Towards Symmetry-driven Syntax∗
Naoki Fukui
Sophia University

2 Symmetry of Merge ⇒ Bare Phrase Structure

Hiroki Narita
Tokai University⋆ The standard assumptions, essentially originating from Chomsky’s (1970,
1981, 1986) X-bar theory:

Keio University
September 8th, 2017

1 Introduction(5)

Universal projection:
Syntactic Objects (SOs) are not “bare” but always associated withcertain ‘label’ symbols like NP, V’, CP, etc., namely “projections”(copies) of head LIs (X0 ’s).

(6)

Projection = endocentricity:
Projection is the device to encode endocentricity (headedness), i.e.,
i.e., centrality of a single lexical item (LI) in determining the interpretive properties of a constituent.

(7)

Universal endocentricity:
As a result of (5)-(6), every SO is endocentric, leaving no roomfor non-endocentric structures (thus departing from the traditional
Phrase Structure Grammar—e.g., S → NP VP)⋆ In this talk, we will argue for the hypothesis that the computation in humanlanguage (syntax) is fundamentally driven for symmetry.
(1)

Symmetry Principle of Syntax:
A generative procedure yields a symmetric output.

(2)

Symmetry:
For a generative procedure GP yielding Σ = {X1 , ..., Xn }, Σ is symmetric =def. X1 , ..., Xn are uniform with respect to GP, i.e., no property
or relation assigned by GP makes an element Xi distinct from anyother element X j , 1 ≤ i,j ≤ n).

(3)

(4)

Generative Procedures (GP):a. Merge (Set-Merge, external and internal)b. MERGE (mapping between workspaces)c. Narrow Syntax (recursive MERGE-based computation byphase, generating “Transfer-ready” representations)⋆ In Chomsky’s (1994, 1995) conception of Merge...

Asymmetric operations, excluded from Narrow Syntax:
a. Linearization (precedence-assignment)
b. Selectionc. Projection
d. Pair-Merge(8)

Merge(α, β)=a.

{α, {α, β}}

b.

α
α

∗ Part of this research is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientic Research (B) (No. 17H02347),

Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas #4903 (Evolinguistics), 17H06379, anda Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No. 16K02779) from the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.

1(order irrelevant)
β

(9)

(12)

CP
C

TP

theD

?

T’

DP
boyN

vP

T
tDP

But why couldn’t Merge be the one in (8) or any other form, if it is only
a matter of random genetic mutation, an evolutionary accident? Why
should Merge take the form as it is defined in (10)?

⋆ Merge as defined in (10) satisfies the Symmetry Principle of Syntax (13).

v*’
v*

VP
read

DP
theD

(13)

Symmetry Principle of Syntax (= (1)):
A generative procedure yields a symmetric output.

(14)

Symmetry (= (2)):
For a generative procedure GP yielding Σ = {X1 , ..., Xn }, Σ is symmetric =def. X1 , ..., Xn are uniform with respect to GP, i.e., no property
or relation assigned by GP makes an element Xi distinct from anyother element X j , 1 ≤ i,j ≤ n).

(15)

Relations assigned to α and β by Merge(α, β):a. Sister-of: hα, βi, hβ, αib. Term-of:1 hα, {α, β}i, hβ, {α, β}i, h{α, β}, {α, β}ic. *Projects2
d. *Selects (cf. Pesetsky and Torrego’s (2006) Vehicle Requirement
on Merge, Wurmbrand’s (2014) Merge Condition)
e. *Precedes (cf. Saito and Fukui 1998, Kayne 2011)
f. *C-commands

bookN⋆ None of the traditional stipulations in (5)-(7) are necessary in the theoryof projection-free Merge (Chomsky 2004 et seq.; see also Fukui 2011, Narita
2014, Fukui and Narita 2014):(10)

Merge(α, β)

=

Σ

=

a.

{α, β}b.
αβ(order irrelevant)
(11)

a.

“[R]eference to labels (as in defining c-command beyond minimal
search) is a departure from SMT, hence to be adopted only if forcedby empirical evidence, enriching UG.” (Chomsky 2007:23){C, {{theD , boyN }, {T, {tDP , {v*, {read, {theD , bookN }}}}}}}⋆ Merge (10) has the properties it has, perhaps not really because it is thesimplest and the most primitive form (which is apparently false; see Narita(orderb.

1 Term-of is defined as follows (Chomsky 1995:247)

C
theD

boyN

(i)

T
tDP

For any SO K,a.
K is a term of K.
b.
If L is a term of K, then the members of L are terms of K.

v*
read

theD

2 Citko’s (2008, 2011) notion of “Project Both” might appear to be symmetric in the sense of(14). However, Citko treats “Project Both” as a special case that can appear only when certain
conditions are met, and it is not her claim that every instance of Merge yields a symmetric output.

bookN

irrelevant)2

et al. 2017),3 but because symmetry is a fundamental principle of nature(cf. the “third factor,” Chomsky 2005, 2007, 2008).

(18)⋆ We have to make room for Internal Merge, which picks out a single SO αiand combines it with a proper term of it α j .

⋆ Merge as set-formation (10) is arguably the only combinatory procedureof Narrow Syntax in accord with the Symmetry Principle, which excludes other “asymmetrizing” operations like Linearization (Chomsky
1995, 2013), Projection (Collins 2002, Seely 2006, Chomsky 2007, 2013,
Narita 2014), Selection (Chomsky 2004), and Pair-Merge (Oseki 2015).

(19)

3 Symmetry of MERGE
3.1 Extending Merge to MERGE(16)

A workspace (WS) is a set of accessible SOs in a given derivation.

(17)

Merge (generalized to n-ary):
Merge takes n elements α1 ,..., αn from a given WS, and produces a
new element {α1 ,..., αn } within the WS.

MERGE:
Given a set Σ = [Σ1 , ..., Σm ], MERGE(Σ) = [{α1 , ..., αn }, β1 , ..., βk ] (0≤ n,k ≤ m), where(i) each αi (1 ≤ i ≤ n) is a term of some Σ j (1 ≤ j ≤ m),6 and(ii) {Σ1 , ..., Σm } ⊂ {α1 , ..., αn } ∪ {β1 , ..., βk }.7⋆ MERGE satisfies the symmetry principle (1)/(13).
(20)

Properties assigned to {α1 ,..., αn }, β1 ,..., βk by MERGE:
a. Is-Accessible: {α1 ,..., αn }, β1 ,..., βkb. Is-a-Root: {α1 ,..., αn }, β1 ,..., βk⋆ Merge (17) is a sub-procedure of MERGE (19), which also satisfies theSymmetry Principle.

⋆ Merge can be understood as a mapping from a WS to a modified WS(Chomsky, lecture at the University of Reading, May 11, 2017).4(21)

3 Narita et al. (2017) point out that Merge is in fact a complex operation that consists of atleast two components: (i) one that selects n elements α1 , ..., αn from a given workspace, and (ii)the other that forms a set of them, {α1 , ..., αn }. They call the procedures (i) and (ii) 0-Search (S0 )and 0-Merge (M0 ), respectively, and characterize Merge as a composite of these two operations,M0 ◦ S0 . See Narita et al. (2017) for the hypothesis that various other operations in syntax (suchas Agree, Labeling, Chain-formation, binding, etc.) can be reformulated as instances of M0 ◦ S0 ,articulating another characterization of Merge-only syntax. See also Kato et al. (2014).
4 Chomsky’s formulation of MERGE is as follows:(i)

MERGE takes a WS Si = [α1 ,..., αm ] and generates a modified WS
Si+1 = [{α1 ,..., αn }, αn+1 ,..., αm ] (1 ≤ n ≤ m).5

Relations assigned to α1 , ..., αn by Merge (see (15)):
a. Sister-of: hα1 , α2 i, hα2 , α1 i, ...
b. Term-of: hα1 , {α1 , ..., αn }i, hα2 , {α1 , ..., αn }i, ...,
hαn , {α1 , ..., αn }i, h{α1 , ..., αn }, {α1 , ..., αn }i

3.2 Formation of Lexical Array (Initial Workspace) as MERGE⋆ A derivation D can be represented as a sequence hS0 , S1 , ..., S f i (f > 0),
where each Si is a given stage of WS and is mapped to Si+1 by a syntactic
operation (such as MERGE).8

Given WS, a set of SOs, let Σ be the shortest sequence (X1 , ..., Xn ) such thata.
Xi is accessible, andb.
Σ exhausts WS
MERGE(Σ) = {{X1 , X2 }, ..., Xn }5 Just for expository convenience, we will henceforth use square brackets [ ] to represent
workspaces, but it should be understood that a workspace is just a set, with no internal orderingof elements.
6 Term-of is a reflexive relation (see note 1). Thus, any SO is a term of itself.
7 (19-ii) represents the idea that the object produced by MERGE must exhaust the input WS.
8 Or, perhaps MERGE is the only syntactic operation (see Chomsky 2007, 2008, 2013, 2015,
Berwick 2011, Boeckx 2014, Kato et al. 2014, Narita et al. 2017).

In our definition (18) and its extension in (19), we eliminate the binarity restriction and theintermediate formation of sequence Σ.

3⋆ The very first stage of WS S0 is what is called the “Lexical Array” (LA),understood as a finite collection of LIs {LI1 , ..., LIn } (Chomsky 2000; cf.
Chomsky’s (1995) notion of Numeration).

f.
g.
h.

?

What is the operation that forms LA (S0 )?

i.

⋆ For this matter, consider the notion of “lexicon,” defined as the set of LIs
in a given language.
(22)

The Lexicon (Lex) of an I-language L is a set of all LIs stored for L.
Lex = {LI1 ,..., LIm } (m > 0)

3.3 Narrow Syntax as a Mapping to a Unified Syntactic Object?

⋆ Then, given the definition in (19), MERGE may take Lex = {LI1 ,..., LIm } as
its input and produce a modified set Σ’ = {{LI1 ,..., LIn }, LI1 ,..., LIm } (1 ≤ n ≤
m).

(25)

⋆ No extra operation other than MERGE, such as Numeration-formation or
Select (Chomsky 1995:225-226), is necessary for the formation of LA (S0 ), a
desirable result.

SEM
7 →
−
LA (S0 )7−→ . . . 7−→
MERGE [LI1 , ..., LIn ] MERGE MERGE

Sf

(26)

Transfer
PHON

Narrow Syntax(24)

Some interface condition requires so (Chomsky 1995:226):“At the LF interface, Σ can be interpreted only if it consists ofa single syntactic object.”← Stipulating a tautological interface condition is clearly nonexplanatory, begging the why-question (Al-Mutairi 2014, Narita2017).

MERGE-based Narrow Syntax (to be elaborated):

LexiconFor any derivation, the end result is always that all LIs within LA are used
up and incorporated into a single SO in S f . Why should it be the case?
⊲ Previous approaches avoided this question by definition or stipulation.

⋆ {LI1 ,..., LIn } in (22) can be identified as LA (S0 ) for a derivation D.

(23)

MERGE(S4 ) = S5 = [{T, {{the, man}, {read, {which, book}}}}, C]
MERGE(S5 ) = S6 =[{{the, man}, {T, {{the, man}, {read, {which, book}}}}}, C]
MERGE(S6 ) = S7 =[{C, {{the, man}, {T, {{the, man}, {read, {which, book}}}}}}]MERGE(S7 ) = S f =[{{which, book}, {C, {{the, man}, {T, {{the, man}, {read, {which,book}}}}}}}]

Indices of Numeration must be reduced to zero (Chomsky
1995:225):“A computation constructed by CHL does not count as a
derivation at all, let alone a convergent one, unless all indices[of the given Numeration] are reduced to zero.”← In bare phrase structure in accord with the Inclusiveness Condition (Chomsky 1995, 2000), there is no such thing as Numeration, or indices assigned to LIs.

which booki does the man read ti ?
a. MERGE(Lex) = {{the, man, read, which, book, T, C}, LI1 ,..., LIn }→ LA (S0 ): [the, man, read, which, book, T, C]
b. MERGE(LA) = S1 = [{which, book}, the, man, read, T, C]
c. MERGE(S1 ) = S2 = [{the, man}, {which, book}, read, T, C]
d. MERGE(S2 ) = S3 = [{read, {which, book}}, {the, man}, T, C]
e. MERGE(S3 ) = S4 = [{{the, man}, {read, {which, book}}}, T, C]

(27)

4

LIs bear uninterpretable features that must be checked via probe-goalrelations (Chomsky 1995:234; see also Chomsky 2000, Frampton and Gutmann 2002, Pesetsky and Torrego 2006, Wurmbrand 2014, among many others)⊲ Since term-of makes {LI1 , LI2 } distinct from other elements LI3 , ..., LInwithin S1 , S1 is not symmetric, hence it cannot constitute an output of
Narrow Syntax due to the Symmetry Principle. The same is true forany stage of WS consisting of more than one SO.

← Why not checking the relevant features at the stage of LA/S0 ,where all LIs are accessible as such (“c-commanding” eachother)?
⋆ The answer we propose: the Symmetry Principle again!

⋆ The only way to “symmetrize” the WS [Σ1 , ..., Σn ] with respect to term-of
is to reduce n to 1, guaranteeing that all SOs within the WS are terms of asingle SO Σn .

⋆ Narrow Syntax as a whole is a generative procedure, executing a seriesof syntactic operations (perhaps MERGE-only; see note 8) leading to S f .
Then, it should also satisfy the Symmetry Principle (28), which means thatS f is symmetric in the sense of (29).
(28)
(29)

⋆ Therefore, once MERGE applies to LA, the Symmetry Principle forces it tokeep combining LIs until it yields a unified SO.

Symmetry Principle of Syntax (= (1), (13)):
A generative procedure yields a symmetric output.

4 Symmetry of Phases

Symmetry (= (2), (14)):
For a generative procedure GP yielding Σ = {X1 , ..., Xn }, Σ is symmetric =def. X1 , ..., Xn are uniform with respect to GP, i.e., no property
or relation assigned by GP makes an element Xi distinct from anyother element X j , 1 ≤ i,j ≤ n).

⋆ Let us assume with Chomsky (2004, 2007, 2008) that Transfer (mapping to
SEM and PHON) has periodic access to SOs within the WS (“phases,” toadopt a familiar terminology).
⋆ By definition, each Transfer domain TD constitutes the output of Narrow
Syntax and the input to Transfer.

⋆ MERGE(LA) (e.g., (24b)) creates an asymmetry within the WS, an “unbalanced” state consisting of a structured SO vs. atomic/unstructured LIs.
(30)

a.
b.

?

LA = [LI1 ,..., LIn ] (symmetric, each LIi being an independent
LI)
MERGE(LA) = S1 = [{LI1 , LI2 }, LI3 , ..., LIn ]a(asymmetric, {LI1 , LI2 } is a set and others LIs9 )It follows from the Symmetry Principle that TD must be symmetric. How
can this be achieved?

⋆ For this matter, consider the fact that each LI X within LA may contain one
or more “features” F, whose function is to make SOs containing it distinct
from other SOs.
(31)

⊲ Term-of is clearly a relation assigned by Narrow Syntax (specificallyby Merge).

X

α

↑

⊲ In S1 , term-of defined only for {LI1 , LI2 } and constituents thereof (LI1 ,and LI2 ).

F: distinguishing X from α within {X, α}

(32)

9 Cf.

Fukui’s (2011:88) remark: “The only entity that seems to be available to Merge is the‘braces’, i.e. the information regarding the layers of sets formed by (prior) applications of Merge(i.e. the concept of nth order). Thus, x and {x} should be distinguishable, if braces are indeed
ontological entities (not an innocuous assumption) and Merge is able to ‘see’ them (ditto). In thisway, Merge should be able to detect the existence of asymmetry (or lack thereof), to see whether
it should apply.”

X
↑

β

α

γ

F: distinguishing {X, β} from {α, γ} within {{X, β}, {α, γ}}5⋆ Then, TD cannot be of a form like (31) or (32), because F makes X/{X, β}distinct from α/{α, γ} in violation of the Symmetry Principle. Let us callthis consequence the “Phase Symmetry Condition.”(33)

which[Q] picture C[Q]

Phase Symmetry Condition (PSC):
Transfer can apply only to symmetric SOs.

. . . twh . . .
⊲ We may call such featurally symmetric SOs “F-equilibria” (Narita andFukui 2014, 2016, Fukui and Narita 2012/2017).

⋆ Symmetric SOs are illustrated by:

(36)
(34)
X

Y

↑

↑

F

F

a.

√

n
[Cat:N]

b.

√

v

root

[Cat:V][uCat]c.
root[uCat]a[Cat:A]√

F-Equilibrium:
Given a formal feature F in a syntactic object (SO) Σ = {α,β}, Σ is in an F-equilibrium (or F-symmetric) if α and β share amatching feature F that is equally prominent in α and β, andthere exists no feature G , F that is more prominent than F in Σ.
Otherwise, the SO is asymmetric with respect to F (F-asymmetric).

root[uCat](37)... Both α and β are free from active features
α

(35)
X

Y

β

↑

a.

⋆ Transfer contributes to cyclic reduction of computational resources: it applies to each symmetric SO Σ as soon as possible (cf. Pesetsky’s (1989)
Earliness Principle), strips off features relevant to interpretation, and terminates access to Σ for further computation (the Phase-Impenetrability
Condition; Chomsky 2000, 2001).

F
Subject-raising + ϕ-feature agreement:

D[ϕ]

nP

T[uϕ]

(38)

vP
. . . tnP . . .

b.

β⊲ We will discuss cases of (37) in §5.

γ

↑

F

TP

Wh-movement + Q-feature agreement (see Cable 2007, 2010,
Narita 2011/2014, Chomsky 2013):
6

Transfer:a. applies to a symmetric SO Σ as soon as it can.
b. strips off relevant features from Σ for CI- and SMinterpretations.
c. makes Σ “frozen in place,” no longer accessible for further
computation (PIC; while remaining unvalued feature [uF] maystill contribute to symmetry-formation as in (39g), (39m);10 see
Bošković 2007).

f.

√Merge(v*[V,uϕ], read[uCat] ) =11,12√
v*[V,uϕ] read[uCat]

(39)

g.

Which booki does the man read ti ?
√book[uCat] , n[N] , C[Q] , T[uϕ] , the[ϕ] ,a. LA (S0 ): [which[ϕ,Q] ,√√man[uCat] , v*[V,uϕ] , read[uCat] ]√b. Merge(n[N] , book[uCat] ) =

n[N]

√

book[uCat]

7−→

n

√

√
n
book
√
Merge(n[N] , man[uCat] ) =e.

√man[uCat]

read which[ϕ,Q]

n

√

book

book

Merge(which[ϕ,Q] , (b)) =

n[N]

√

Transfer

which[ϕ,Q]
d.

read

Transfer

Merge((e), (g)) =the[ϕ]c.

√

Merge((f), (c)) =13

v*[uϕ]
h.

v*[uϕ]

7−→

i.

7−→

n

√

n

√

man
v*[uϕ]√
read which[ϕ,Q]√
Merge({which[ϕ,Q], {n, book}}, (h)) =

n

√

book

man

Transfer

Merge(the[ϕ] , (d)) =11 We assume with Borer (2005, 2017) that a verbal root directly merges with v/v* for catego-the[ϕ]n√√rization, with both external and internal arguments severed from the verbal complex {v, root}(Kratzer 1996, 2000).
12 We assume that Transfer can selectively strip off features contributing to symmetry, leaving
other features for later computation. See also Obata and Epstein (2008, 2011) and Obata (2010,2012) for the notion of “feature-splitting.”
13 We assume that Agree(ment) is not an independent operation but essentially reducible tominimal search, applying from top-down and relating matching features for an F-equilibrium.
See also Narita et al. (2017).

man

10 The principle of Full Interpretation (FI; Chomsky 1995:194) requires uF to contribute tointerpretation in some way or the other. Entering into an F-equilibrium is one way to satisfy FI,
as we will assume.

7

.

which[Q]n.

√the[ϕ]
bookthe[ϕ]

√

n

n

√

man
v*[uϕ]√
read which[ϕ]

T[uϕ]

man

which[Q]
n

√

√
book

n

book

7−→

the
l.

n

√

man

v*

√
read tt v*√
read tMerge(C[Q], (k)) =Transferj.

Merge(T[uϕ], (i)) =

C[Q]

T[uϕ]
the[ϕ]
which[Q]

n

√

√
book
the[ϕ]

k.

n

n

√
man

v*

√

man

T[uϕ]

which[Q]

√

n
book
√
m. Merge({which[Q] , {n, book}}, (l)) =.

read t√Merge({the[ϕ], {n, man}}, (j)) =which[Q] n√book C[Q]
the[ϕ] n

√
man T
[uϕ]
which n√book t v* √read t⋆ It follows that Agree(ment) typically appears at each Transfer-domain as aresult of F-equilibrium-formation.
85 Symmetry of Root Clauses(44)Japanese: Multiple Subject (Kuno 1973)

5.1 On Feature-free Symmetry

Bunmeikoku-ga
dansei-ga heikinzyumyoo-ga mizikai.
civilized.countries-nom male-nom average.lifespan-nom is.short⋆ Symmetric SOs susceptible to Transfer:‘As for civilized countries, speaking of men, their average lifespanis short.’

(40)
X

Y

↑

↑

F

F

X

β

(45)

Japanese: Scrambling
Mary-nii John-ga ti tj watasita
a. sono hon-oj
handedthat book-acc Mary-dat John-nom‘That bookj , to Maryi , John handed tj ti .’John-ga ti tj watasita
b. Mary-nii sono hon-oj
Mary-dat that book-acc John-nom
handed‘To Maryi , that bookj , John handed tj ti .’(46)

Japanese syntax lacks ϕ-features, hence nominals never define ϕ(a)symmetry (Fukui 1986/1995, Kuroda 1988, Narita and Fukui
2014, 2016, forthcoming, Fukui and Narita 2012/2017, Saito 2014,2016, Sorida 2017a,b).

(41)

↑

Y

γ

↑

F

F

(42)

... Both α and β are free from active featuresαβ⋆ Case 3: Topicalization⋆ (42) arises for cases where the formal features within α and β are alreadysubjected to Transfer.

(47)... also interpretable as left-dislocation, in which case the two instancesof Mary’s book are not copies but independent repetitions.

⋆ Case 1: predicate-fronting
(43)

a.
b.

Mary’s book, I have to read Mary’s book.

[vP Criticize himselfi ], Johni did tvP .

ti

v

C
V himselfi Johni

TvP⋆ Case 2: Multiple Spec constructions in Japanese14
14 See Goto (2013) for the idea that scrambling in languages like Japanese may result in structures unlabelable by Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) labeling algorithm. Capitalizing on Chomsky’s(2008) hypothesis that labeling is necessary only for further computations, he argues that theroot CP is a special case that requires no further computation and therefore no labeling.

(48)

In German, declarative root(-like) contexts at least and at most one
XP must occupy the position before the finite verb (V2 realized atC) (see Emonds 2004, 2012 and Blümel 2017 for recent accounts).15(49)

German:a. [DP Maria] hat tDP den Mann gestern gesehen
Mary hasthe man yesterday seen
‘Mary has seen the man yesterday.’

15 Capitalizing on Chomsky’s recent theory of labeling algorithm (Chomsky 2013, 2015), Blümelargues that declarative root clauses in German must remain labelless, and prefield-occupation inV2-languages is one strategy to ensure this. We will argue against Chomsky’s notion of labelingalgorithm in §5.2.

9

[AdvP gestern] hat Maria den Mann tAdvP gesehen
yesterday has Mary the manseen[vP den Mann gesehen] hat Maria gestern tvP
the man seen
has Mary yesterday[CP+fin dass die Sonne scheint] hat Maria tCP gesagt
that the sun shines has Mary
said
‘That the sun shines, Mary said.’[CP-fin die Scheibe einzuschlagen] hat Maria tCP beschlossen
the window to-crush
has Mary
decided‘Mary decided to crush the window.’[PP über den Wolken] muss die Freiheit tPP wohl
above the clouds must the freedom
ptcl
grenzenlos seinlimitless be‘Freedom must be limitless above the clouds.’[AP schön] ist Maria tAP
beautiful is Mary
‘Mary is beautiful.’

b.
c.
d.

e.

f.

g.

(51)
D

nP

T

D

nP

C

(52)

D

nP

vP

T

5.2 Against Universal Labeling⋆ Chomsky (2013, 2015) stipulates that every SO must be labeled by the following algorithm at SEM and for the rules of the phonological component.
Chomsky’s (2013) Labeling Algorithm (LA):a. Minimal Search of Head:
For each SO Σ, define the most prominent lexical item (LI)
within Σ as the label of Σ.
b. Trace Invisibility:
If α in {α, β} undergoes IM, the label of β becomes the label of{tα , β}.
c. Labeling by Agreeing Features:
If XP and YP share an agreeing feature F as the most prominentelement, then the bifurcated inspection into XP and YP cansingle out F as the label of {XP, YP}.

(53)

⊲ Root clauses are by definition the final output of syntax, which must be
symmetric (“exocentric”) due to the Symmetry Principle.
⊲ In order to generalize the Symmetry Principle effect, we may adopt
Bošković and Lasnik’s (2003) idea that matrix declarative clauses in languages like English lack C, as in (51). Alternatively, we can also say thatthe matrix subject DP obligatorily moves to Spec-C via topicalization, asin (52).
a’.

Minimal Search of Head:... asymmetric ({LI, phrase})16

(50)

vP

b’.

Trace Invisibility:

XP

tXP
H

nP

T

Labeling by Agreeing Features:

XP
H

C
D

c’.

X[F]

Y[F]

...

vP

⋆ However, unlabeled structures are commonly attested in natural languages, such as those exemplified above.

16 See Fukui (2011:88), quoted in note 9.

10... tXP ...

⋆ Unlike Chomsky’s labeling theory, our Symmetry Principle allows two
notions of symmetry (stable structures):- F-equilibrium ((40), (41))- lack of F ((42))(59)

6 Symmetry at the Syntax-Semantics Interface: appears phase-internally⋆ The Symmetry Principle provides a general rationale for rule ordering insyntax.
(54)

Symmetry → Transfer:
Each Transfer domain shows symmetry (with matching features of
equal prominence, or with no feature involved).

(55)

External Merge → Internal Merge:
For any syntactic feature F, an application of External Merge thatcreates an asymmetric structure ({α[F] , β}) entails a later applicationof Internal Merge that yields an F-equilibrium ({α[F] , β[F] }).

: shows endocentricity: contributes to lexical, “dstructure” interpretation(predicate-argument
structure, selection, etc.)

Duality of semantics (Chomsky 2004, 2007, 2008):
The bifurcation of External and Internal Merge correlates with theduality of “d(eep)-structure” and “s(urface)-structure” interpretations (θ-related properties like selectional properties and predicateargument structure vs. discourse-related properties such as newold information, specificity, topic-focus, scopal effects).

(57)

D-structure semantics ≈ Endocentricity:
Properties of d-structure interpretation are primarily configured bya designated lexical item (a head).

(58)

In contrast, it is not clear whether s-structure semantics is endocentric in any meaningful sense.
a. topic-focus, theme-rheme structureb. operator-scopec. new-old information, specificity

symmetry: typically (but not always)
derived by Internal Merge: shows agreement or nofeature is involved: appears at each Transfer
domain: shows no endocentricity: contributes to discourserelated, “s-structure” interpretation (quantificational,
topic-focus, etc.)

7 Implications for Comparative Syntax(60)Japanese is a language that lacks active ϕ-features for nominal
declensions and subject-verb agreement (Kuroda 1965, 1988, Fukui
1986/1995, 1988, 2006).

(61)

Watasi-ga/anata-ga/gakusei-ga maitosi
ronbun-o kak-u.
I-nom/you-nom/student-nom every.year paper-acc write-pres‘I/you/a student (students) writes a paper (papers) every year.’⋆ If we combine (54) and (55) with a couple of other observations below, thenwe can derive the overarching paradigm in (59).
(56)

Generalization:a. asymmetryb.
: introduced by External
Merge: shows no agreement⋆ Consequence 1:
There is no obligatory ϕ-driven A-movement in Japanese-type languages.
(62)

English-type:formation:a.

A-movement

obligatory

T[uϕ]
D[ϕ]

11

7−→

nP
v*

for

V

D

nP

ϕ-equilibrium-‘As for the summer, beer tastes good.”

b.
(66)
D[ϕ]

nP

T[uϕ]
D[ϕ]

(63)

⋆ Consequence 3:
TP need not get “closed-off” by Transfer in Japanese-type languages dueto the lack of F-equilibrium. Thus, any number of nominals can be merged
into this domain (cf. Fukui 1986/1995, 1988, 2006).

nP
v*

V

D

nP

Japanese-type: Lack of obligatory A-movement:(67)

Japanese: sentence with more than one major subject (Kuno 1973)
Bunmeikoku-ga
dansei-ga heikinzyumyoo-ga mizikai.
civilized.countries-nom male-nom average.lifespan-nom is.short‘It is civilized countries that men, their average lifespan is short in.’

T
D/K17

*Summer, beer tastes good.

nP
v*

V D/K

nP

⋆ Consequence 2:
The “Spec-T” position thus remains as a vacant site for “major subject”(topic-like elements) in Japanese-type languages.

(68)*Civilized countries, male, the average lifespan is short (with theintended meaning ‘it is civilized countries that men, their average
lifespan is short in.’)(69)

TP undergoes Transfer as soon as it enter into a ϕ-equilibrium. It
is hence “closed-off,” disallowing further merger in languages like
English:

(64)
D/K

nP T
D/K

D[ϕ]

(65)

T[ϕ]
. . . tDP . . .

nP
v*

nP

V D/K

⋆ Consequence 4:
Nominativeless sentences are possible in Japanese, due to the lack of [uϕ]on T (Kuroda 1978:note 2).

nP

Japanese: major subject construction
natu-gabiiru-ga umai.
summer-nom beer-nom tasty(70)

17 The ϕ-less counterpart of D in Japanese may be what is sometimes called “K(ase)” (Fukui
1986/1995: 107, fn. 11, Lamontagne and Travis 1986, Bittner and Hale 1996a,b, Neeleman andWeerman 1999, Asbury 2008, Caha 2009, Saito 2014, 2016, Sorida 2017a,b and references citedtherein; cf. Chomsky’s 2007 n*). It is also possible that argument nominals are bare nPs without
further projections in languages like Japanese. We will not pursue this matter here.

a.

b.

12

Siguretekita.
shower-started‘It started to shower.’
Watasi-ni-wa [soo da to] omow-are-ta.
I-to-top
so cpl that think-pass-past‘It seemed to me that way.’

c.

d.

Haha-kara kane-ookuttekita.
mother-from money-acc sent
‘Mother sent me some money.’[Obama-ga moosugu rainitisuru
to]Obama-nom sooncome.to.Japan that
iw-are-teiru.
say-pass-prog.pres‘It is said that Obama will come to Japan soon.’d.

e.

⋆ Consequence 5:
PP-subjects are possible in Japanese, due to the lack of [uϕ] on T.
(71)

watasi-kara kare-ni hanasikake-ru.
I-fromhe-dat talk.to-preslit. ‘From me will talk to him.’(72)

kodomo-tati-de asob-u.
child-pl-at
play-preslit. ‘At the children are playing.’(73)

a. *From me will talk to him.
b. *At the children are playing.

‘That bookj , John handed tj to Mary.’
Mary-nii John-ga ti tj watasitasono hon-oj
handedthat book-acc Mary-dat John-nom‘That bookj , to Maryi , John handed tj ti .’John-ga ti tj watasita
Mary-nii sono hon-oj
handedMary-dat that book-acc John-nom‘To Maryi , that bookj , John handed tj ti .’(75)

a. John handed that book to Mary.
b. To Maryi , John handed that book ti .
c. That bookj , John handed tj to Mary.
d. *That bookj , to Maryi , John handed tj ti .
e. *To Maryi , that bookj , John handed tj ti .

(76)

Japanese-type: Nominals can freely raise to “Spec-T.”

D/K

nP

D/K

⊲ See Kishimoto (2017) for various tests for subjecthood.

nPv*⋆ Consequence 6:
Nominals do not form any F-equilibrium with their Merge-mates inJapanese-type languages, thus, without having any “magnetic” poweraround, they can freely undergo scrambling (optional dislocation).
(74)

T

(77)

Japanese:a. John-ga Mary-ni sono hon-owatasita
John-nom Mary-dat that book-acc handed‘John handed that book to Mary.’b. Mary-nii John-ga ti sono hon-owatasita
Mary-dat John-nom that book-acc handed‘To Maryi , John handed that book ti .’John-ga Mary-ni tj watasita
c. sono hon-oj
that book-acc John-nom Mary-dat handed

V D/K

nP

English-type:equilibrium.

DPs are “frozen” in positions forming a ϕ-

n[ϕ]

T[ϕ]

NP

. . . tnP . . .
⋆ The “macro”-parametric variation discussed here simply results from theunderspecified nature of UG.
13

8 Conclusions(82)⋆ It is still dominantly assumed that syntactic structures are universally
asymmetric (in terms of labeling, linear ordering, projection, etc.).
(78)

Universally asymmetric/labeled/endocentric syntax:
Chomsky (1986, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2013, 2015),
Kayne (1994, 2009, 2011), Moro (2000), Uriagereka (1999, 2012) andNarita (2011, 2012, 2014)⋆ Counter to the dominant universal asymmetry hypothesis, we put forward
the hypothesis that syntax is fundamentally driven for symmetry. Specifically, we showed that the Symmetry Principle governs every aspect ofsyntactic computation.
(79)

Symmetry Principle of Syntax:
A generative procedure yields a symmetric output.

(80)

Symmetry:
For a generative procedure GP yielding Σ = {X1 , ..., Xn }, Σ is symmetric =def. X1 , ..., Xn are uniform with respect to GP, i.e., no property
or relation assigned by GP makes an element Xi distinct from anyother element X j , 1 ≤ i,j ≤ n).

(81)

Symmetry-driven Syntax (MERGE-only):⋆ There is perhaps a deeper sense in which human language is “Mergeonly” (see Chomsky 2007, 2008, 2013, 2015, Berwick 2011, Boeckx 2014,
Kato et al. 2014, Narita et al. 2017). Merge is fundamentally an operationof “symmetric structuring,” and what we have shown in this talk is that
virtually every aspect of Narrow Syntax is characterizable by the notion ofsymmetry (80).

SEM
Narrow Syntax
Lexicon7−→
LA (S0 )7−→ ... 7−→
Si
MERGE [LI1 , ..., LIn ] MERGE [... Σ ...]The Symmetry Principle yields a number of consequences:a. Merge is restricted to a bare set-formation operation, assigning
only relations like Sister-of and Term-of.
b. Asymmetric operations like linearization (precedenceassignment), selection, projection, and pair-Merge are excluded from Narrow Syntax.
c. Universal projection and universal labeling are both untenable.
d. No operation other than MERGE, Numeration-formation or
Select, is required for the formation of LA.
e. Once MERGE starts applying to LA, it is forced to apply recursively until the WS is reduced to a single unified SO.
f. Each domain Σ of Transfer, which applies cyclically in order torestrict computational complexity, must be symmetric in termsof features.
g. Featurally asymmetric SOs are typically generated by External Merge, while Internal Merge can serve to derive featuralsymmetry.
h. Agreement, if it exists, typically occur s at the boundary of aTransfer-domain as a result of F-equilibrium-formation.
i. Feature-free (and label-free) symmetry typically arises at root
clauses.
j.
ϕ-feature-free languages like Japanese exhibit a number ofproperties different from ϕ-feature-based languages like English.

7−→ ... 7−→ S f
MERGE [ Σ ]References

Cyclic Transfer
PHON

Al-Mutairi, Fahad Rashed. 2014. The minimalist program: The nature and plausibility of Chomsky’s
biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asbury, Anna. 2008. The morphosyntax of case and adpositions. Utrecht: LOT.

14

Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona
Matteini, 3–16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Citko, Barbara. 2008. Missing labels. Lingua 118:907–944.
Citko, Barbara. 2011. Symmetry in syntax: Merge, move, and labels. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Collins, Chris. 2002. Eliminating labels. In Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program,ed. Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, 42–64. Oxford: Blackwell.
Emonds, Joseph E. 2004. Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In Peripheries:
Syntactic edges and their effects, ed. David Adger, Cécile de Cat, and George Tsulas. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Emonds, Joseph E. 2012. Augmented structure preservation and the Tensed S Constraint. In
Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, ed. Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman, and RachelNye, 21–46. John Benjamins.
Frampton, John, and Sam Gutmann. 2002. Crash-proof syntax. In Derivation and explanation in theminimalist program, ed. Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, 90–105. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986/1995. A theory of category projection and its applications. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Published in 1995 with revisions as Theory of Projection in Syntax, Kurosio Publishers
and CSLI publications.
Fukui, Naoki. 1988. Deriving the differences between English and Japanese: A case study inparametric syntax. English Linguistics 5:249–270.
Fukui, Naoki. 2006. Theoretical comparative syntax: Studies in macroparameters. London/New York:
Routledge.
Fukui, Naoki. 2011. Merge and bare phrase structure. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic
minimalism, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 73–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fukui, Naoki, and Hiroki Narita. 2012/2017. Merge and (a)symmetry. Paper presented at
the Kyoto Conference on Biolinguistics, Kyoto University, March 12, 2012. [Video available
at: <http://hosts44b.iimc.kyoto-u.ac.jp:8080/ess/echo/presentation/ebab5d2c-1bc5-41bd-8dec0236091c6bba>]. Published in Naoki Fukui (2017). Merge in the Mind/Brain. Routledge.
Fukui, Naoki, and Hiroki Narita. 2014. Merge, labeling, and projection. In Routledge handbook of syntax, ed. Andrew Carnie, Dan Siddiqi, and Yosuke Sato, 3–23. London/New York:
Routledge.
Goto, Nobu. 2013. Labeling and scrambling in Japanese. In Tohoku: Essays and Studies in English
Language and Literature, volume 46, 39–73. Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai, Japan.
Kato, Takaomi, Masakazu Kuno, Hiroki Narita, Mihoko Zushi, and Naoki Fukui. 2014. Generalized search and cyclic derivation by phase: A preliminary study. Sophia Linguistica 61:203–222.
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 2009. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8:1–31.
Reprinted in Di Sciullo and Boeckx (2011).
Kayne, Richard S. 2011. Why are there no directionality parameters? In Proceedings of WCCFL 28,
ed. Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer, and Barbara
Tomaszewicz, 1–23. Somerville, MA.: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2017. Bun no koozoo to kaku kankei [Sentential structure and case relations].
In Nihongo bunpoo handobukku [Handbook of Japanese grammar], ed. Keiko Murasugi, Mamoru
Saito, Yoichi Miyamoto, and Kensuke Takita, 102–145. Kaitakusha.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and thelexicon, ed. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. The event argument and the semantics of verbs. ms. University ofBerwick, Robert C. 2011. All you need is Merge: Biology, computation, and language from thebottom up. In The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of thehuman language faculty, ed. Anna Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx, 461–491. Cambridge,
MA: Oxford University Press.
Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996a. The structural determination of Case and agreement.
Linguistic Inquiry 27:1–68.
Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996b. Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class.
Linguistic Inquiry 27:531–604.
Blümel, Andreas. 2017. Exocentric root declaratives: Evidence from V2. In Labels and roots, ed.
Leah Bauke and Andreas Blümel. de Gruyter.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2014. Elementary syntactic structures: Prospects of a feature-free syntax. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, Volume II: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2017. Structuring sense, Volume III: Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even moreminimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38:589–644.
Bošković, Željko, and Howard Lasnik. 2003. On the distribution of null complementizers.
Linguistic Inquiry 34:527–546.
Cable, Seth. 2007. The grammar of Q. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toromsø.
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English transformational
grammar, ed. Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare phrase structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5:Departmentof Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Reprinted in G. Webelhuth, ed. (1995), Malden: Blackwell,
Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 383-439.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist
syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–
155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael
Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond: The cartographyof syntactic structures, ed. Adriana Belletti, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in the language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36:1–22.
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + recursion = language?:
Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from semantics, ed. Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner,
1 –29. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor ofJean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130:33–49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Structures, strategies and beyond:15

Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1978. Case marking, canonical sentence patterns, and Counter Equi in Japanese (apreliminary survey). In Problems in japanese syntax and semantics, ed. J. Hind, 30–51. Tokyo:
Kaitakusha. Reprinted in S.-Y. Kuroda (1992).
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese.
In Papers from the second international workshop on japanese syntax, ed. W. J. Poser, 103–143.
Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. Reprinted in S.-Y. Kuroda (1992).
Lamontagne, Greg, and Lisa Travis. 1986. The Case Filter and the ECP. McGill Working Papers in
Linguistics 3:51–75.
Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Narita, Hiroki. 2011. Phasing in Full Interpretation. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University.
<http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001304>.
Narita, Hiroki. 2012. Phase cycles in service of projection-free syntax. In Phases: Developing theframework, ed. Ángel J. Gallego, 125–172. Mouton de Gruyter.
Narita, Hiroki. 2014. Endocentric structuring of projection-free syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Narita, Hiroki. 2017. Review of Fahad Rashed Al-Mutairi’s (2014) the minimalist program: thenature and plausibility of chomsky’s biolinguistics, cambridge university press. ms. Tokai University.
Narita, Hiroki, and Naoki Fukui. 2014. Toji kozo no naishinsei to taishosei ni tsuite [On thenotions of endocentricity and symmetry in syntactic structures]. In Gengo no sekkei, hattatsu,
shinka: Seibutsugengogaku tankyu [The design, development and evolution of language: Explorations
in biolinguistics], ed. Koji Fujita, Naoki Fukui, Noriaki Yusa, and Masayuki Ikeuchi, chapter 4,
37–65. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Narita, Hiroki, and Naoki Fukui. 2016. Feature-equilibria in syntax. In Advances in biolinguistics:
The human language faculty and its biological basis, ed. Koji Fujita and Cedric Boeckx, 9–28.
London/New York: Routledge.
Narita, Hiroki, and Naoki Fukui. forthcoming. Symmetry-driven syntax. Routledge.
Narita, Hiroki, Hironobu Kasai, Takaomi Kato, Mihoko Zushi, and Naoki Fukui. 2017. 0-Searchand 0-Merge. In Merge in the mind-brain, ed. Naoki Fukui, 127–154. London/New York:
Routledge.
Neeleman, Ad, and Fred Weerman. 1999. Flexible syntax: A theory of case and arguments. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Obata, Miki. 2010. Root, successive-cyclic and feature-splitting Internal Merge: Implications forfeature-inheritance and Transfer. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan.
Obata, Miki. 2012. Feature-splitting interal merge and its implications for the elimination of A/A’position types. In Phases: Developing the framework, ed. Ángel J. Gallego, 173–194. Mouton de
Gruyter.
Obata, Miki, and Samuel David Epstein. 2008. Deducing improper movement from phase-based
C-to-T phi Transfer: Feature-splitting Internal Merge. In Proceedings of WCCFL 27, 353–360.
Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Obata, Miki, and Samuel David Epstein. 2011. Feature-splitting Internal Merge: Improper
movement, intervention, and the A/A’ distinction. Syntax 14.
Oseki, Yohei. 2015. Eliminating pair-Merge. In Proceedings of WCCFL 32, 303–312.

Pesetsky, David. 1989. The Earliness Principle. Paper presented at GLOW in 1989.
<http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/pesetsky/earliness.pdf>.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2006. Probes, goals, and the nature of syntactic categories.
In Proceedings of the 7th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu, 25–60. Tokyo:
Hituzi Syobo.
Saito, Mamoru. 2014. Case and labeling in a language without ϕ-feature agreement. In On
peripheries: Exploring clause initial and clause final positions, ed. Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo
Cinque, and Yoshio Endo, 269–297. Hituzi Syobo.
Saito, Mamoru. 2016. (A) case for labeling: Labeling in languages without ϕ-feature agreement.
The Linguistic Review 129–175.
Saito, Mamoru, and Naoki Fukui. 1998. Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic
Inquiry 29:439–474. Reprinted in Fukui (2006).
Seely, T. Daniel. 2006. Merge, derivational c-command, and subcategorization in a label-freesyntax. In Minimalist essays, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 182–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sorida, Masanobu. 2017a. Toward a restricted theory of formal features. Paper presented at the88th Annual Conference of the English Literary Society of Japan, May 29, 2017.
Sorida, Masanobu. 2017b. A step toward a deeper understanding of parameters. Paper presented
at the Keio University Linguistics Colloquium, July 8, 2017.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple Spell-Out. In Working minimalism, ed. Samuel David Epsteinand Norbert Hornstein, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Uriagereka, Juan. 2012. Spell-Out and the minimalist program. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. The Merge Condition: A syntactic approach to selection. In Minimalism
and beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces, ed. Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork,
and Lilia Schürcks, 130–166. John Benjamins.

16