FAJL@ICU (June 28, 2014)

1

Innocuousness of {XP, YP} as a root clause in Japanese and English
Miyoko Yasui
Dokkyo University
1. {XP, YP} and the Labeling Algorithm
Ø Chomsky (2013) raises the question of why the interrogative counterpart of (1) involves the movement of V rather than N as in (2) though the two heads are equally close to the clause-initial position.
More generally, case (3ii) is not problematic, but merger of two phrases results in labeling ambiguity,
so that something like (3iiiA) or (3iiiB) must take place.
(1) [α [NP Young [N eagles]] [TP [T are] flying ]](Chomsky 2013)(2) a. *[Eagles [young <eagles> are flying]]?
b. [Are [young eagles <are> flying]]?
(3) Labeling algorithm in Chomsky (2013:43)(i) LA seeks (only) visible/active features.
(ii) SO={H, XP} à H is the label.
(iii) SO={XP, YP} à (A) “Modify SO so that there is only one visible head, or(B) X and Y are identical in a relevant respect.”Ø As for the labeling ambiguity in (1), Chomsky does not resort to (3iiiA,B) but the so-called feature
inheritance approach described in (4), where TP without a subject DP is merged with C. Given theabsence of a subject DP, C can unambiguously find the finite verb are and attracts it. The problem
with this approach is that the subsequent merger of a subject DP in (4c) violates the No-Tampering
Condition (NTC) unless some special derivation is assumed (Epstein, Kitahara and Seely 2012, andKato et el. 2013).
(4) Downward Feature Sharing (Chomsky 2008, 2013, Richards 2007): Besides a clause-type feature,
C has φ− and tense features, and they are inherited by the T it selects.
a. [CP [C Q, φ, Τ][TP are flying]] àb. [CP [C are][TP <are> flying]]àc. [CP [C are][TP [NP young eagles][ <are> flying]]Ø This study pursues the possibility of upward feature sharing along the line of: Extended projectionof Grimshaw 1997 and Broekhuis 2013, phase extension of den Dikken 2006 and phase-sliding
Gallego & Uriagereka 2006.
Ø Specifically, it argues that a LI internally merges with the SO it heads (i.e., head movement) as longas the merger satisfies some of its features’ criterial or selectional needs. The data to support thisclaim include the distribution of sentential subjects in English and the properties of relative clauses
and S-final particles in Japanese.

FAJL@ICU (June 28, 2014)2

2. Declarative and Interrogative Clauses in English
2.1 Assumptions (May’s wh-criterion, Rizzi’s criteria, etc.)(5) i. [ Q ] is a clause-type feature for an interrogative clause. It can be bundled with a finite tensefeature or inherently appears in a C like if.
ii. SO labeled by [ Q ] and other clause-type features must merge with a TP.
(6) i. [WH] is a feature to induce wh-movement (i.e., wh-questions and wh-relatives); It is an
unintepretable feature and NOT a clause-type feature. It can be bundled with a tense (andprobably C like whether).
ii. SO labeled by [WH] must merge with a wh-phrase. ç {XP, YP} in (iii-B) of (3)(7) i. A tense feature can be bundled with a V (i.e., inflected verb) or inherently appears in English
modals and infinitive to.
ii. SO labeled by a tense feature must merge with a ‘full verbal projection’ (VP with an
external argument or vP).
Ø Statements (ii) of (5)-(7) are essentially the same as various criteria, and presumably need not be
stated explicitly in the sense that they are interpretive requirements at the C-I interface.
2.2 Head Movement	 Ø SAI as internal merger of a head should be analyzed on a par with internal merger of a phrase.
(8) a. [CP [DP Which book] did the man send [DP <which book>] to his friend]?
b. [CP [AdvP How soon] did the man finish the work [AdvP <how soon>]]?
c. *[CP [PP to his friend][did the man send which book [PP <to his friend>]]?
d. *[CP [DP the work][did the man finish [DP <the work>] how soon ]?
Ø Wh-phrases of various categories can internally merge with {C, TP}. [Spec, CP] of a specific category does not exist before wh-movement. Wh-movement is sensitive to the presence of a wh-feature
in its target rather than the category.
(9) a.
[CP [C ] [α [young eagles] [are flying ]]]b. ☞ [α [ young eagles] [ are flying ]]c.
[β are [α [ young eagles] [ <are> flying ]]]If SAI is a case of internally merging a finite auxiliary with the TP it heads, no landing site should beassumed before its application as in (9b) rather than (9a). When if externally merges with a TP, it is
not necessary to assume the node C to exist before its external merger.
Ø What might be problematic with (9b) is that there is no probe to search for the finite V are. In otherØwords, how does the finite verb move to clause-initial position despite the absence of a higher head?

FAJL@ICU (June 28, 2014)3Ø Boskovic’s (2007) theory of successive-cyclic phrasal movement based on the Activation Conditionof Chomsky (2000): ‘I am moving.’Ø Boskovic assumes no uninterpretable feature in the intermediate C. Instead, the moving wh-phrase
has an uninterpretable feature (uK), and it makes the phrase active or visible. This uK does nothing
in the intermediate landing site and remains active for movement into the matrix Spec, CP. In the final landing site, uK deletes the unintepretable [WH] feature of the C. The first step of wh-movementin (10b) is a solo play by the feature uK.
(10) a. Whati do you think [CP ti [C that] Mary bought ti]?
b. you think [CP whati [C that] Mary bought ti][CP wh-phrase [C WH] you think [CP <wh-phrase> [C that] [TP … <wh-phrase> … ]]iF/uK ↑_____________________ iF/uK ↑______________| iF/uKØ This is exactly like my conception of head-movement in (9b), where the moving element and thelanding site are the same. If are in (9b) has [Q], it’s uninterpretable in the sense that it has not satisfied (5ii). Its subsequent merger with the TP it heads satisfies (5ii) on a par with the external mergerof if/that with a TP does.
Ø Clause-type and tense features are active/not properly interpreted (or uninterpretable) until they satisfy their respective criterion in (5ii) and (7ii).
(11) [β are [α [ young eagles] [ <are> flying ]]] ß (5ii) F = tense, V
iK
iF/uK
K = [Q]Ø On the other hand, no element in [NP young eagles] has a comparable feature; (2a) is an unnecessary
case of internal merger just as phrasal internal merger in (8c,d) is unnecessary.
2.3 Feature-bundling Possibilities and Clausal Size
(12) are = [V, present, φ, EPP, (Q), ...] ç (7i) & (5i)
a. 4
b.
4
are
flying3 3[V, …] [V, present participle, ...]
young eagles are
flying{V, VP} ç selection (c.f., *have flying){NP, VP} ç θ-requirement
5
a re3[present, ...]
2 2
young eagles <are> flying[V, …]{T, {NP, VP}} ç (7ii)
c.

e.

5
a re
5
[Q, ...] 3 3young eagles <are>…
[present, ...]

d. 5
3 5
young eagles a re
4
[N, nom, … ] [φ, EPP, ...]22<young eagles> <are> flying{NP, TP} ç Case/EPP{C, {NP, TP}} ç (5ii)Ø The feature composition of the finite verb are is given in (12), where the feature [Q] can but need not

FAJL@ICU (June 28, 2014)4

be bundled. If [Q] is not bundled, the derivation can stop at (12d); it is a root declarative clause withall the requirements of are satisfied. It does not matter how the whole structure is labeled; {NP, TP}
is innocuous as it is.
Ø If are contains [Q], it must move in a position to have the TP as its sister as in (12e) to satisfy thecriterion (5ii). The structures formed at (12a), (12c), and (12e) are all labeled by are; distinct featuresof are are activated at each stage; they can be called VP, TP, and CP, respectively.
Ø Movement of [N eagles ] in (12c) would not make the derivation converge; tense and other featuresof the verb would be trapped inside VP.
(13) if=[C, Q, select_finite_T, …] & (12d): ‘I wonder if young eagles are flying.’
a.
5
b.
4
if
4
wonder3[C, Q, …] 3 3
if…
young eagles are…
[C, Q, …][present, ...]{C, {NP, TP}} ç (5ii){V, CP} ç selectionØ An interesting possibility is to merge the inverted structure (12e) with an interrogative predicate
wonder as in (14). This is unacceptable in Standard English since (12e) is {V, TP}, with the inverted
auxiliary remaining to be V and wonder does NOT select a verb.
(14) wonder & (12e): ‘(*)I wonder are young eagles flying.’
5
wonder4
are
3[V, Q, …] 2…
young eaglesØ There are various dialects in which (14) is acceptable. Speakers of such dialects allow wonder tos-select a complement with [Q] without imposing a categorical restriction.
(15) a. I remember who had been nominated/that Susan had been nominated. (McCloskey 2006)
b. I wonder who had been nominated/*that Susan had been nominated.
(16) a. *I remember was Henry a Communist.
b. I wonder was Henry a Communist.
Ø If (17) is unacceptable in any dialect of English, it is because the TP is not properly typed as an interrogative clause. ç (5ii)(17) wonder & (12d): ‘*I wonder young eagles are flying.’
5
wonder5
3
3{V, TP}
young eagles are …
[V, present, …]

FAJL@ICU (June 28, 2014)5Ø (12d) can merge with the declarative complementizer as in (18).
(18) that=[C, Decl(arative), select_finite_T, …] & (12d): ‘I think that young eagles are flying.’
a.
5
b.
4
that
4
think
3
[C, Decl, select_finite_T, …] 22
that…
young eagles are…
[C, Decl, …][present, ...]{C, {NP, TP}} ç (5ii){V, CP} ç selection(19) are = [V, present, φ, EPP, [WH], ...] ç (6i): ‘What are young eagles eating?’
a. {NP, TP} 5
b. {C,{NP, TP}} 4
3
5
are
3
%
young eagles are[[WH], …] … 3[[WH], … ] … whatare…
[present, …]
c.
4
what
4
%
are
{what, CP} ç (6ii)[[WH], …] … <what>[WH]Ø The uninterpretable feature [WH] of are does not satisfy the wh-criterion (6ii) and has not been deleted in (19a). Given Boskovic’s (2006) ‘I’m active and thus moving’, internal merger of are with(19a) should be allowed as in (19b) though the inverted finite auxiliary does no job like a wh-phrase
in the intermediate position. The resultant SO can be taken as labeled by [WH]. Internal merger ofwhat with (19b) as in (19c) deletes [WH] and satisfies (6ii).
(20) are = [V, present, φ, EPP, [WH], ...]: ‘Which eagles are flying?’
qp
3
qp
which eagles
are4{{which, eagle}, TP}[[WH], present, φ, EPP, … ] 2
2[WH]<which eagles> <are> …
Ø (6ii) is satisfied without an extra application of internal merger; the Vacuous Movement Hypothesis(VMH) is adopted. If are in (20) had the clause-type feature [Q], it would remain in T under the
VMH and (5ii) would be violated.
2.4 Distribution of Sentential Subjects in English
Ø In the present analysis, the matrix declarative clause is a TP rather than CP, which gives us a basis todistinguish a matrix clause from an embedded CP in terms of their clausal sizes.
Ø The complementizer that is deletable after think, for example, but needs to be retained in the sentential subject as in (21c).
(21) a. [α It ] [β is important that you should go ]b. [α That you should go there] [β is important]c. *[α you should go there] [β is important]Ø β in (21a-c) is labeled by the finite verb is. It counts as a TP.

FAJL@ICU (June 28, 2014)6Ø In (21c), α and β are labeled by finite verbs should and is: {TP, TP}. It is illegitimate unless it turns
into a coordinate structure (cf., (3iii-A)): ‘You should go there and (it) is important.’
(21a)
(21b)
(21c)*
4
4
4
it
3
3 3
3 3
[D, …] isthatisshouldis[V, present, …] [C, Decl, …] [V, present, …][V, present, …] [V, present, …](22) a. [α Is] [ it important that you should go]ß (21a)b. *[α Is] [ that you should go there important ]ß (21b)(22a)5(22b)*
5
is4
is
4[V, present, Q, …] it
3 [V, present, Q, …] 3 3
[D,…]
<is>
that
<is>
[V, present, Q, …][C, Decl, …] [V, present, Q, …]{C, {DP, TP}}{C, {CP, TP}}ØThe inverted finite verb has the feature [Q], it moves out of TP to type it as a question, satisfying thecriterion (5ii); thus, the moved auxiliary (=α) counts as C. (22b) can be regarded as violating someØkind of anti-locality; C is too close to another instance of C.
Given {C, {CP, TP}} in (22b), the relation between C and TP should be innocuous just as in (22a).
What is offending is the relation between C and CP (i.e., is and the sentential subject). Labelingambiguity of {CP, TP} is instrumental in making the anti-locality work to block (22b).

ØRoss/Kuno’s internal S constraint, Emonds’ root transformations, and Stowell’s Case ResistancePrinciple	  (See also Davies & Dubinsky 2009)(23) a. [CP that Bill smokes cigarettes] bothers the teacher]b. *[CP That [CP that Bill smokes cigarettes] bothers the teacher] is quite possible]
c. [CP for Bill to smoke cigarettes] bothers the teacher]d. *[[CP That [CP for Bill to smoke cigarettes] bothers the teacher] is quite possible]e. [[CP That it bothers the teacher [CP for Bill to smoke cigarettes]] is quite possible](Emonds 1970)Ø(23c-e) all contain the structure α in (24a). To obtain (23d), α merges with the structure labeled bybothers (=γ) as in (24b). The relation between that and γ should be innocuous as (23e) shows. The
relation between that and for violates the anti-locality mentioned in connection with (22b).
(24) a.
α
b. *
5
5
for
4
that
β
{C, {CP, TP}}[C, Decl, … ] Bill
3
[C, Decl, …]
4[D, …] toαγ[T, infinitive, … ]3 3
forbothers …
[C, Decl, …][V, …]
Ø The grammaticality of (23a) suggests that the matrix declarative clause is not headed by an abstract
C. (23a) is {CP, TP} rather than {C, {CP, TP}}.

FAJL@ICU (June 28, 2014)7Ø A sentential subject is not allowed in V2 languages presumably because the matrix clause is uniformly CP (Koster 1978).
3. Absence of [WH] in Japanese
3.1 No Overt Wh-movement in JapaneseØ Japanese has [Q], which is realized as the LI ka.
Ø Wh-phrases in Japanese don’t move overtly. This suggests that Japanese lacks [WH] (Fukui 1986).
Ø Murasugi (1991) and others argue that relative clauses in Japanese are TPs. This is expected if Japanese lacks [WH]. (Hoshi 2004 and others for counterarguments.)
3.2 Interpretation of Clauses in English(25) a. 3
b. 3
c. 3
d. 3
%
%
they %
are %
that
if
are flying [Q, …] they flying [Decl, …] they are flying [Q, …] they are flying[V, present, …]Ø

Matrix declarative clauses like (25a) are not explicitly typed as declarative, but interpreted so due tothe absence of any feature to type otherwise.
Ø Matrix alternate questions like (25b) are typed by the inverted auxiliary with [Q].
Ø Embedded clauses like (25c,d) are explicitly typed by Cs with clause-type features.
(26) a. I don’t know whose mother died recently. b. This is the man whose mother died recently.
5
5
know
α
(the) manα54whose mother 4
whose mother 4[WH, …] %[WH, …] %<whose mother> …
<whose mother> …
Ø α in (26a,b) is a case of {XP, YP} in the LA (3iii-B): the wh-phrase and the SO labeled by the[WH] C are identical in a relevant respect. After the uninterpretable feature [WH] of the C head isdeleted, α is typed as a ‘wh-clause’ by the moved wh-phrase (Cheng 1991).
(27) A wh-clause is interpreted as relative if it merges with an N(P) as in (26b). Otherwise, it is interpreted as interrogative as in (26b) or a matrix question: ‘Whose mother died recently?’, Whose
mother did you see?’, etc.
Ø Wh-words must be present in questions as in (28) but can be absent in relative clauses as in (29).
(28) a. I wonder which you like.
b. *I wonder you like.
(29) a. I know the book which you like.
b. I know the book that you like.
c. I know the book you like.
Ø α must be a wh-clause to be interpreted as interrogative, while it need not as relative.
(30) A clause is interpreted as relative if it merges with an N(P)ß the first part of (27)(28a) 4(29c)
4wonderα(the) book
α
4
4
which
4
which
4
%
%
[WH, …][WH, …]
you like <which>
you like <which>FAJL@ICU (June 28, 2014)8

3.3 Interpretation of Clauses in JapaneseØ Japanese relatives are TPs. Some Japanese relatives can be analyzed as gapless. This fact falls under(30): A relative clause need not contain a gap corresponding to a wh-phrase, i.e., it need not be awh-clause.
(31) a. [α Taro-ga kaw-ta] hon
Taro-NOM buy-PAST book‘the book Taro bought’b. [α shuusyoku-ga taihen na buturigaku
employment-NOM difficult is physics‘physics, where finding a job is difficult’(Kuno 1973a:255)c. [α zibun-ga kai-ta
hon-gasyoten-ni deteiru] gakusha]
self-NOM write-PAST book-NOM bookstore-in isscholarLit. ‘the scholari who the book SELFi wrote is sold at bookstores’ (Inoue 1976:224)
Ø Ka inherently has [Q]. Ka is obligatory in embedded questions as in (32). Clauses typed by ka areinterpreted as interrogative.
(32) a. Watasi-wa Taro-ga koko-ni ki-ta
ka siri-tai.
I-TOP
Taro-NOM here-to come-PAST Q know-want‘I want to know if Taro came here.’b. Watasi-wa Taro-ga nani-o kaw-ta ka siri-tai.
I-TOP
Taro-NOM what-ACC buy-PAST Q know-want.
‘I want to know what Taro bought.’Ø The presence/absence of ka is not crucial in distinguishing declarative and interrogative clauses in
the matrix context as in (33); intonation does the job.
(33) a. Taro-wa koko-ni ki-ta(no/yo/ne/sa) ⤵
Taro-TOP here-to come-PAST (prt)‘Taro come here.’b. Taro-wa koko-ni ki-ta(no/?ka) ⤴	 Taro-TOP here-to come-PAST (prt/Q)‘Did Taro come here?’c. Taro-wa nani-o kaw-ta(no/?ka) ⤴	 Taro-TOP what-ACC buy-PAST (prt/Q)‘What did Toro buy?’
3.4 S-final Particles Other Than Ka(34) a. [Taro-ga Hanako-ni kossori hon-oage-ta] (no) ne/yo/sa
Taro-NOM Hanako-DAT secretly book-ACC give-PAST‘Taro gave a book to Hanako secretly.’
b. *Taro-ga [Hanako-ni kossori age-ta] ne/yo/sa hon
Taro-NOM Hanako-DAT secretly give-PAST
book‘the book Taro gave to Hanako’
c. *[Taro-ga Hanako-ni kossori hon-o age-ta] ne/yo/sa kara, Yukiko-wa okotteiru.
TARO-NOM Hanako-DAT secretly book-ACC give-PAST
because Yukiko-TOP angry‘Since Taro gave a book to Hanako secretly, Yukiko is angry’(35) Taro-ga ne/yo/sa, Hanako-ni ne/yo/sa, kossori ne/yo/sa, hon-o ne/yo/sa, ageta ne/yo/sa(essentially the same meaning as (34a))Ø The S-final particle ne/yo/sa can merge with categories other than T. They lack the defining property as Cs.

FAJL@ICU (June 28, 2014)9ØNe/yo/sa are optionally preceded by no in the matrix context. The matrix TP in (34a) is assumed to
be nominalized by no just as in (36).
(36) Taro-wa [TP Hanako-ga ki-ta ]*(no)-o sir-anakat-ta.
TARO-TOP Hanako-NOM come-PAST
ACC know-NOT-PAST‘Taro didn’t know Hanako came.’(37) a. *4b.
43
ne/yo/sa3
ne/yo/saT
3 [N no]TØ A matrix clause is a typical case of {XP, YP}. (35) might suggest that ne/yo/sa are ‘distributed’ to
XP and YP, recursively, presumably as the conjunction and is distributed in (39).
(38) a.
5
b.
5
5
ne
3
4
Taro-ga5
Taro-ga ne 4 ne
%
%
no
no
Hanako-ni … age-ta
Hanako-ni … age-tac.
535
Taro-ga ne3
3
Hanako-ni ne 3 ne%nokossori … age-ta(39) John is tall (, and) dark, (and), handsome, and from a wealthy family.
4. SummaryØ [WH] , clause-type and tense features can be bundled into relevant LIs in more than one way.
Ø A LI internally merges with the SO it heads as long as the merger satisfies some of its features’
criterial needs; their features are shared by upper heads.
Ø Matrix declaratives and subject wh interrogatives in English as well as Japanese (relative) clauses
are TPs, while non-subject wh interrogatives and embedded declaratives in English are CPs. The
distinction makes it possible to capture the distribution of sentential subjects in English and theproperties of Japanese relative clauses.
Ø S-final particles in Japanese, which are often assumed to be Cs, lack the defining properties as Cs.
Japanese arguably lacks the category C.
Selected References
Bošković, Željko (2007) On the locality and motivation of move and agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38:589–644.
Broekhuis, Hans (2013) Feature inheritance versus extended projections. Ms.
Cheng, Lisa (1991) On the Typology of Wh-questions. PhD Dissertation MIT.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax inhonor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka, pp.89-115. MIT Press.
_____ (2008) On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic yheory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud,
eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, pp.133-166. MIT Press.
_____ (2013) Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 33-49.
Davies, William D. and Stanley Dubinsky (2009). On the Existence (and Distribution) of Sentential Subjects.In
Hypothesis A/hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, eds., Donna B.
Gerdts, John C. Moore and Maria Polinsky, pp.111–128. MIT Press.
den Dikken, Marcel (2006) Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, Predicate Inversion, and copulas. MIT
Press.

FAJL@ICU (June 28, 2014)10

Emonds, Joseph (1970) Root and structure-preserving transformations, PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Epstein, Samuel David, Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T. Daniel Seely (2012) Structure building that can’t be. In Ways ofstructure building, eds. Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Vidal Valmala, pp.253–270. Oxford University Press.
Fukui, Naoki (1986) A theory of category projection and its applications. PhD Dissertation MIT.
Gallego, Ángel&Juan Uriagereka (2006) Sub-extraction from subjects. Paper presented at WCCFL 25 & LSRL 36.
Grimshaw, Jane (1997) Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28:373-422.
Hoshi, Koji (2004) Remarks on N-Final Relativization in Japanese. English Language and Literature 44: 113-147.
Yokohama: Keio University.
Inoue, Kazuko (1976) Henkeibunpo to Nihongo (Transformational Grammar and Japanese) Part I. Taishukan.
Kato, T., Kuno, M., Narita, H., Zushi, M., & Fukui, N. (2013) Generalized search and the phase edge. Paper presented at Biolinguistics: Tokyo Workshop. Sophia University.
Koster, Jan (1978) Why Subject Sentences Don't Exist. In Recent Transformational Studies in European Linguistics, ed. Jean Keyser. pp.53–64. MIT Press,
Kuno, Susumu (1973a) The structure of the Japanese language. MIT Press.
_____ (1973b) Constraints on internal clauses and sentential subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 4:363-385.
McCloskey, James (2006) Questions and questioning in a local English. In Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and
Semantics: Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture, eds. Zanuttini, E. et al., pp.87-126. Georgetown University Press.
Murasugi, Keiko (1991) Noun phrases in Japanese and English: A study in syntax, learnability and acquisition.
PhD Dissertation, The University of Connecticut.
_____ (2000) Japanese complex noun phrases and the antisymmetry theory. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist
syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka, pp.211-234. MIT
Press.
Ross, John R. (1967) Constraints on variables in syntax, PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Richards, Marc D. (2007) On feature Inheritance: an argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38:563-572.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. Residual Verb second and the wh Criterion. In Parameters and functional heads. Essays incomparative syntax, eds. Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi, pp.63-90. Oxford University Press.
Stowell, Tim (1981) Origins of phrase structure. PhD Dissertation, MIT.