky (1995), as well as in earlier works. My own starting point
is best described by Hornstein, Nunes & Grohmann (2005). The strict derivational approachthat I shall use is outlined in Epstein & Seely (2006). A readable, but rather uncritical accountof the historical developments leading to Minimalism is given in Carnie (2008). For criticism,
one has to turn to Matthews (2007) and in particular to Culicover & Jackendoff (2005).

1

――

Minimalist Yoda

There are many differences of opinion, of which many are central to a unified
understanding of Minimalism.
   I shall rely on two basic Minimalist concepts: Merge and Copy. In recent
literature, for instance Boeckx (2008), the point has been emphasized that Merge andCopy are basically the same operation, and further, that the products of these
operations are also the same. Therefore, Merge is held to be External Merge where atleast one of two syntactic (root) objects engaged in merging has engaged in any prior
operation, while Copy is thought to be Internal Merge where a syntactic object alreadyexternally merged expands the structure by being displaced. In a very general sense,
this is indeed correct. However, it turns out that there is also an asymmetry between
the two operations: first, a syntactic object can obviously not be copied (i.e. internallymerged) if it has not already been merged i.e. externally merged (/added to thestructure). Second, different assumptions must hold concerning the adequacy of asyntactic object undergoing Merge and Copy. It is generally understood that merged
syntactic objects must first be subject to the operation Select. However, copied
syntactic objects are subject to Checking, i.e. the adequacy (/necessity/possibility) of
Copy must be verified by the copied syntactic object checking features that remained
unchecked in its prior position.
   Since I shall undertake a practical application of Minimalist syntax, I will not
engage in a further discussion on basic Minimalist terminology, but rather state myown intention of how to use the terms.
   First, I shall take Select as granted2, and thus dispense with the respective
By doing so I am giving Minimalism more leeway than it deserves. See Culicover & Jackendoff(2005, 90 n8) citing Postal who disputes the validity of the Select mechanism. Select operates ona numeration (Chomsky 1995), an unordered list of lexical elements which are in turn selected
and then merged. Postal points out that a numeration must be considered as language-specific,
but that this language-specificity breaks down if expressions from two languages are combined:2	(i) He said “yokatta”. = He said “[that was] good” (in Japanese).
  Evidently yokatta is not an English expression, and as such it cannot be an element of an English

numeration. While Postal also has other examples, it is a weak argument because numerations
could still take extra-numerative expressions en bloc. That something like this is likely to be true,
can be seen because yokatta in (ii) does not conform to English syntax rules that range overnumeration elements:(ii) *He said that yokatta.

――

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 20formulae.
   Second, wherever I use the operation Copy I will try to clarify the featurechecking. This will, due to the quasi-natural structure of Yoda, sometimes require
covert features. As such I understand all structural elements that are not realized at
PF, i. e. operators, pro etc. In particular, the copying of objects or other material intoa C-category requires the assumption of an operator that contracts a structure or
substructure from below VP. I must emphasize that the assumption of such an
operator is purely based on the necessity to generate the final structure, and that any
direct evidence for the existence for such operators does not exist. Thus, evidence for
operators and evidence for structural categories is not the same. Displacement ofelements can be evidence for silent categories such as I, if cliticization is impossible:(1) Will we have/* we’ve finished the rehearsal?		

Radford (1997: 113)

Because there is a position in the IP from where will has been copied, have cannot
cliticize to we in (1), since it is not structurally adjacent. This kind of evidence isevidence for the existence of category positions but not evidence for elements thatmust occur in these positions. Most evidence for covert elements in Minimalism
pertains to LF, the logical-semantic interpretation interface. While the assumption of
the existence of such an interface is reasonable, no evidence has yet been provided
that this interface does have the actual format Minimalism assumes it to have. Thus,
the assumption of covert operators mostly satisfies theory-internal necessities. When
this assumption is expanded to actual linguistic structure, further proof should be
required3.
   Third, as has long been known, the position out of which syntactic objects arecopied matters for the position into which they can be copied. Therefore the terms
head movement, A-movement, and A’-movement have long been a staple of generative
Culicover & Jackendoff (2005) go even further and question the entire existence of LF. They
argue that it is not syntactic structure that is semantically checked at LF, but a pre-syntactic
semantic level called Conceptual Structure licenses those syntactic substructures that cannot
entirely be generated in syntax. They also argue against empty nodes, silent operators, anditerated application of movement operations, all of which I show are necessary in order toanalyze Yoda according to minimalist propositions.

3	

――

Minimalist Yoda

terminology. I shall try to analyze Yoda along these lines, too. Head movement isalways strict, i.e. heads must move from a 0-position to another 0-position. Amovement involves subject and objects, and must result in positions where thecopied elements can check features pertinent for subject- or objecthood. A’movement will comprise copying of structure from below VP into spec-C position.
These are the copy operations that require a covert operator in C.
   Fourth, I shall assume the VP-internal-subject-hypothesis, and I shall also
assume light verb constructions when necessary. Although it will become necessary
in the analysis of more complex sentences, I shall not use a finely structured CP (Rizzi
1997) until then. Thus, until this point I shall assume only a general CP.

3. Some Yoda Sentences and Their Minimalist Structure
I shall start with very short and simple sentences. After the Yoda example I shall
explicate the derivation. The symbol ‘+’ means Merge, and if it is accompanied by astriked-out structure to the right of the arrow it means Copy. Small caps denotefeatures, operators, abstract predicates etc. A step-by-step explanation follows.

3.1. Two Simple Sentences(2) A visitor we have.
1. a + visitor → [D’ a [visitor]]
2. have + D’ → [V’ have [D’ a [visitor]]]3. we + V’
→ [VP we [V’ have [D’ a [visitor]]]]4. pres + VP → [T’ pres [VP we [V’ have [D’ a [visitor]]]]]
5. we + T’
→ [TP we [T’ pres [VP we [V’ have [D’ a [visitor]]]]]]
6. cont + TP → [C’ cont [TP we [T’ pres [VP we [V’ have [D’ a [visitor]]]]]]]
7. a visitor + C’ → [CP a visitor[C’ cont [TP we [T’ pres [VP we [V’ have [D’ a [visitor]]]]]]In step (2.1) merge of a and visitor forms a D’. Since there is no striking reason to
expand to DP, I shall leave it at that. Step (2.2) adds the verb have to form V’. Step(2.3) merges we as the thematic subject of V’. In step (2.4), the tense feature present
tense is merged and forms T’. In step (2.5) the thematic subject we is copied to the
spec-T position where it checks φ-features (compatibility of number, for instance). In
――

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 20step (2.6) the covert operator contraction is merged with TP. In the last step (2.7), theobject is copied into spec-C to form CP. The object thereby satisfies the checking of thecont feature which demands that a V-internal element must be copied to spec-C. Thisis all straightforward, and identical to English, besides the obvious addition of cont.
(3) Truly wonderful the mind of a child is.
1. truly + wonderful→ [AP truly [wonderful]]
2. be + AP
→ [V’ be [AP truly [wonderful]]]
3. a + child→ [D’ a [child]]
4. of + D’
→ [P’ of [D’ a [child]]]
5. mind + P’
→ [N’ mind [P’ of [D’ a [child]]]]6. the + N’
→ [D’ the [N’ mind [P’ of [D’ a [child]]]]]
7. D’ + V’→	[VP the [N’ mind [P’ of [D’ a [child]]]] [V’ be [AP truly[wonderful]]]]8. pres + VP→	[T’ pres [VP the [N’ mind [P’ of [D’ a [child]]]] [V’ be [AP truly[wonderful]]]]]
9. D’ + T’→	[TP the mind of child [T’ pres [VP the [N’ mind [P’ of [D’ a[child]]]] [V’ be [AP truly [wonderful]]]]]
10. cont + TP
→	[C’ cont [TP the mind of child [T’ pres [VP the [N’ mind [P’ of [D’a [child]]]] [V’ be [AP truly [wonderful]]]]]]]
11. AP + C’
→	[CP truly wonderful [C’ cont [TP the mind of a child [T’ pres
[VP the [N’ mind [P’ of [D’ a [child]]]] [V’ be [AP truly[wonderful]]]]]]]]In step (3.1) truly and wonderful merge to form AP. I assume truly to reside in specA. In step (3.2) this AP is merged with an abstract predicate denoting ‘existence’ tofrom V’. Steps (3.3–6) detail the construction of the complex D’ the mind of a child.
In step (3.3) a and child merge to form an indefinite D’. This D’ is merged with of instep (3.4). I assume of to be a preposition thus forming at least a P’ with the D’. A
further expansion of P’ is not required so I shall leave it at that, but nothing hinges
on that (besides the act how such an expansion would be motivated). In step (3.5),
mind is merged with P’ to form N’. Again I see no motive for expanding to NP.
Finally, the complex D’ is assembled in (3.6) by merging the with N’. And yet again,――Minimalist Yoda

expansion to DP does not seem to be required. Step (3.7) merges D’ built in (3.3–6)
with V’ built in (3.1–2) to from VP. To his VP pres is merged to form T’ in (3.8). In(3.9) D’ is copied to spec-T in order to satisfy its φ-features (3rd sg) expanding to
TP. At this stage, the tense element should interact with the existential abstract verb
to form the PF-object is. No copying is required to achieve this. In (3.10), this TP ismerged with cont to form C’. Finally, AP is copied to spec-C to satisfy cont. This
forms the CP.

3.2. Coordination
The next example (see example 5 below) requires some speculations about coordination.
Evidently, there is a coordinated adjectival structure. This means that a coordination
mechanism must be outlined, at least tentatively. The problem is compounded by thefact, that disturbing is a derivational adjective because it consists of the verb stem
disturb and the adjectival suffix –ing. Generative Grammar in all its stages has beennotorious for assuming that morphological products are either part of the lexicon or
are generated in syntax4.
   In this case, this is relevant because there are two possible ways to derive thecoordinated construction: one is to assume that dangerous merges with thecoordinator, the other is to assume that the coordinator merges with disturbing. The
first alternative is ‘nicer’ because it allows an explanation of why it is disturbing and
not disturb that must merge next. Namely, it would force a structure such as[a [v disturb]-ing]. It also is in line with the Incremental Hypothesis proposed inPhillips (2003).
   The second alternative however, allows one to make use of a copy function of
the coordinator. Furthermore, the structure of coordination must still be coherent
with the overall architecture of X’-syntax. This would require a coordinator to be in aposition to exert control over features of the conjuncts that must be sufficiently
similar to warrant the coordination. Therefore, a coordinator must be positioned in ahead position, while the conjuncts must occupy complement and specifier positions
A recent prominent example is Beard (1995). The counter position is taken by Aronoff &Fudeman (2005) who argue for morphology being an area distinct from phonology andsyntax.

4

――

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 20inside the coordinator phrase. I shall therefore assume [conjunct2 [coordinator[conjunct1]]] as the structure of a coordinator phrase5. There are some features ofconjunct 1 that must percolate to the head position where they must be satisfied byany elements that are merged into the spec position. These features cannot be purecategory features because different categories can be coordinated: hopeful and yet intrepidation is but one of many examples that show that different syntactic categories
can indeed be coordinated. One must therefore assume some functional feature suchas [object] which would apply to the coordinated structure in (4). Such types offeature however, arguably cannot be checked purely in the syntactic domain, but are
subject to semantic checking at LF.
   The second alternative would also be backed by Binding Theory. Consider (4):(4) a. I rescued [Pauli [and [hisi books]]].
b. *I rescued [hisi books [and [Pauli]]].
Example (4) shows that his must not be in a higher position than Paul in order not
to be able to c-command it, thus complying with Condition B of Binding Theory.
However, other structures of the conjuncts that do not violate Binding Theory are
possible. A strong counter-argument against the structure in (4) is the treatment ofsentential coordination. But maybe a unified treatment of coordination is notpossible, as there are phenomena such as gapping 1. that apply at the sentential level,and 2. that are not evident in quite a lot of languages6. For instance, Japanese does
not exhibit gapping. Nevertheless, I shall employ the structure in (4) in order toanalyze the coordination in (5) below:

This construction is used in Deane (1992) and Postal (1993) to analyze left-subordinatingand. Culicover & Jackendoff (2005, chap. 13) take a different approach in assuming a flat
structure.
6 Gapping only occurs in the second conjunct. In Minimalism it is yet unclear how the elementsof the second conjunct are merged and – more importantly – how they are labeled if no verb ismerged to the structure. It may well be that following Culicover & Jackendoff (2005, chap. 14)
gapping is semantic coordination that forces a paratactic structure in some languages, i.e. it
constitutes a syntax-semantics mismatch.
5

― 10 ―

Minimalist Yoda

(5) Dangerous and disturbing this puzzle is.
1. and + disturbing → [CO’ and [A disturbing]]
2. dangerous + CO’ → [COP [A dangerous] [and [A disturbing]]]
3. be + COP→ [V’ be [COP [A dangerous] [and [A disturbing]]]]4. this + puzzle→ [D’ this [puzzle]]
5. D’ + V’→	[VP this [puzzle] [V’ be [COP [A dangerous] [and [Adisturbing]]]]]
6. pres + VP→	[T’ pres [VP this [puzzle] [V’ be [COP [A dangerous] [and[Adisturbing]]]]]]
7. D’ + T’→	[TP this [puzzle] [T’ pres [VP this [puzzle] [V’ be [COP [Adangerous] [and [A disturbing]]]]]]]
8. cont + TP
→	[C’ cont [TP this [puzzle] [T’ pres [VP this [puzzle] [V’ be [COP [Adangerous] [and [A disturbing]]]]]]]]
9. COP + C’
→	[CP dangerous and disturbing [C’ cont [TP this [puzzle] [T’ pres
[VP this [puzzle] [V’ be [COP [A dangerous] [and [Adisturbing]]]]]]]]]
Steps (5.1–2) form the merging of the coordinated structure as discussed above. At
step (5.2) dangerous must check a pertinent feature such pred in order to properly
merge. Steps (5.3–9) are already familiar. be merges with COP to form V’ in (5.3).
D’ is assembled (5.4) and merged with the V’ to form VP (5.5). pres merges withVP (5.6), and D’ is copied to spec-T checking φ-features (5.7). cont merges withTP (5.8), and finally sub-VP COP is copied to spec-C checking the cont feature(5.9).

3.3. tough-Construction
The next sentence is an example for a tough-construction. This construction isassumed to contain a covert operator as a position variable for the object (here: thefuture)7. In the English sentence(6) The future is impossible [for me/you etc.] to see.

7So argues Radford (2004: 234).

― 11 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 20

it is assumed that the verb see is merged with an operator OP whose index is later(presumably at LF) compared with those of other elements in the sentence. If a likely
candidate such as the future is available and not indexed with another element,interpretation proceeds to identify OP with the future. This serves to maintain properθ-role marking. For instance, in (6) the future does not have the θ-role of the subjectof impossible but must have that of an object of see.
   However, there is something inherently wrong with this assumption8. If theoperation Merge is considered to work ‘bottom-up’ then how does one know whether
to merge a covert operator such as OP with see? This would require far reachingforesight insofar as one had to wait until the future is merged in order to satisfy theassumption of posing an operator at the initial step of the derivation. I shall therefore
assume that the future is merged with see in object position and then copied intohigher positions.
(7) Impossible to see the future is.
1. the + future→ [D’ the [future]]
2. see + D’
→ [V’ see [D’ the [future]]]3. to + V’
→ [I’ to [V’ see [D’ the [future]]]]4. pro + I’
→ [IP pro [I’ to [V’ see [D’ the [future]]]]]
5. impossible + IP → [A’ impossible [IP pro [I’ to [V’ see [D’ the [future]]]]]]
6. D’ + A’
→	[AP the future [A’ impossible [IP pro [I’ to [V’ see [D’ the[future]]]]]]]
7. be + AP→	[V’ be [AP the future [A’ impossible [IP pro [I’ to [V’ see [D’ the[future]]]]]]]]
8. D’ + V’→	[VP the future [V’ be [AP the future [A’ impossible [IP pro [I’ to [V’see [D’ the [future]]]]]]]]]
9. pres + VP→	[T’ pres [VP the future [V’ be [AP the future [A’ impossible [IP pro[I’ to [V’ see [D’ the [future]]]]]]]]]]
10. D’ + T’→	[TP the future [T’ pres [VP the future [V’ be [AP the future [A’impossible [IP pro [I’ to [V’ see [D’ the [future]]]]]]]]]]]
Culicover & Jackendoff (2005: 344) make the same point. They furthermore distinguish two
different types of tough-construction, one which expresses the difficulty of performing a task,
and the other one which expresses the difficulty of an object over which to perform a task.

8

― 12 ―

Minimalist Yoda

11. cont + TP
12. A’ + C’

→	[C’ cont [TP the future [T’ pres [VP the future [V’ be [AP the future[A’ impossible [IP pro [I’ to [V’ see [D’ the [future]]]]]]]]]]]]→	[CP impossible pro to see [C’ cont [TP the future [T’ pres [VP the
future [V’ be [AP the future [A’ impossible [IP pro [I’ to [V’ see [D’
the [future]]]]]]]]]]]]

Step (7.1) merges the with future to form D’, and (7.2) merges this D’ with see toform V’. I have omitted the next step in which V’ should merge with a subject
DP. It is indeed possible to assume a pro here which is copied to spec-I when I’ isfully merged. In (7.3) infinitive to is merged with V’ forming I’ to which pro
merges in (7.4). The resulting IP merges with impossible in (7.5) resulting in A’.
In (7.6) the future is copied into spec-A checking subject features. In (7.7) be
merges with AP forming V’. Again the future is copied into spec-V, to checksubject features (7.8). The resulting VP is merged with pres forming T’ (7.9). In(7.10) the future is copied yet again into spec-T to satisfy φ-features (3rd sg). In(7.11) cont merges with the TP, and in (7.12) impossible to see is copied into
spec-C to satisfy cont features. It is worthy of some thought whether one should
also assume whether pro is copied or not. Since it is silent, nothing hinges on it
but theory-internal assumptions. I tentatively assume that it is copied, simply forthe reasons that its external-Merge position resides within the structure being
copied.
   The next example is rather straightforward, but I have chosen it, because its
Japanese translation exhibits a strong dislocation.
(8) Begun the Clone War has.
1. Clone + War → [N’ [Clone] War]
2. the + N’
→ [D’ the [N’ [Clone] War]]
3. D’ + begun → [VP [D’ the [N’ [Clone] War]] begun]
4. has + V’
→ [T’ has [VP [D’ the [N’ [Clone] War]] begun]]
5. D’ + T’
→ [TP the Clone War [T’ has [V’ [D’ the [N’ [Clone] War]] begun]]]6. cont + TP →	[C’ cont [TP the Clone War [T’ has [V’ [D’ the [N’ [Clone] War]]begun]]]]
7. V + C’→	[CP begun [C’ cont [TP the Clone War [T’ has [V’ [D’ the [N’ [Clone]― 13 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 20War]] begun]]]]](8.1) assembles the nominal compound Clone War, which by merging with thedeterminer is expanded into a D’ (8.2). This structure merges with begun in (8.3).
There I assume D’ to be positioned in spec-V because the reading of begun is
intransitive. The subject of transitive begun should be merged into a spec-v position.
The resulting VP merges with has (as T0) in (8.4). I have not assumed so, but it isworthy of discussion whether has does not actually consist of two functional
morphemes: an abstract predicate have and pres. In a sentence such as He has a boat
one should have to assume such a complex term. Even if it did, though, thederivation would only be prolonged by two steps, one internal merger of D’ and one
internal merger of have. In (8.5) TP is formed by merging the Clone War to T’,
thereby checking φ-features (3rd sg). Steps (8.6–7) are familiar: cont merges to TP,
and D’ merges into spec-C satisfying cont.
   The interesting issue here is the dislocation of the participle. After step (8.5) itis the only remaining element inside the VP. As such it must be copied. As will beshown later, this dislocation is not possible, if the VP only contains one element at
the start of the derivation.

3.4. Excursion into JapaneseConsider now the Japanese version of (8):(9) Hazimar.u=no=zya kuroon-sensoo=ga.
   begin-pres-nml-ess clone-war-nom
1. kuroon + sensoo → [N’ [kuroon] sensoo]
2. N’ + nom→ [K’ [N’ [kuroon] sensoo] =ga]
3. K’ + hazimaR → [VP [K’ [N’ [kuroon] sensoo] =ga] hazimaR]
4. VP + pres→ [T’ [VP [K’ [N’ [kuroon] sensoo] =ga] hazimaR] +Ru]
5. T’ + nml→ [N’ [T’ [VP [K’ [N’ [kuroon] sensoo] =ga] hazimaR] +Ru] =no]
6. N’ + ess→	[V’ [N’ [T’ [VP [K’ [N’ [kuroon] sensoo] =ga] hazimaR] +Ru] =no]=zya]
7. V0~V0 + V’→	[CP hazimar.u=no=zya [V’ [N’ [T’ [VP [K’ [N’ [kuroon] sensoo] =ga]hazimaR] +Ru] =no] =zya]]]― 14 ―

Minimalist Yoda   First some morphological explanations are required9: It happens to be the casethat Japanese =da derives historically from a fusion of the particle =de and the partial
stem of the verb ar.u. It is clearly a verb, since it complies with the verbal inflection
paradigm, albeit defectively: =dat.ta, =dar.oo. Thus, =da is morphologically and more
adequately analyzed as =da[r.u] where the final syllable consisting of the stem’s final
consonant and the ending are elided. It is further known that =zyar.u was anintermediate step to the development of =da[r.u], which also produced =zya in thesame way as ­=da was produced.
   Since =zya like =da has verbal features I shall assume it takes a V-position, eventhough no T-category can embed this V-category. I shall furthermore assume a left
dislocation of all heads to the right of kuroon-sensoo=ga into spec-C. The reason I
consider this kind of displacement possible is 1. that all heads are adjacent with nointervening material, and 2. that they form a phonological word. This may meanthat this kind of displacement takes place at PF.
   However, this kind of left dislocation can pied-pipe elements that are
intrinsically linked to the lowest V0. Such would be the case of manner adverbs orparticiples functionally linked to the verb10.
   Like (8.1), step (9.1) first merges the two nouns to form the compound N’. In(9.2), I assume the nominative case particle to merge with N’ forming K’. Some
proposals assume case phrases (= KP) to hold in languages that have cliticized casemorphemes such as in Japanese. In (9.3) K’ merges with the verb stem hazimaR.
Capital R denotes an archiphoneme for the forms of the allomorphs. Since K’ is the
subject of an intransitive verb, it is merged into spec-V forming a VP. To this VP thetense inflection +Ru is merged (9.4). Again R denotes an archiphoneme for three
For the historical developments see Narrog (1999), for Japanese glosses and morph(eme)segmentation see Rickmer (1983, 1995).
10	 An example for pied-piping of a manner adverb is (i) and for a participle verb (ii):9	(i) haya.ku tabe.ta=no=da, inu=ga esa=o.
		 quick-adv eat-pst-nml-ess, dog-nom food-acc		 ‘(The) dog ate (the) food quickly.’(ii) kaet.te kit.ta=no=da, ojiisan=ga uti=e.
		 return-prt come-pst-nml-ess, old man/grandpa-nom home-all		 ‘Grandpa/(the) old man returned home.’― 15 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 20possible allomorphs. The resulting T’ is the nominalized by merger with the particle
noun =no forming N’ (9.5). In (9.6) =zya merges with N’ to form a V’. I havedetailed my assumptions for this step above. In the last step displacement of thecomplex verb hazimar.u=no=zya takes place which merges into spec-C to close of theCP. This of course is not head-to-head-movement, but A’-movement since thelanding site is not a head position. I assume this displacement to be in order only
because all elements are 1. heads and 2. adjacent, even though it is evidently not a
constituent that is displaced here. This, most likely, is the reason why this kind of
displacement is rare in Japanese, even though structurally not impossible.

3.5. Anti-Antisymmetry
As can be seen in the derivation of (9), I have assumed a SOV ordering for Japanese.
At this stage it is therefore fitting to briefly ponder how Antisymmetry11 would farein this case. According to this proposal, every phrase type must be of the universal SH-C order: [spec [head [complement]]]. The quickest way to find out what the S-HC ordering would achieve with a sentence such as (9) is to simply derivate it:(10) Hazimar.u=no=zya kuroon-sensoo=ga. [Antisymmetry Analysis]
1. sensoo + kuroon → [N’ sensoo [kuroon]]
2. kuroon + N’
→ [NP kuroon [sensoo [kuroon]]]
3. =ga + NP
→ [K’ =ga [NP kuroon [sensoo [kuroon]]]]4. NP + K’
→ [KP kuroon sensoo [K’ =ga [NP kuroon [sensoo [kuroon]]]]]
5. hazimaR + KP →	[V’ hazimaR [KP kuroon sensoo [K’ =ga [NP kuroon [sensoo[kuroon]]]]]]
6. KP + V’→	[VP kuroon sensoo=ga [V’ hazimaR [KP kuroon sensoo [K’ =ga[NP kuroon [sensoo [kuroon]]]]]]]
7. +Ru + VP→	[T’ +Ru [VP kuroon sensoo=ga [V’ hazimaR [KP kuroon sensoo[K’ =ga [NP kuroon [sensoo [kuroon]]]]]]]]
8. VP + T’→	[TP kuroon sensoo=ga hazimaR [T’ +Ru [VP kuroon sensoo=ga[V’ hazimaR [KP kuroon sensoo [K’ =ga [NP kuroon [sensoo[kuroon]]]]]]]]
11

In the manner proposed by Kayne (1994, 2000, 2004).

― 16 ―

Minimalist Yoda

9. nml + TP

10. TP + N’

11. ess + NP

12. NP + V’

13. V0~V0 + VP

→	[N’ =no [TP kuroon sensoo=ga hazimaR [T’ +Ru [VP kuroon

sensoo=ga [V’ hazimaR [KP kuroon sensoo [K’ =ga [NP kuroon[sensoo [kuroon]]]]]]]]]→	[NP kuroon sensoo=ga hazimar.u [N’ =no [TP kuroon sensoo=ga
hazimaR [T’ +Ru [VP kuroon sensoo=ga [V’ hazimaR [KP kuroon
sensoo [K’ =ga [NP kuroon [sensoo [kuroon]]]]]]]]]]→	[V’ =zya [NP kuroon sensoo=ga hazimar.u [N’ =no [TP kuroon
sensoo=ga hazimaR [T’ +Ru [VP kuroon sensoo=ga [V’ hazimaR[KP kuroon sensoo [K’ =ga [NP kuroon [sensoo[kuroon]]]]]]]]]]]]→	[VP kuroon sensoo=ga hazimar.u=no [V’ =zya [NP kuroon
sensoo=ga hazimar.u [N’ =no [TP kuroon sensoo=ga hazimaR[T’ +Ru [VP kuroon sensoo=ga [V’ hazimaR [KP kuroon sensoo[K’ =ga [NP kuroon [sensoo [kuroon]]]]]]]]]]]]]→	[CP hazimar.u=no=zya [VP kuroon sensoo=ga hazimar.u=no [V’=zya [NP kuroon sensoo=ga hazimar.u [N’ =no [TP kuroon
sensoo=ga hazimaR [T’ +Ru [VP kuroon sensoo=ga [V’ hazimaR[KP kuroon sensoo [K’ =ga [NP kuroon [sensoo[kuroon]]]]]]]]]]]]]]   Indeed, it is possible to arrive at the same output assuming a strict S-H-C
ordering with the same machinery, but the price is very high12. For every external
merge operation (10.1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11) an additional internal merge operation (10.2,
4, 6, 8, 10, 12) is necessary, just for the reason to generate the surface word-order.
One problem concerning the elegance of the whole procedure is that it lacks inparsimony. Another problem is that there is no way to decide the right order of thederivational steps, which is highly undesirable. I have chosen to follow each external
merge derivation by an internal merge derivation, so as to provide a quasi-Japanesebase for the next derivation. But it is not clear whether this is necessary. Could theinternal merge steps be interlaced with the external merge steps in any arbitrary order(under the condition that the syntactic objects have externally merged before further
12

Culicover & Jackendoff (2005) call this “iterated raising” and argue strongly against it.

― 17 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 20internal merge operations)? Or must syntactic objects be finished before they engage
in the next derivational operation? My understanding is that syntactic object must becompiled first, before they are used in further derivations, and that from this pointon their structure is opaque for further syntactic operations save those operations
that run at the LF and PF interfaces (Hornstein, Nunes & Grohmann 2005). If so, thenthe derivation must proceed in exactly the way outlined above.
   But there is still the problem of where in syntax the actual surface word-order ofthis sentence is produced. The ultimate surface word-order is of course assembled at
PF, but how close to this word-order is the syntactic object that is shipped to PF? If
no internal merge operation has taken place, and with the provision that the final
displacement takes place at PF, then one should expect a structure formed solely by
the steps (10.1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11):(11) [V’ =zya [N’ =no [T’ +Ru [V’ hazimaR [K’ =ga [NP [sensoo [kuroon]]]]]]]]It seems highly unlikely that this structure would have to be rebuild into something
like (10.13) employing the steps (10.2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12).
   Wherever these steps are processed, they are steps that must be processed andthus constitute a cognitive workload. The unuttered assumption of Antisymmetry
Syntax is then that languages differ in the cognitive workload they incur. In principle,
this is testable, even though it may not be so in practical terms. The corollary fromthis assumption, however, is that – under this view – the opinion held in linguistic
circles that languages are basically similar, is not true anymore. Antisymmetry Syntax
has then moved into a position from where it must explain why the developments inlanguage acquisition are not different for first language acquirers, i.e. babies.

3.6. Imperative and v
The next sentence is an imperative. As such one would expect no subject in spec-T
for a language such as Yoda/English which does not have imperative inflection
morphology. One would furthermore also expect the structure to extend into C,
because imperatives cannot be complementized in Yoda/English.
   A further issue is the necessity of assuming a v-construction here, but since nosubject is possible, v’ is not expanded to vP. Thus, there is no landing site within vP,― 18 ―

Minimalist Yoda

and since parts of the VP must be displaced, I shall assume spec-T as a landing site
for non-subjects, since subjects cannot execute checking in this position anyway. Thisis necessary because the verb create must be merged into v, thus forcing adisplacement of the remaining VP material.
(12) Around the survivors a perimeter create!
1. the + survivors →[D’ the [survivors]]
2. around + D’ →[P’ around [D’ the [survivors]]]
3. create + P’→
[V’ create [P’ around [D’ the [survivors]]]]
4. a + perimeter →[D’ a [perimeter]]
5. D’ + V’→
[VP a perimeter [V’ create [P’ around [D’ the [survivors]]]]]
6. v + VP→[v’ v [VP a perimeter [V’ create [P’ around [D’ the [survivors]]]]]]
7. create + v→	[v’ create+v [VP a perimeter [V’ create [P’ around [D’ the[survivors]]]]]]
8. ! + v’→	[T’ ! [V’ create+v [VP a perimeter [V’ create [P’ around [D’ the[survivors]]]]]]]
9. D’ + T’→	[TP a perimeter [T’ ! [V’ create+v [VP a perimeter [V’ create [P’around [D’ the [survivors]]]]]]]]
10. cont + TP →	[C’ cont [TP a perimeter [T’ ! [V’ create+v [VP a perimeter [V’create [P’ around [D’ the [survivors]]]]]]]]]
11. P’ + C’
→	[CP around the survivors [C’ cont [TP a perimeter [T’ ! [V’create+v [VP a perimeter [V’ create [P’ around [D’ the[survivors]]]]]]]]]]
Steps (12.1–2) assemble P’. Step (12.3) merges create with P’, and after assembling aperimeter in (12.4), this part merges with V’ to form the VP (12.5). Then an empty
light verb v merges with VP to create v’ (12.6). In front of this structure merges theverb (12.7) which should be allowed because its displacement renders it on the edgeof the structure even though there is no expansion. At this point in the derivation itis entirely possible that in the next step the subject of create+v merges into spec-v.
However, at this point, the list on which Select operates will not have any suitable
items left that could be inserted into such a position. The only elements left are ! andcont. Therefore, I shall assume that v’ does not expand to vP. In step (12.8) an― 19 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 20imperative element merges with v’ to form T’. Since no spec-v was formed, aperimeter merges to T’ in step (12.9). As to which features D’ would check in thisposition I can only speculate. Maybe in Yoda the imperative element ! has similar
contractive properties as cont in C. The next two steps, however, are familiar: in(12.10) cont merges with TP, and in (12.11) P’ merges with C’ satisfying cont.

3.7. Excursion into Shona
In some languages a simple v-projection is insufficient to capture agreement
relationships. Consider the complex verb in sentence (13) which is an example from
Shona, a Bantu language spoken in Zimbabwe.
(13) va.na va.no.teng.esa mi.riwo13   2cl-children 2cl-pres-sell-caus 4cl-vegetables   ‘The children sell vegetables.’The verb is va.no.teng.esa where teng is the stem14 meaning ‘buy’. Affixation of
causative –esa leads to the meaning ‘sell’. A highlight of Bantu verbs is their internalarrangement of valence, voice, aspect, tense and agreement markers which does notneatly correspond to the universal ordering15. In the above example the verb stem
should be positioned to the right of the causative morpheme16. One can assume thatthe verb stem is copied to v.
1. teng[a] + mi.riwo → [V’ tenga [N’ mi.riwo]]
2. es[a] + V’
→ [AGRO’ esa [V’ tenga [N’ mi.riwo]]]
I have taken this example from Bellusci (1991: 46 [57]) but given a more detailed morphologicalstructure.
14 I have not segmented the final vowel of the verb. teng.a ‘buy’ is indicative, while teng.e issubjunctive. Both indicative and subjunctive can further receive +i to mark for instanceimperative. Sources on Shona are Fortune (1950) Erickson (1988), Myers (1990), and Bellusci(1991).
15 The above ordering is the one proposed by Bybee (1985), and is exhibited e.g. in Japanese(minus agreement of course).
16 Rice (2000) makes the same point for Athapaskan verb structure. Unlike Athapaskan, whichshows SOV order, Bantu is SVO. However, Proto-Bantu is considered to have had SOV order.
13

― 20 ―

Minimalist Yoda

3. teng + esa
4. no + agro’
5. va.na + T’
6. va.na + TP

→ [AGRO’ teng.esa [V’ teng [N’ mi.riwo]]]→ [T’ no [AGRO’ teng.esa [V’ teng [N’ mi.riwo]]]]→ [TP va.na [T’ no [AGRO’ teng.esa [V’ teng [N’ mi.riwo]]]]]→	[AGRSP

va.na [TP va.na [T’ no [AGRO’ teng.esa [V’ teng [N’mi.riwo]]]]]]

In (13.1) the verb teng[a] and the noun mi.riwo form V’. To this causative –es[a] ismerged to form agro’ in (13.2). I do not know how to treat the indicative
morpheme, and thus assume that it shifts to v. In (13.3) the full verb is copied to v
to form an object which is readable at PF. Since –es[a] is treated as v, the subject va.
na should merge into its spec position. But this step is problematic, because this is
the position into which incorporated objects are merged. Therefore, the tense marker–no– should merge before the subject as seen in (13.4). In (13.5) the subject va.na
merges into spec-T, and in (13.6) it is copied into spec-agrs. This operation leaves
behind the classifier prefix va- which is phonetically viable. The assumption of agrsp
is due to the fact that complementizers are placed before subjects in Shona, andtherefore C needs to be free.
   It is less clear, though, how incorporated object pronouns or respective classifiers
are to be treated. I considered the subject classifier as phonologically not deleted after
copying the element containing it, but an object – be it direct or indirect – would
have to be treated as part of the verbal complex itself. However, this is unusual forpolysynthetic languages where arguments are treated as adjuncts, if the incorporationof subject and object pronouns is obligatory17.
   A further problem arises with negation which is prefixed ha– to the left of theincorporated subject pronoun like in ha.ndi.cha.taur.a ‘I will not talk’, but to theright of it in the case of the negated imperative –sa– as in mu.sa.famb.e ‘Don’t go!”where mu– marks the subject as 2pl. It is not at all clear how this is to be dealt with.

3.8. Complement Structures
The next example is a sentence with a subordinated clause. This requires a more
Baker (2001) distinguishes optional and obligatory polysynthesis. Mohawk and Warlpiri require
incorporation of pronominal arguments, while Chichewa and–in this case–Shona allow it.

17

― 21 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 20complex CP than hitherto was necessary. Since an assumed operator cont was
positioned in C which contracted a constituent into spec-C, this position is not open
for fronted subclauses. Along with Rizzi (1997) the CP must now assume a finer
structure. Fronted VP material is assumed to merge to FinP, complementizers takeposition in ForceP.
(14) Until caught this killer is, our judgment she must respect.
1. our + judgment → [D’ our [judgment]]
2. respect + D’
→ [V’ respect [D’ our [judgment]]]
3. she + V’
→ [VP she [V’ respect [D’ our [judgment]]]]4. must + VP
→ [T’ must [VP she [V’ respect [D’ our [judgment]]]]]
5. she + T’
→ [TP she [T’ must [VP she [V’ respect [D’ our [judgment]]]]]]
6. cont + TP
→	[FIN’ cont [TP she [T’ must [VP she [V’ respect [D’ our[judgment]]]]]]]
7. D’ + Fin’→	[FINP our judgment [FIN’ cont [TP she [T’ must [VP she [V’ respect[D’ our [judgment]]]]]]]]
Until this step the main clause has been assembled save for the subclause. In (14.1)
D’ is formed, and merged to the verb in (14.2). The subject she merges in (14.3) toform VP to which the auxiliary must is merged (14.4). In (14.5) she merges with T’
to form TP. Then the operator cont merges to TP to form Fin’ in (14.6). Next
follows the derivation of the subclause before it is merged to the syntactic object
derived in (14.7)
8. this + killer
9. D’ + caught
10. is + VP
11. D’ + T’
12. cont + TP
13. V’ + Fin’
14. until + FinP

→ [D’ this [killer]]→ [VP [D’ this [killer]] caught]→ [T’ is [VP [D’ this [killer]] caught]]→ [TP this killer [T’ is [VP [D’ this [killer]] caught]]]→ [FIN’ cont [TP this killer [T’ is [VP [D’ this [killer]] caught]]]]→	[FINP caught [FIN’ cont [TP this killer [T’ is [VP [D’ this [killer]]caught]]]]]→	[FORCE’ until [FINP caught [FIN’ cont [TP this killer [T’ is [VP [D’this [killer]] caught]]]]]]― 22 ―

Minimalist Yoda

Assembling the subclause starts with merging this and killer to form D’ (14.8). In(14.9) D’ is merged with caught to form a VP. This VP is merged to is forming T’(14.10), to which D’ merges (14.11). cont then merges to TP (14.12) forming Fin’,and the remaining VP material caught is merged in order to from FinP (14.13). In(14.14), until merges with FinP into which I assume is the head position of aForceP. My reasons for this assumption shall be detailed later. I proceed with theassemblage of the main clause.
15. Force’ + FinP →	[FORCE’ [FORCE’ until [FINP caught [FIN’ cont [TP this killer [T’ is[VP [D’ this [killer]] caught]]]]]] [FINP our judgment [FIN’ cont
[TP she [T’ must [VP she [V’ respect [D’ our [judgment]]]]]]]]]In the last step (14.15) the resulting structure of (14.8–14) is merged with theresulting structure of (14.1–7) to form the final structure. I have assumed that the
subclause merges with the main clause and forms a Force phrase. This is of course
debatable.
   First, a reasonable assumption for the position of the subclass is a Top phrase.
At least in Yoda, that entails two problems. 1. A position in Top phrase would require
the subclause to internally merge to the structure derived up to this point. Logically,it then must have externally merged at some earlier step in the derivation. Since inthis case the until-construction is an adjunct, it is unclear exactly where it would
adjoin the tree. I would presume it could adjoin to the TP of the main clause. In myindecision, I am in good company, though, because the problem of adjunction has
not yet been definitively resolved in Minimalist Syntax. 2. A further problem – atleast in Yoda – is that if the Force position is not filled, one should assume that asubclause-main clause-construction could be complementized again. In other words,
if a fronted subclause is considered to merge into a Top position, the Force position
should in principle be available for another complementizer. In English, theunderlying language of Yoda, such constructions are possible only if the subclause is
not fronted.
(15) a. Yoda said that she must respect our judgment until this killer is caught.
b. Yoda said that until this killer is caught she must respect our judgment.
― 23 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 20c.	That she must respect our judgment until this killer is caught is what Yoda
said.
d.*That until this killer is caught she must respect our judgment is what Yoda
said.
Concludingly, a complementizer of a subclause which constitutes the matrix clause
for a further subclause and this further subclause compete for the same position. At
least this is true for languages where fronting of a subclause is possible. Further
evidence, however, comes from Japanese where subclauses are always positioned in
front of the main clause, and which has force particles. It shows that such particles
are impossible if the subclause is not finite.
(16) a. o.kaa.san=da=kara i.u koto=o kii.te age.nasai.
		hon-mother-hon-ess[pres]-rea say-pres matter-acc listen-prt givedo[imp]b. *o.kaa.san=da kara=yo i.u koto=o kii.te age.nasai.18
		hon-mother-hon -ess[pres]-rea-forc say-pres matter-acc listen-prt givedo[imp]c. i.u koto=o kii.te age.nasai. o.kaa.san=da=kara=yo.
		say-pres matter-acc listen-prt give-do[imp]. hon-mother-hon -ess[pres]rea-forc
As can be seen the force particle =yo can occur after finite =kara (16.c), but not if thematrix clause follows (16.b). For this reason I assume that there is a competition
between complementizers, force particles, and full subclauses.
   A further example demonstrates that partial VP fronting which seems to be
obligatory in Yoda, does not take place, if the verb is the only remaining element in
VP.
(17) If Duku escapes, rally more systems to his cause he will.

18(16b) is wrong if no pause is inserted after the force particle =yo.

― 24 ―

Minimalist Yoda

This example is interesting for three reasons: 1. in the if-clause the verb escapes is not
fronted. 2. However, in the main clause not only are non-verbal elements of the VP
fronted, but also the verb itself. In other words, (17) displays full VP fronting, notonly partial fronting. In (2, 3, 5, 7, 12) and the main clause of (14) verbal
complements were fronted without the verb. In (8) and the subclause of (14),however the verbs were also fronted after their subjects merged to T’. The
construction of the main clause in (17) however reveals that a more complex
syntactic object has been merged to Fin’. The reason might be that the verb rally
occurs with two phrases.
   The third reason concerns binding: the initial subclause contains the referential
expression Duku which is coreferential with he. In order to avoid a violation of
Binding Theory, one must therefore either assume that this subclause is not internallymerged in Force’ or that the order of referential expression and pronoun is checked
and possibly reordered at PF. Since interpretation at LF would also require aninterpretable structure, and because many proposals now prefer LF as a linking
structure between Spell-out and PF, one could therefore assume that the ordering ofreferential expression and pronoun must already be finished at Spell-out. I shallassume that here which requires me to posit an external merger of the subclause to
Force’. Because this assumption entails that fronted subclauses have different
derivations from those in post-main clause position, it is not an appealing
proposition.
1. his + cause→ [D’ his [cause]]
2. to + D’
→ [P’ to [D’ his [cause]]]3. rally + D’
→ [V’ rally [to [D’ his [cause]]]]4. more + systems → [D’ more [systems]]
5. D’ + V’
→ [VP more systems [V’ rally [to [D’ his [cause]]]]]
6. v + VP→ [v’ v [VP more systems [V’ rally [to [D’ his [cause]]]]]]
7. rally + v→ [v’ rally+v [VP more systems [V’ rally [to [D’ his [cause]]]]]]
8. he + v’→	[vP he [v’ rally+v [VP more systems [V’ rally [to [D’ his [cause]]]]]]]
9. will + vP→	[T’ will [vP he [v’ rally+v [VP more systems [V’ rally [to [D’ his[cause]]]]]]]]
10. he + T’→	[TP he [T’ will [vP he [v’ rally+v [VP more systems [V’ rally [to [D’ his― 25 ―

愛知大学

11. cont + TP
12. v’ + Fin’

言語と文化No. 20[cause]]]]]]]]]→	[FIN’ cont [TP he [T’ will [vP he [v’ rally+v [VP more systems [V’ rally[to [D’ his [cause]]]]]]]]]]→	[FINP rally+v more systems to his cause [FIN’ cont [TP he [T’ will[vP he [v’ rally+v [VP more systems [V’ rally [to [D’ his[cause]]]]]]]]]]]

In (17.1) his is merged with cause forming D’. In (17.2) this D’ is merged with toforming P’. To this P’ rally merges in (17.3) forming V’. In (17.4) more is merged tosystems forming D’. Here I leave a possible quantificational structure open. This D’ ismerged to V’ in (17.5) forming VP. Because neither D’ so far merged is the subject, alight-verb construction is needed. Thus, a covert light verb merges with VP in (17.6).
Then rally merges with the light verb in (17.7) without expanding the structure. In(17.8) he merges with v’ to form vP. The auxiliary will merges with vP in (17.9)
forming T’. Then he merges with T’ checking φ-features and forming TP (17.10). In(17.11) the operator cont merges with TP forming Fin’. After merging v’ to Fin’
thereby satisfying cont-features in (17.12) the main clause is assembled.
13. Duku + escapes → [VP Duku [V’ escapes]]
14. pres + VP
→ [T’ pres [VP Duku [V’ escapes]]]
15. Duku + T’
→ [TP Duku [T’ pres [VVP Duku [V’ escapes]]]]16. if + TP
→ [C’ if [TP Duku [T’ pres [VP Duku [V’ escapes]]]]]The subclause is assembled by merging Duku with escapes (17.13). The resulting VP
merges with pres (17.14), and Duku merges with this resulting T’ (17.15). In allother examples at this point of the derivation the operator cont merges to thestructure. In (17.16) however, if merges instead. In ‘real’ Yoda one would assume aresulting structure such as if escapes Duku. This would be in line with everything
outlined above. However, such as structure was presumably judged too shaky for
English speakers to comprehend–after all we should not forget that we’re talking
about a motion picture produced for economic purposes. Here the underlying
language English interferes insofar as its principles are simply stronger than the
demand on strangeness Yoda should exude. In English morphologically bound― 26 ―

Minimalist Yoda

inflections prohibit movement of the verb, while morphologically free inflections
move themselves.

4. Summary
In this paper I have tried to apply a Minimalist analysis to Yoda, a fictional language
from the Star-Wars movie picture. After laying out the general framework in section
2, section 3 detailed several Yoda sentences. These comprised the following structures:
coordination (section 3.2), tough-construction (section 3.3), imperative and vconstructions (section 3.6), and complement structures (section 3.8).
   As a result, Yoda is peculiar for English native speakers because of its obligatory
V-complement fronting. In sentences (2, 3, 5, 7, 12) and the main clause of (14)such V-complements were fronted. In sentence (8), the subclause of (14), and themain clause of (17) the whole VP was fronted. However, the subclause of (17)showed that fronting does not take place, if the verb fuses with the inflection. The
counterexamples were (8) and the subclause of (14): due to the respective perfect andpassive constructions, which are periphrastic in English (and thus in Yoda), theparticiple does not fuse with I0, and thus is free to be fronted.
   A further result was that fronting of VP-material is dependent on structure. I.e.
as only constituents can be fronted (/internally merged), the whole VP had to be
fronted in the main clause of (17), but not in that of (14), because the object ourjudgment constituted a syntactic object capable of merging.
   Furthermore, I made three excursions: one into Japanese (section 3.4), one into
Shona (section 3.7), and one into Antisymmtry (section 3.5). Section 3.4 detailed
left-dislocation of V-material. Section 3.7 briefly analyzed verb-structure in Shona,which, however, must stay tentative, because it is still far from obvious how
polysynthetic languages have to be dealt with. In a language such as Shona it seems
that more categories are required than are desirable.
   Section 3.5 took up Antisymmetry by not arguing against its core assumptions.
Evidently, asymmetries do exist. In a detailed analysis of a Japanese sentence, I tried
to show that Antisymmetry must posit superfluous operations just for the sake ofderiving the structure. While from a theory-internal point of view that cannot beargued against, syntax must not forget that every category posited and every― 27 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 20operation executed has ramifications for processing. It seems that Antisymmetry
cannot address the different processing workloads it must tacitly assume, withoutcompromising a core tenet held by modern linguists, namely that languages arebasically the same.

References:
Aronoff, M. & K. Fudeman (2005): What is Morphology? Blackwell.
Baker, M. (2001): The Atoms of Language. Basic Books.
Beard, R. (1995): Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. State University of New York.
Bellusci, D. C. (1991): Serialization Patterns in Shona Verbal Morphology. Ph. D. thesis.
University of Alberta.
Boeckx, C. (2008): Bare Syntax. Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J. L. (1985): Morphology: A Study on the Relation between Meaning and Form. John
Benjamins.
Carnie, A. (2008): Constituent Structure. Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995): The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.
Culicover, P. W. & R. Jackendoff (2005): Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press.
Deane, P. (1992): Grammar in Mind and Brain: Explorations in Cognitive Syntax. Mouton de
Gruyter.
Epstein, S. D. & T. D. Seely (2006): Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge University Press.
Erickson, D. (1988): The Morphology and Syntax of Shona: A Lexical Approach. Ph. D. thesis.
University of Washington.
Fortune G. (1950): An Analytical Grammar of Shona. Ph. D. thesis. University of Cape Town.
Hornstein, N. & J. Nunes, K. K. Grohmann (2005): Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge
University Press.
Kayne, R. (1994): The Anitsymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press.
– (2000): Parameters and Universals. Oxford University Press.
– (2004): Antisymmetry in Japanese. In: L. Jenkins (ed.) Variation and Universals in Biolinguistics.
Elsevier B. V. 3–35
Matthews, P. H. (2007): Syntactic Relations: A Critical Survey. Cambridge University Press.
Myers, S. (1990): Tone and the Structure of Words in Shona. Garland Pub.
Narrog, H. (1999): Japanische Verbflexive und flektierbare Verbalsuffixe. Harrassowitz.
Phillips, C. (2003): Linear Order and Constituency. In: Linguistic Inquiry 34: 37–90.
Postal, P. M. (1993): Remarks on Weak Crossover Effects. In: Linguistic Inquiry 24: 539–56
Radford, A. (1997): Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
– (2004): Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge University Press.

― 28 ―

Minimalist Yoda
Rice, K. (2000): Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word Formation in the Athapaskan
Verb. Cambridge University Press.
Rickmeyer, J. (1983): Morphosyntax der japanischen Gegenwartssprache. Julius Groos.
– (1995): Japanische Morphosyntax. Julius Groos.
Rizzi, L. (1997): The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In: L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements ofGrammar. Kluwer. 281–337.

― 29 ―