ON PHASES, PHASE HEADS, AND FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES
Marc Richards
University of Cambridge

1.

Introduction: Three Core Functional Categories, three asymmetries

Amongst the many problems facing a minimalist theory of functional categories is theexistence of a number of unexpected asymmetries characterizing the Core Functional
Categories (CFCs) of Chomsky’s (DbP, OP)1 clausal skeleton. For each of the three possible
pairings of the three CFCs (i.e. C, T and v), there is a property that defines that pair ofcategories to the exclusion of the third category.
Firstly, the pair of heads C and v cluster together as defining phases: C and v are argued
to be phase heads, whereas T is not (MI, DbP, BEA, OP).
(1)

Phase headsa.
[+ phase]: C, v(*)
b.
[− phase]: T

Secondly, C and T share the property of defining Merge-sites for expletives (the ‘MergeExpl’ property), whereas v is assumed to lack this property (i.e., there is no vP-Expl); see MP:
364-5, MI: 109, and section 4.4 below.
(2)

Merge-Expla.
[+ Merge-Expl]: C, Tb.
[− Merge-Expl]: v

Finally, the remaining pair (T, v) defines a subset of CFCs which have a defective (i.e. φincomplete) counterpart: Tdef and vdef are assumed to exist, whereas Cdef does not.2

1

In the following, MP = Chomsky 1995, MI = Chomsky 2000, DbP = Chomsky 2001, BEA =Chomsky 2004, OP = Chomsky 2005.
2

This third asymmetry is rarely noted in the literature; I have found only one other mention, in
Gallego 2005: 2, fn. 3. It should also be noted that the lack of a φ-defective counterpart for C is trivial
and unsurprising insofar as C is not a φ-probe at all (as in MI, DbP, where T and v are the locus of φprobes and thus Case/agreement). However, it becomes nontrivial and unexpected in a system such asthat put forward in OP, in which C is the locus of the φ-probe, inherited by T. Further, if Probe-Goal
Agree is involved in implementing A-bar type as well as φ-/A-type relations, then any
intermediate/non-wh C will be defective for the relevant A-bar probe; that is, Cdef does exist in thissense. Therefore, ‘defective’ for our purposes should be taken to refer specifically to φ-defectiveness.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1, 105-127© 2007 Mark Richards

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(3)

Defectiveness: existence of a defective/nondefective alternationa.
[+ [+/− defective]]: T, vb.
[− [+/− defective]]: C

Clearly, if we are to attain a deeper understanding of the CFC system, we need to findprincipled explanations for these asymmetries, i.e. for why the CFCs pattern together in theseparticular ways. Ideally, we might also seek to reduce the three asymmetries to a single source.
In this paper, I argue that phase theory holds the key to explaining the various pairings andproperties of (1)-(3). In particular, by reconsidering the notions of phases and phase heads(Chomsky MI, DbP, OP), I show that these disparate and shared properties fall out from thebasic composition of phases themselves. Ultimately, the asymmetries in (2) and (3) will be
reduced to (1) – that is, all of these properties are properties of phase heads.
We proceed as follows. Section 2 reviews the historical development of phases throughChomsky’s recent work, highlighting the conceptual problems faced by the theory. Section 3
suggests that we can remove these problems by returning to Chomsky’s original (MI)conception of phases as lexical subarrays. Section 4 then demonstrates how this revised viewof phases sheds light on and derives the remaining properties of phases that have to be
stipulated under existing approaches, in particular those encoded in the various formulationsof the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC). Having reduced the PIC to its ineliminable core,
we then conclude with a comparison of the present proposals – which essentially eliminate thenotion of phase head – with Chomsky’s recent (OP) claims that phase heads are the engine ofthe derivation and the locus of φ-features.
2.

Phases as lexical subarrays

As originally conceived (MI: 106ff.), phases are subarrays of the numeration, thus
yielding ‘closed systems’ for external merge. That is, a phasal array defines the domain inwhich Merge is predicted to pre-empt Move, deriving the Merge-over-Move (MOM) effect in(4a) and its absence in (4b-c).
(4)

a.
b.
c.

*There is likely [α a proof to be discovered (a proof)]
There is a possibility [α that proofs will be discovered (proofs)]
Which article is there some hope [α that someone will read (which article)]

If MOM is defined over the entire numeration, then Move of the internal argument (aproof/proofs/which article) should be blocked by the possibility of Merge-Expl at stage α in(4a), (4b) and (4c) alike. Therefore, Chomsky proposes that only a subset of the numeration (alexical subarray, LA) is placed in the active workspace of a derivation. When one LA is
exhausted, then the next is extracted from the numeration and placed in active memory; in thisway, the difference between (4a) and (4b-c) will follow insofar as α defines such a phase of
the derivation in (4b-c) but not in (4a). That is, Tdef (= α in (4a)) is not formed from a distinct
LA, whereas C (= α in (4b-c)) is. It is therefore possible for Expl to be excluded from the-106-

On Phases, Phase Heads, and Functional Categories (M. Richards)

relevant workspace from which α is constructed in (4b-c) but not in (4a). Hence MOM effects
obtain only in (4a), since here the entire structure is the only phase – a single LA.
The next question that arises is how the phases are defined. Chomsky (MI: 106, DbP: 12)
suggests such criteria as ‘independence’ at the interface, or ‘propositionality’, so that C(P)and v(P) are the phases: vP corresponds to full argument structure, and CP is the full clauseincluding tense and force. Each phasal LA is then assumed to contain exactly one instance ofexactly one of the phase heads (i.e. either C or v). Setting aside the widely noted problems
with this definition of phasehood (see, e.g., Bošković 2002, Abels 2003, Matushansky 2003,
Boeckx & Grohmann 2005, Epstein 2006), not least of which is the troubling discrepancy
between the entities defined as phases (i.e. CP/vP) and those which are actually spelled out(transferred) and which should therefore define the ‘independent’ categories at the interface(i.e. TP/VP; we return to this point below), a major issue for this approach is the question ofwhether passive/unaccusative v should also be taken to define a phase along with transitive v*.
The availability of long-distance agreement in expletive-associate constructions suggests thatit cannot be, given basic assumptions about the computational properties of phases.
As conceived by Chomsky, phases (C and v) represent points at which the existing
syntactic object is accessed and evaluated by the interface components, thereby rendering thedomain (complement) of the previous phase inaccessible to further operations, in accordance(some version of) the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC). Two distinct versions of the PIC
are proposed by Chomsky. The original definition, given in MI: 108, is stated as follows (Iadopt Müller’s (2004) convention and refer to this version of PIC as PIC1):(5)Phase Impenetrability Condition1 (MI version: PIC1)
In phase α with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to operations outside α; only
H and its edge are accessible to such operations.

This yields the search space pattern in (6) (again based on Müller 2004), where phase heads
are underlined and the search space of the nonphase head selecting H is given in bold:(6)

Search space available to nonphase head X:
Z [XP … X [HP … H [YP … Y [WP … W …]]]]That is, the domain of the phase head H (=YP) is spelled out as soon as HP is complete andthus the next head (X) is merged, rendering YP (and anything it contains) inaccessible tosearch by a probe on X. Substituting Z/X/H for the CFCs C/T/v, this entails that T (= X)cannot see into the complement of a phasal v (i.e. into VP).3 Consequently, the existence of Tassociate Agree in expletive existentials such as (7) would seem to exclude nontransitive v
3This is assuming that Agree, as well as Move, is barred into/out of a lower phase. In OP, it issuggested that only Move (out of a lower phase) is barred, leaving open the possibility of Agree into aphase that has already been transferred. However, since the unvalued feature on the would-be goal ofany such transphasal Agree operation should crash at the lower phase level, I assume this option to infact be barred.

- 107 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

from the class of phases.
(7)

a.
b.

There T [v/VP arrived [DP a man]]
Agree(T, a man) →[T[φ, (EPP)] ... DP[φ, Case] ]If passive/unaccusative vP is a phase, then Agree(T, a man) should be blocked since it
involves Agree into a lower phase (a phasal domain which has already been spelled out,
namely VP). Hence, for Chomsky/MI, v is not a phase, unlike transitive v*.
Nevertheless, several objections can be raised to this conclusion. Firstly, there are numerous
empirical arguments that vdef (i.e. passive/unaccusative v) behaves identically to transitive v*
in terms of the PIC: it provides the same reconstruction sites characteristic of an intermediatephase edge (see Fox 2002, Legate 2003), and allows for the same freedom of reordering ofverb and object as other transphasal movements (Richards 2004, 2006a). Further, it is surely
the case that passive/unaccusative vP has as much semantic-phonetic integrity as v*P (i.e. PFisolability and full argument structure at LF, its single θ-role having been discharged), andshould therefore meet the propositionality criterion for phasehood (cf. Richards 2004, Epstein2006). For such reasons, Chomsky (DbP:12) introduces a distinction between strong andweak phases. The latter are phases only in the ‘propositional’ sense; they do not ‘count’ fordetermining points of spell-out under PIC. C and transitive v*, then, are strong phases,
whereas passive/unaccusative v is a weak phase.
This new distinction is, however, dubious on numerous grounds. For one, it fails to
explain the shared behaviour between vdef and v* in the empirical domains mentioned above(reconstruction, linearization, etc.), since these rely on vdef performing as a strong phase (thusproviding a phase-edge landing site). The extra strong/weak technology is, further,
insufficient to allow for Agree across a strong phase boundary, such as that which obtains in
Icelandic ‘DAT-NOM’ constructions involving quirky subjects and nominative objects(Taraldsen 1995, Sigurðsson 1996 and many others). Here, (number) agreement between T
and the in-situ nominative object indicates T-Agree across a strong, v* phase, as in (8).
(8)

Icelandic DAT-NOM constructionsa.
HerDAT T [v*P bored3pl [DP theyNOM]]b.
Agree(T, they) →[T[φ, (EPP)] ... DP[φ, Case] ]To allow for such Agree, Chomsky (DbP) proposes a revision to the MI version of PIC, suchthat only phase heads should count as the triggers of spell-out (thus transfer of HP occurs not
at X/T but at Z/C). The relevant definition is given in (9); following Müller 2004, I dub this
PIC2, which has the search-space profile in (10).

-108-

On Phases, Phase Heads, and Functional Categories (M. Richards)(9)

Phase Impenetrability Condition2 (DbP version: PIC2)[Given structure [ZP Z … [HP α [H YP]]], with H and Z the heads of phases – MDR]: The
domain of H is not accessible to operations at ZP; only H and its edge are accessible tosuch operations.

(10) Search space available to nonphase head X:
Z [XP … X [HP … H [YP … Y [WP … W …]]]]
As a comparison of (10) with (6) readily reveals, the effect of delaying transfer until the next(‘strong’) phase level is that the search space of the non-phase head (X = T) is extended.
Whereas under (5)/(6), VP was inaccessible to T, now T can see right down into thecomplement of V. Thus (9)/(10) renders the internal argument accessible to T – the correct
empirical result, for (7) as well as (8). As I point out in Richards 2004, PIC2 therefore has thedesirable consequence of rendering the already dubious (and ineffectual) weak/strong
distinction conceptually redundant – (7) and (8) instantiate identical configurations under
PIC2, and thus passive/unaccusative vP can be a (‘strong’) phase after all. Since this is indeed
what we find (i.e. the evidence presented by Fox, Legate, and Richards, cited above), PIC2 isto be preferred on empirical grounds.
However, there may yet be conceptual grounds for maintaining PIC1 over PIC2 (and,indeed, for rejecting both of them). Firstly, as Müller argues, PIC2 would seem to be a‘weaker’ formulation than PIC1 since it increases X’s search space and thus the amount ofstructure that has to be kept in active memory for longer. Since a major conceptual argument
for phases is the reduction in computational burden that can be afforded by allowing thesystem to periodically ‘forget’ derivational information (see, e.g., BEA: 4, OP: 9), this‘weakening’ of the PIC arguably undermines the computational rationale for having phases in
the first place.
More generally, phases and PIC (i.e. cyclic transfer) are supposed to conform to theStrong Minimalist Thesis (SMT), which means that they should facilitate and optimize themapping to the interfaces (such as by reducing operative complexity, as above, etc.). As such,
PIC should have the status of a natural, necessary principle. It therefore sits rather
uncomfortably with this that two nontrivially different formulations of the PIC exist. Ideally,
there should be no room for such equivocation, since the PIC dichotomy could well mask a
deeper conceptual flaw undermining the entire enterprise. Perhaps, then, both formulations
are equally optimal, in some sense (cf. Uriagereka 1999 on alternative formulations of theLCA)? This seems unlikely, since whilst it may well be true that some notion of PIC andphase edge follows from SMT (see OP: 8-9 and section 4 below), the current formulations((5) and (9)) are rife with stipulations. These stipulated, as yet unexplained, properties arelisted in (11).
(11) a.
b.
c.

the size of the search space for nonphase heads (X in (5)/(9))
the size of the spelled-out unit (‘phasal domain’)the size and accessibility of the edge

- 109 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1d.
e.

the timing of spell-out of the lower phasal domain (HP in (5)/(9))
the identity of the phase heads (as C and v), which does not follow from (5)/(9) but
requires independent determination (e.g. the ‘propositionality’ / ‘interface
independence’ criteria).

If phases/PIC are an inevitable property of an optimally designed language system (as SMT
would have it), then why do so many nontrivial properties need stipulating within thedefinition of the PIC? As numerous authors have pointed out, the system smacks ofarbitrariness (cf. Abels 2003, Boeckx & Grohmann 2005, who draw comparisons with GB-era
Barriers). The challenge, then, from the minimalist perspective, is to reconcile these stipulated
aspects with the necessary core of the PIC (that is, the provision of an edge). Instead of
directly encoding the nontrivial properties of phases and cyclic spell-out, the aim is to showhow (11a-e) can emerge for free in a nonarbitrary, nonstipulative, principled system. This is
the challenge taken up in the subsequent two sections.
3.

Picking a PIC? Two indeterminacies and a possible unification

Let us first address the general problem of why there should exist an indeterminacy inthe very definition of the PIC (i.e. the coexistence of PIC1 and PIC2). Recall that the two
existing definitions, repeated for convenience in (12), serve to alter the search space available
to the nonphase head, X (= T).
(12) Given structure [ZP Z [XP X [HP α [H YP]]], with H and Z the heads of phases:a.
Phase Impenetrability Condition1 (MI version: PIC1)
In phase α with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to operations outside α;
only H and its edge are accessible to such operations.
b.
Phase Impenetrability Condition2 (DbP version: PIC2)
The domain of H is not accessible to operations at ZP; only H and its edge areaccessible to such operations.
In fact, as observed in Richards 2004, this alteration to X’s search space is all thatchanges from (12a) to (12b). This is illustrated in (13), which gives the search space patterns
for all three heads (again, Z-X-H can be taken to correspond to the CFCs, i.e. to C-T-v
respectively, with search space in bold and phase heads underlined):(13) a.

b.

Search space under PIC1:
Search space for H: Z [XP … X [HP … H [YP … Y [WP … W …]]]]
Search space for X: Z [XP … X [HP … H [YP … Y [WP … W …]]]]
Search space for Z: Z [XP … X [HP … H [YP … Y [WP … W …]]]]
Search space under PIC2:
Search space for H: Z [XP … X [HP … H [YP … Y [WP … W …]]]]
Search space for X: Z [XP … X [HP … H [YP … Y [WP … W …]]]]
Search space for Z: Z [XP … X [HP … H [YP … Y [WP … W …]]]]-110-

On Phases, Phase Heads, and Functional Categories (M. Richards)

Thus, as we saw in the previous section, if Z = C, X = T, H = v, Y = V and W = D, then YP (=VP) is accessible to T but not to C under PIC2, but to neither T nor C under PIC1. The
indeterminacy in PIC-formulations is thus identical with and equivalent to an indeterminacy
in T’s search space – nothing else changes or is at stake. The question of why two divergent
definitions of PIC are possible (as opposed to just a single PIC, or indeed to three, four, or
thirty-four PICs) thus reduces to the question of why T’s (i.e. the nonphase head’s) search
space is undetermined by phase theory in this way. If we can find a principled answer to thislatter question, then we can remove the stipulation of T’s search space (i.e. (11a)) from thedefinition of the PIC itself, and thus reduce the two PICs to a single, fundamental formulation– a unified PIC (Richards 2004).
The answer lies in a further observation. We have ascertained that the only thing thatchanges from PIC1 to PIC2 is the range of the probe on T. More specifically, T (=X) shares
search space with C (=Z) under PIC1 (cf. (13a)) but with v (=H) under PIC2 (cf. (13b)). C andv’s search spaces, on the other hand, are unaffected. This would follow if search space forphase heads (C and v) is inherently constrained by the very fact that they can never belong to
the same LA (i.e. the fact that they are phase heads). We therefore need to tie search spacewith LA-composition. Of crucial relevance here is the novel observation that there is a further
indeterminacy that arises when we consider the composition of phasal LAs themselves (i.e.
‘phases proper’): namely, does T belong to C’s subarray (i.e. {C, T}, {v, V}) or to v’s
subarray (i.e. {C}, {T, v, V})? In principle, T could belong to either (the theory does not
exclude either option), something which seems to have gone unnoted in the literature. We
therefore have an indeterminacy in the phasal allegiance of the nonphase head to go with theindeterminacy in the search space of this same head. This would be a surprising coincidence,and suggests that there is indeed a strong connection to be made between LA-composition andsearch space.
The claim I would like to make is that the indeterminacy in T’s search space is directly
related to the indeterminacy in T’s phasal allegiance in the following way: T belonging to C’s
subarray implies PIC1; T belonging to v’s subarray implies PIC2. This follows if we simply
reformulate PIC in terms of phases proper (i.e. subarrays) rather than in terms of ‘phaseheads’ (as was the case in the existing definitions in (12)):(14) Phase Impenetrability Condition (unified, relativized to the lexical subarray: PICLA)4[In phase α with head H,] the domain of H is not accessible to operations ‘outside’ [theXP projected from] LAH; only H and its edge are accessible to such operations
where LAH = the lexical subarray defined by phase head H,
with either X ∈ LAH (= PIC2)
or X ∉ LAH (= PIC1)
That is, if the nonphase head (T/X) belongs to the lower phase/LA, we obtain the search
4

It is also a ‘literal’ PIC in that it is the entire phase (i.e. the entire structure built from the relevantLA) that is impenetrable, rather than some subpart of it (as on previous definitions).

- 111 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

patterns characterized by PIC2; if it belongs to the higher phase/LA, we obtain the searchpatterns characteristic of PIC1. This is because T’s LA-membership directly affects the timingof spell-out on this definition, and thus the structure that is available to T at the point at which
it is merged: sharing LA implies sharing search space. The choice between (12a) and (12b)now reduces to the choice between whether T is an LA-mate of C or of v. There is thus noneed to choose amongst formulations of the PIC itself – the phasal composition does this forus.
Since the indeterminacy in question holds for all nonphase heads, PICLA/(14) should
generalize right the way down the tree, thus providing a generalized algorithm for assigningphase heads and nonphase heads pairwise to LAs. Let us assume so. Then, setting aside many
important and unresolved questions relating to the phasal status of DPs and their internal
constituents (Svenonius 2004, Chomsky 2005), we arrive at a system in which phases arecomposed maximally of two heads in the main projection line: a phase head plus a nonphasehead (plus any arguments they select).5(15) Given the clausal ‘backbone’ structure [C-T-v-V]:a.
PIC1 = {C, T}, {v, V}, i.e. pairs of heads {phase—nonphase}b.
PIC2 = {... C}, {T, v}, {V, …}, i.e. pairs of heads {nonphase—phase}
Both of these two pairing algorithms would seem equally ‘optimal’ from the computational
perspective, thus removing Müller’s conceptual argument against PIC2 (conceived as in(14)/(15b)): there is no sense in which the phasal composition in (15b) is a ‘weaker’ versionof that in (15a). The PIC itself doesn’t change, and so there can be no question of a
‘weakening’ of the PIC from (15a) to (15b). Assuming, however, that PIC2 is correct on
empirical grounds (cf. section 2), we will adopt (15b) as the correct characterization of UG:
that is, phasal LAs consist of pairs of phase heads and nonphase heads, such that the latter(T/V/N) selects the former (C/v/D), so far as possible:6(16) PhaseLA = {nonphase—phase}To summarize this section, we have seen that by eliminating the search-space stipulationfrom the definition of the PIC itself, we can reduce PIC1 and PIC2 to the elementary

5

Admittedly, this pairwise composition of phases (essentially, a constraint such that phases may
consist maximally of two heads in a projection line) does not follow from anything – it is an
assumption of the theory, but one which has the interesting consequence of deriving all the remaining
stipulated properties of phase theory/PIC (see next section). In section 5, pairwise composition will be
reduced to the level of principled explanation (i.e. shown to follow from independent ‘good design’
factors).
6

The ‘nonphase head’ will clearly be absent in the case of root nodes (matrix CP) and left branches.
The latter, and maybe arguments in general, are constructed separately, in parallel derivations(MI:110) – whether via PIC1 or PIC2 is an open question – and the labels of the syntactic objects thus
formed (D etc.) are then returned to the relevant main-branch array, cf. Rezac 2002.

-112-

On Phases, Phase Heads, and Functional Categories (M. Richards)

composition of phases and thus eliminate one conceptual flaw (viz. (11a)): there is now justone, invariant PIC.
Still, the other stipulations in (11b-e) remain built into the revised PIC in (14), no lessthan in (12). These, too, must be eliminated if the relevant properties are to become more thanjust a matter of definition and thus qualify for Chomsky’s more stringent level of (beyond)explanatory adequacy. The next section attempts to show that the LA-based reconception of
PIC in (14) indeed allows for such a refinement of the core concepts of phase theory.
4.

Phases without phase heads

If the preceding section is along the right lines, then the differing search spaces of T under
PIC1 and PIC2 reduce to different choices of LA-composition under PICLA, viz. [{C}, {T, v}](= (14b)) vs. [{C, T}, {v}]) (= (14a)). However, various constraints on the range of a probe(search space) remain stipulated, in two ways:(17) a.

b.

The domain clause:the domain (complement) of a phase head is spelled out rather than the phasal XP
itself (“the domain of H is not accessible to operations [at/outside HP/ZP/LAHetc]”) – cf. (11b/d)
The edge/accessibility clause:the head and specifiers of a phasal XP are not spelt out at the same time as thecomplement domain, yielding the ‘edge’ (escape hatch) (“only H and its edge areaccessible to such operations”) – cf. (11c)Both of these stipulations have been criticized in the recent literature (see Boeckx &Grohmann 2005 for recent summary and discussion), with some justification. At the core of
the problems raised by (17) is the apparent inconsistency between the phasal and spelled-out
categories: that is, if CP/vP are the phases, then why are TP/VP the units that are actually sentto spell-out? (Not least, such an inconsistency threatens to render completely unreliable thealready inconclusive diagnostics for phasehood, such as the supposed ‘phonetic isolability’ ofphasal constituents for right-node raising, extraposition and the like – see Bošković 2002,
Matushansky 2003 for discussion.)
However, the criticisms are perhaps only partially justified. This is because at least somenotion of phase edge, and thus the differential spell-out of phase heads and their complements,
follows simply from SMT (optimal design), or as Chomsky (BEA) puts it, from “meaningful
cyclic computation”. If the entire phase were spelled out, then phases would always crash at
the interface (unless it could somehow be ensured that only internally convergent entities aresent to spell-out, in which case only entire clauses could be phases, depriving the phasesystem of any computational advantage). Further, no movement out of a phase would bepossible (since there would be no position to escape to), and perhaps even the very iterabilityof merge would be compromised (insofar as the latter depends on the accessibility of the edge
feature in the label of the complement selected for merge; cf. OP: 6). In short, no integrated,- 113 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

compositional, or convergent structure could be formed without some notion of phase edge
(i.e. an ‘escape hatch’ domain that counts as part of the next phase for the purposes of spellout), so that the latter is a requirement of good (let alone optimal) design. The disparity
between CP/vP and TP/VP, then, follows as a way to ensure that Full Interpretation can be
met – only a subpart of a phase can possibly be spelled out if language is to conform to SMT;
in particular, the head must remain accessible (for selection, and maybe also head movement),
and therefore any higher material in the projection (i.e. specifiers) must be accessible too(MI:108).
If this is correct, then a phase-internal cut-off point would seem to be conceptuallynecessary (that is, it follows from SMT and can therefore be said to come ‘for free’). This
disarms the general objections to edge-type escape hatches raised by the above-cited authors.
Nevertheless, the precise definition of this escape hatch remains arbitrary. In particular, wemight ask why this phase-internal cut-off point falls specifically between the head of thephase and its complement. That is, why does the edge-nonedge distinction coincide
specifically with head-complement within the phase? If the domain/edge distinction is sonatural, surely it should emerge from the theory and not need to be directly and arbitrarily
stipulated in the definition of the PIC itself?
The revised PIC in (14) would again seem to provide the key to solving these remaining
inadequacies. Recall our reconception of PIC2 in terms of PICLA, repeated here:(18) PIC2 = {... C}, {T, v}, {V, ...}

[cf. (15b)]

All the familiar (and formerly stipulated) properties of phases can be shown to follow as
automatic consequences of (18), thus removing the final conceptual hurdles in (11b-e). In thefollowing subsections, we run through each of these in turn, and address the first two of ourasymmetries, (1) and (2), along the way.
4.1

What gets spelled out?

We start with problem/stipulation in (11b): that is, why is it specifically TP/VP that istransferred and not CP/vP (or some other phase-internal constituent)? The answer provided by(18) is straightforward. Not only does the LA-composition {T, v}, {V, ...} derive the sharedsearch space between T and v (cf. (13b)), but it also identifies the units that are actually sent
separately to spell-out: these are simply (the units projected from) distinct LAs. Thus the
structure projected from the LA {T, v}, i.e. TP, is spelled out separately from the phase head
C (which belongs to the next LA), and the structure projected from the LA {V, ...}, i.e. VP, isspelled out separately from the phase head v, which belongs to the next LA ({T, v}). Once wereconceive phases as LAs, and once we view T as belonging to v’s rather than T’s LA, it isphases (LAs) themselves that are spelled out by PIC (qua PICLA). That is, just as we observeda parallel (equivalence) between LAs and search space in section 3, so there is a parallel
between LAs and the ‘phasal/complement domains’ sent to spell-out.

-114-

On Phases, Phase Heads, and Functional Categories (M. Richards)

In short, the phasal units (LAs) identified in (18) are the spelled-out units: there’s nolonger any phase/domain dichotomy.
4.2

Why does the edge remain accessible?

This is question (11c), i.e. why do v and spec-v ‘stay behind’ when VP is spelled out (andsimilarly C and spec-C when TP is spelled out)? Again, (18) provides a transparent answer.
The edge material (i.e. head plus specifiers) stays behind because it constitutes a different
phase from the ‘phasal/complement domain’: v and spec-v belong to the LA {T, v}, not to the
LA {V, ...}. Consequently, the fact that the edge belongs to the next phase for the purposes ofspell-out no longer needs to be stipulated: the edge is the next phase, and not some special,arbitrary subpart of the current phase, hence the fact that it isn’t spelled out with the current
phase. (See Svenonius 2004 for a similar, what we might dub ‘phase-external’, view of the‘edge’.)
In sum, the reformulation of the PIC in (15b)/(18) renders superfluous the specificprovision of a phase-internal edge-nonedge cut-off point. The phase head and its complement
simply belong to separate LAs, hence their being transferred at different times.7
4.3

The first asymmetry: What are the phase heads?

We are now in a position to address the first of the three asymmetries in section 1, repeatedhere:(19) Phase headsa.
[+ phase]: C, vb.
[− phase]: TThis is the problem in (11e). The question to be answered here is why T is unique amongst
the CFCs (C-T-v) in not being a phase head, a problematic anomaly that has beset Chomsky’s
phase theory since its inception. Our present proposals allow this problem to be approachedfrom a new perspective. In this light, there is nothing special about T (or V for that matter),apart from its ambiguous phasal allegiance; nothing is a phase head on this approach, because
there is simply no such thing. Phases are LAs (i.e. subarrays of the numeration), and LAs do
not have ‘heads’. Of course, we still have to account for the special behaviour of those heads
previously privileged as phase heads, namely their role in triggering spell-out and defining a‘complement domain’ for spell-out. These special properties normally associated with phaseheads are now once again simply a function of how phases (LAs) are composed: once one LA
7

Note that PIC1, reconceived as (15a), would yield the wrong results here, since it defines the wrong
units: CP and vP would be the spelt-out units under the LA-composition in (15a), and TP/VP would
provide the edge/escape hatch. Thus the familiar, observed properties of phases (reconstruction sites at
spec-C and spec-v, successive cyclic movement through CP, etc.) all now imply PIC2, conceived as(15b). We return to this point in section 4.5 below.

- 115 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

is exhausted, the next one begins, and spell-out of a lower phase thereby triggered. It thus
follows that the first (= lowest) head in an LA will have the effect of triggering spell-out.
Given (18), C and v are spell-out triggers (i.e. ‘phase heads’) simply because they are the firsthead in their respective LAs. That T is not a ‘phase head’ is simply due to how LAs arecomposed, i.e. as in (15b)/(18).8
The notion ‘phase head’ thus becomes epiphenomenal on this approach, its properties
divided amongst the heads in a phasal LA: the first (= lowest) head in an LA triggers spell-outof the lower phase (i.e. the structure built from the lower LA), whilst the second (= higher)
head in an LA defines the spelled-out unit (as in sections 4.1-2):(20) {H2,
H1}↑↑
spelt-out unit spell-out trigger (for lower phase)In sum, phases are headless under the LA-based approach proposed here, which
eliminates the phase head as a primitive of the theory.
4.4

The second asymmetry: Merge-Expl as a property of phase heads9

With the lexical arrays that constitute phases defined as in (18), a new perspective also
emerges for addressing the second asymmetry in section 1, repeated here:(21) Expletive sites: the ‘Merge-Expl’ propertya.
[+ Merge-Expl]: C, Tb.
[− Merge-Expl]: v
The typology in (21) is illustrated in (22-24), from Richards & Biberauer 2005.
(22) CP-Expla.
‘V2-expletives’/‘expletive topics’[CP Það klaruðu [TP margar mýs [vP ostinn [vP alveg [vP tsubj [VP tV tobj]]]]]]
there finishedmany micecheese-the completely[Icelandic, from Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2001: (41)]b.

‘Wh-expletives’/‘partial wh-movement’
Was glaubst du, welchen Mann sie liebt?
what believe you which man she loves[German, from Felser 2003: (17)]8Under (15a)/PIC1, T and V would be the spell-out triggers (i.e. they would be the ‘phase heads’ inthis now derived, secondary sense).
9

See Richards 2004, 2005, Richards & Biberauer 2005 for more detailed discussion of the material inthis section.

-116-

On Phases, Phase Heads, and Functional Categories (M. Richards)(23) TP-Expl‘Expletive subjects’ (i.e. standard, EPP-satisfying, there-type Expl)[TP There T [VP arrived a man]](24) vP-Expl= n/a ?
*[CP Það klaruðu [TP margar mýs [vP Expl [vP alveg [vP tsubj [VP tV ostinn]]]]]]The expletives in (22) have been argued by various authors to merge directly into spec-CP(see, e.g., Holmberg & Platzack 1995, Bobaljik 2002, Bowers 2002). The most compellingargument for this, as explored and explained in Richards & Biberauer 2005, is the simple factthat these expletives can never appear in the spec-T position (i.e. immediately post-V2) inwhich they are standardly assumed to merge. The question that then arises is whether perhaps
even the supposedly TP-expletive in (23) is similarly unable to merge into spec-T, despite
appearances and contra standard wisdom. Indeed, there have been many proposals in recent
years that TP-Expl in fact raises from a lower position – Groat 1999, Bowers 2002 areprominent examples. As pointed out in Richards 2004, Richards & Biberauer 2005, there arein fact independent reasons for assuming such a low merge-site for Expl in the Probe-Goalsystem of Chomsky (MI/DbP/BEA). It is already clear that Expl must be able to raise to specT in at least some cases, namely in raising constructions such as There seem [(there) to havebeen caught several fish]. For this reason, Chomsky MI:125 proposes that Expl is a simple
head with a defective and uninterpretable φ-set, perhaps simply [uPerson] (see also Chomsky
BEA:12), thus rendering it active for probing and raising from the embedded TP in thecomplement of raising predicates, as in the example just given.
However, this raises a number of technical issues that Chomsky leaves unresolved. Most
pressingly, we might ask how Expl’s [uPerson] is valued from the spec-T position (as in (23)).
Any Agree operation initiated by Expl in this position is countercyclic (Expl is not the rootnode), and should fail due to a lack of an active and/or interpretable goal (see Richards 2004
for details). Further, under the assumptions of Chomsky 2005 (OP), only phase heads may act
as probes, and Expl is not assumed to be a phase head.
The simplest solution to these problems is to treat Expl as T’s goal rather than as a probe.
This implies that Expl must in fact merge low (in spec-v, like any other EPP-satisfying
category) and that it raises to T on the back of a canonical Agree operation.10 In short, what
10

Evidence for such an Agree(T, Expl) operation comes from anti-Person-agreement effects inexpletive ‘list constructions’ (cf. Chomsky 2000:149 fn. 90), which share properties with the Icelandic
construction in (8). See Richards 2004 (Chapter 4) for discussion and analysis of such partial Agreeeffects.
(i)

Q: Who’s still here?
a.
A: There is/*am only meb.
A: There remains/*remain only mec.
A: There is/are only us- 117 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

have traditionally been analysed as TP-expletives are really vP-expletives.
In fact, therefore, the asymmetry in (21) is not between C/T and v, but rather between
C/v and T. This revised asymmetry is given in (25).
(25) Expletive sites: the ‘Merge-Expl’ propertya.
[+ Merge-Expl]: C, vb.
[− Merge-Expl]: TIn other words, Merge-Expl is in fact a property of phase heads. With this new perspective inplace, we can now seek an explanation of this asymmetry by attempting to derive thisproperty of phase heads. Once again, the proposed reformulation of PIC in (15b)/(18)provides the key, as the Merge-Expl property of phase heads is precisely what it predicts.
Consider the following.
In (15b)/(18), we have an LA that includes both v and T. Therefore, this must also be theLA that contains Expl (be it TP-Expl or vP-Expl). That is, since T and v belong to the same
LA, so must any expletive selected for merger in that phase. Further, since v is the first head
to be merged from this LA, any Expl that would be destined for Merge-TP will be interceptedby v, which effectively has ‘first refusal’ on any Expl in this subarray. Therefore, given thepossibility of merging Expl to a nonthematic spec-vP (i.e. spec-vdef, or the Object Shift
position – see Richards 2004, 2005), Expl must always merge to spec-vP – there is no way todelay Merge-Expl until the TP stage (unless we add extra stipulations). It follows that Expl is
no longer available for merge by the time T is the selector. Thus, given the LA composition in(18) in which T and v are part of the same LA (= PIC2), it is T, and not v, that will lack the
Merge-Expl property.
In sum, TP-Expl cannot, in fact, exist. We thus derive the asymmetry in (25), i.e. MergeExpl as a property of phase heads, C and v (qua the first heads in their respective LAs).
4.5

Bare phase structure: Towards a minimalist PIC

Before turning to the third asymmetry (cf. (3)), it is instructive to consider what remains of anaxiomatic PIC at this point. This, in turn, will allow us to address the final remaining
conceptual flaw for current phase theory, i.e. the timing-related stipulation of (11d).
Once edges are removed from the definition of the PIC itself (and simply reduce to ‘thenext phase’, as in section 4.2), a new implication emerges for the timing of spell-out, which
previously had to be stipulated in the definition of the PIC via statements such as “at ZP” and“outside HP” in (5) and (9). A delay to the timing of spell-out of a phase now simply reduces
to the SMT-imposed need for an edge (i.e. Chomsky’s “meaningful cyclic computation” insection 4), which was not the case before. Simply put, a phasal array LAn cannot be spelled
out immediately upon the initiation of the next phase LAn+1 since none of (the structure builtfrom) the lower phase LAn would be accessible to the heads merged from LAn+1. This is-118-

On Phases, Phase Heads, and Functional Categories (M. Richards)

precisely because we are no longer stipulating an escape hatch at the edge of the lower phase.
To take the LAs {T, v}{V, ...} (i.e. (18)) as an example: in order for V to be accessible tov for selection, and for D to be accessible to v for probing (Agree) and movement, there must
be a delay – LAn cannot be spelt out until LAn+2, else the numeration fails to map to a single,
integrated, convergent syntactic object.
This logic holds for PIC2 and PIC1 alike on our LA-based reconception of phases (cf.
(14)/(15)). The delay, stipulated under the original PIC2 in the form of the statement “at ZP”(i.e. ‘delay spell-out until the next phase head is merged’), now simply follows from
SMT/“meaningful cyclic computation”, i.e. the need for some kind of edge, without whichnothing could converge, nothing could move out of a phase, and no expression generated by
the system could satisfy legibility (due to Case crash at lower phase levels, etc.).
If the above is correct, then we have eliminated the remaining stipulations from the PIC
in (12)/(14), reducing it to a bare minimum – an irreducible, interface-imposed timing
statement, as in (26).
(26) Phase Impenetrability Condition (minimal PICLA)
Spell out phase LAn at LAn+2.
(26) is itself essentially a version of ‘impatient spell-out’ (cf. Svenonius 2001) – phases are
spelled out as soon as they can be, which, in accordance with SMT (the need for an edge),
now equates to the next phase but one (i.e. LAn+2).
‘Translating’ this view of phases into the terms familiar from standard phase theory
yields (27) for the phase LAn = {V, D}, with all the familiar phase-theoretic concepts under
the arrows (edge, domain, phase head, etc.) now derived notions rather than primitives of thetheory. Under PICLA, all we have (and need) are phases, i.e. LAs.
(27) {... C}
LAn+2↑‘spellout trigger’/‘phase head’{T, v}
LAn+1↑‘edge’{V, D}
LAn↑‘spelt-out unit’/‘complement domain’

Further, all the familiar properties of phases (i.e. C/v but not T/V as the phase heads, TP/VP
but not CP/vP as the spelled-out ‘complement domains’, etc.) now themselves become
arguments for PIC2 over PIC1, i.e. for (15b) over (15a), since (15a) identifies different units
from (15b), and indeed the wrong units if the empirical claims of current phase theory arecorrect.
Finally in this section, there is one further question that needs to be addressed, pointed
out to me by David Adger (p.c.): How does the system proposed here keep track of which LA
is which for the purposes of spell-out/(26)? That is, how does the system know which LA any
given lexical item or syntactic object originated from? Does this not imply additional- 119 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

computational complexity in the form of extra memory load (thus undermining the entire
enterprise; cf. our comments relating to PIC2 at the end of section 2)?
As a first step towards answering this important question, it should be noted that thesystem does not need to keep track of everything (i.e. the phasal origins of every item in thetree). All that is needed is a way for the system to be able to tell where one LA ends andanother begins – i.e. the juncture between phases/LAs needs to be marked, ideally in a local,
minimal way. To this end, any kind of ‘marking’ on the first (lowest) head in an LA willachieve this purpose; furthermore, any such marking device will conform to SMT as the only
way to ensure that (26) can be met. In this sense, we derive and maintain some secondary
notion of ‘phase head’ as the head with this special marker.
What might this marker be? Two possibilities suggest themselves. The first is the EPPfeature. The EPP-property is arguably independently required in order to allow a head tofunction as an edge and thus extract things out of its domain (cf. MI: 109 (24)). If the firsthead in an LA is ascribed this property, then no further marking is necessary, which perhaps
makes this the optimal solution from the SMT perspective. Secondly, and perhaps moreinterestingly, it might be possible that uninterpretable features (i.e. φ/Agree-probes) serve thispurpose, thus finally providing a possible answer to the long-standing question of why thesefeatures should exist at all. If phase heads are the locus of uninterpretable features/probes (uF),
as Chomsky (OP) suggests, then (26) may plausibly offer a rationale for why this is so (i.e.
why such ‘special heads’ exist) – syntactically visible formal features (uFs) provide a local
marker of phase junctures, ensuring that spell-out can be delayed (as required by SMT/(26))
in a computationally efficient manner. In this connection, it should be noted that there is one
aspect of the LA-composition/PIC in (14)/(15) that remains unaccounted for and underived in
the foregoing, and that is the very fact that only one ‘phase head’ may be contained in any LA.
If phase heads are not primitives of the theory, as I have claimed above, then it becomes hard
to explain why C and v cannot be contained in the same LA (i.e. an LA of the form {C, T, v})– as mentioned in footnote 5, the pairwise composition of phasal LAs that would rule this out
is an assumption of the theory. However, assuming one (and only one) juncture marker isrequired per phase and thus sanctioned by SMT, we arrive at an at least partial account of why
more than a single probe (= ‘phase head’) is not allowed in any given LA.
Nevertheless, we are still without an explanation for why an LA containing all three
CFCs, i.e. {C, T, v}, could not exist with just a single head marked via uF as a phase/juncture
head. In other words, we need an explanation for why a single phase cannot contain more thana single nonphase (i.e. uF-less) functional head. The next section sketches out an argumentthat derives exactly this result – i.e. a strongly pairwise composition of LAs that yields strict
alternations of phase heads and nonphase heads.
5.

From LA’s to all-powerful phase heads

The version of phase theory proposed in the preceding section is ‘conservative’ in that it-120-

On Phases, Phase Heads, and Functional Categories (M. Richards)

returns to a strong, LA-based notion of phase (as originally conceived in MI) and denies therole of phase heads as primitives of the theory. By stark contrast, Chomsky in his latest work(OP) is moving ever further away from his original, LA-based notion of phases andstrengthening the role of phase heads, elevating them to the level of the engine of thederivation. Phase heads now do everything: all uFs (φ-probes, Agree-features) belong to thephase heads (a property which might be explained in terms of juncture-marking, if the
speculations of the previous section are on track), and thus all operations (Agree, Value,
Transfer, Internal Merge) are driven by the phase heads. Accordingly, the role of nonphaseheads (such as T) is severely diminished. Thus T, for Chomsky, is no longer a probe in its
own right: it may only act as a probe if it is selected by a phase head (C), in which case theAgree-feature of the phase head is transferred to its complement via a mechanism of featureinheritance. That is, T becomes a probe ‘by inheritance’ from C. Traditional subjectagreement and EPP effects associated with T (such A-movement of the formal subject tospec-T, expletives, etc.) are thus the result of the feature-inheritance mechanism, by whichuFs are passed down from the phase head to its complement.11
Chomsky offers numerous arguments in support of the feature-inheritance system. For
one, it captures in a simple and transparent manner the long-standing observation that raisingand ECM-infinitival T (= Tdef), which lacks C, also lacks φ-features (failing to value Case onDP) and independent tense; cf. Chomsky MI:102, 105; BEA:13; OP:9. Secondly, it yields anatural simultaneity of operations at the phase level (something which was previously an
awkward stipulation and extension to the probe/locus cycle; cf. Collins 2002 on the latter). All
operations – both A-movement to spec-TP and A-bar movement to spec-CP – are initiated by
the phase head and can thereby be assumed to take place in parallel. Further, the featureinheritance view of phases allows for a uniform, syntactic definition of phase head (replacingor supporting the ‘propositionality’ and ‘independence’ criteria of section 2, which are, at best,interface properties): namely, phase heads are uF sites. Finally, it provides an optimal meansfor encoding the A/A-bar distinction, which Chomsky assumes to be a legibility condition
imposed by the semantic interface – feature-inheritance thus conforms (supposedly) to SMT.
As an additional welcome side-effect, once motivated in this way, feature-inheritance isreasonably expected to apply to the v-V relation as well as to C-T. This immediately yields
the famous ‘raising-to-object’ paradigm in ECM constructions (cf. Lasnik & Saito 1991 andmany others), a vacuous movement which had appeared unmotivated and “puzzling” onprevious approaches (OP:14).
There are, nevertheless, considerable conceptual hurdles undermining the arguments forfeature-inheritance. Not least, as pointed out in Richards 2006b, it is surely the case that the
A/A-bar distinction is already sufficiently instantiated by the two types of formal feature (the11The apparent countercyclicity of this operation is not an issue, since only a single notion of cycle
remains on this approach – the phase cycle – and so T is no longer a cyclic node in any relevant sense(see also Preminger 2006). Thus, at the level of the phase, operations are unordered with respect toeach other (there can only be ordering between phases themselves, not within them); see the mentionof ‘simultaneity’ and parallel operations in the next paragraph.

- 121 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1edge feature EF, yielding A-bar, and the Agree-feature, yielding A-type operations). Why not,then, leave the Agree-feature on C and simply project multiple specifiers on CP? Furthermore,
the extension of feature-inheritance to where it is not directly motivated in this way (i.e. to vV as well as C-T) does not seem inevitable. Surely it would be equally ‘optimal’ or ‘efficient’
not to extend feature inheritance to v-V, where the A/A-bar motivation does not hold?12
What is lacking, then, is a general rationale for feature-inheritance that necessarily holdsof all phases alike, something that renders the nonphase head (i.e. feature-receptacles of thekind that T now becomes) truly necessary, for convergence. I propose precisely such arationale in Richards 2006b, in which it is argued that feature-inheritance follows directlyfrom PIC in conjunction with Full Interpretation. There are two premises to this argument,
both of which have been widely discussed and motivated in the literature (though neither, ofcourse, is uncontroversial). Firstly, we assume that there cannot be any delay between
valuation of uF and its transfer to the interface (see Epstein & Seely 2002 for insightful
discussion of this point).
(28) Premise 1:
Value and Transfer of uF must happen together.
Underlying (28) is the familiar assumption that uninterpretable features (valued or otherwise)crash at SEM, due to a violation of Full Interpretation. However, the distinction between
valued interpretable and uninterpretable features is lost once Agree applies (see DbP: 5), withthe result that they cannot be told apart locally. Therefore, to avoid having to reconstruct thederivation, Value (Agree) must be part of Transfer, hence (28).
Secondly, we assume (29).
(29) Premise 2:
The edge and nonedge (complement) of a phase are transferred separately.
This is simply the edge requirement (cf. section 4.5), as captured by PIC.
Crucially, the requirements of (28) and (29) are actually at odds with each other. This isbecause (29)/PIC forces edge material (specifiers + head) to be transferred at the next phaselevel, whereas (28) forces uF on the phase head (which is part of the edge) to be transferred
together with the rest of the completed phase. We thus have an apparently irreconcilable
tension between two conflicting convergence conditions: (28), essentially Full Interpretation,and (29), the edge-accessibility requirement captured by the PIC. My claim is that featureinheritance now emerges as the minimal solution for resolving this tension. Put informally,valued uF cannot hang around in the phase edge (as PIC forces it to do); therefore it has to
12

Further, there is empirical evidence from languages such as Hebrew that A-bar Agree-type features(Q/wh, etc.) may also be inherited from C to T, yielding wh-movement to spec-T in such languages –see Preminger 2006, whose analysis thus provides a further argument against Chomsky’s A/A-bar
rationale for feature-inheritance.

-122-

On Phases, Phase Heads, and Functional Categories (M. Richards)

drop down into that part of the structure which is spelled out – namely, the complement of thephase head. We thus derive (30) from (28) and (29).
(30) Conclusion: uF must descend from edge to nonedge (i.e. from C to T, v* to V, etc.).
That is, we have derived feature-inheritance, which now follows from ‘good design’: itensures convergence by enabling Agree-type features to indeed be valued at the phase level(i.e. as part of Transfer), a requirement that the PIC would otherwise render impossible tomeet.
As a further desirable consequence, (28-30) provides a rationale for why nonphasefunctional heads exist at all (something which is otherwise mysterious given the availabilityof multiple specifiers on C) – they serve an essential purpose as feature-receptacles, without
which the conflicting requirements in (28-29) could not be resolved. In short, nonphasefunctional heads (e.g. T) exist only to receive Agree-type features from a phase head.
If this argumentation is along the right lines, then it entails that neither phase heads nor
nonphase heads may cooccur in succession: that is, of the various possibilities in (31), only(31e) conforms to SMT (assuming (28)-(29) to be imposed by SMT as minimal design
requirements). Sequences of multiple phase heads (designated P in (31)) are barred sincefeature-inheritance (and thus convergence) cannot then obtain (cf. (28)-(30)), and sequencesof multiple nonphase heads (designated N in (31)) are excluded since N is sanctioned by SMT
only insofar as it performs the function of receiving features from a phase head P. Any
additional nonphase heads are thus superfluous, redundant, and disallowed.
(31) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

* P – P – P – P ...
* P – P – N – P ...
* P – N – N – P ...
* N – N – N – N ...
√ P – N – P – N ...

have now arrived at the same view of phases as that which we assumed on wholly It is notable
that, by pursuing a rationale for Chomsky’s feature-inheritance mechanism, we haveultimately derived (31e) as the only possible sequence of functional heads, since we
independent grounds in the LA-based simplification/reduction of the PIC in sections 3-4 (cf.
(16)):(32) Phases consist (maximally and minimally) of pairs of phase heads and nonphase heads.
That is, we now have a stronger, conceptual argument for the pairwise composition of phasesthat was an assumption of the approach proposed in section 4. There, the pairwise
composition of phases derived the familiar properties of the PIC without further stipulations.
In the present section, we have shown the opposite: that PIC (cf. (29)) derives the pairwise- 123 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

composition of phases.13 Whether this is mere coincidence or reveals a deeper, substantive
generalization about the nature of the computational system is a question I leave to future
research.
We can now turn, finally, to the third asymmetry with which we started, repeated here as(33).
(33) Defectiveness: existence of a defective/nondefective alternationa.
[+ [+/− defective]]: T, vb.
[− [+/− defective]]: C
The question raised by (33) is: why does Cdef not exist? In other words, why is Tdef notselected by a Cdef analogously with selection of (nondefective, φ-complete) T by
(nondefective) C?
In light of the preceding discussion, the question can be sharpened further. How canraising/ECM infinitivals consist of a single nonphase functional head above vP (i.e. Tdef)
rather than the paired C-T complex found in finite and control clauses? As we have seen, theargument from (28)/(29) entails that, if there are no features around to inherit, there is no
reason for a nonphase functional head (such as T) to exist at all. Nonphase functional heads
may exist only insofar as they are selected by a nondefective phase head. Therefore, if we
assume the line of reasoning in (28)-(32) to be correct, Tdef should not exist – it is entirely
featureless, it inherits no features from a phase head, and it is not selected by a phase head.
Even if it were to be selected by C, the C in question must lack a φ-probe (i.e. be defective),and thus has no need for a nonphase complement. The theory thus makes a clear prediction
regarding defective functional heads: only defective phase heads should exist; defective
nonphase heads should be impossible (insofar as there are no features to inherit). In short,nonphases must be nondefective.
The conclusion is that Tdef is really Cdef, so that the asymmetry in (33) is really as in (34).
(34) Defectiveness: existence of a defective/nondefective alternationa.
[+ [+/− defective]]: C, vb.
[− [+/− defective]]: T
Raising/ECM infinitivals must therefore be projections of Cdef, not Tdef. Whilst this may seem
uninteresting and fairly trivial (if this is simply a matter of relabelling), it may pose a problem
for the usual kinds of analyses of accusative assignment into ECM clauses, since the relevant

13

There is a considerable difference, however: the pairs of heads in sections 3-4 were assumed to be of
the form {nonphase—phase}, i.e. the nonphase head selects the phase head, whereas the pairs of heads
we arrive at via feature-inheritance are of the form {phase—nonphase}. This may well have a bearing
on the (in)compatibility issue raised in the following section.

-124-

On Phases, Phase Heads, and Functional Categories (M. Richards)

Agree operation between matrix v and the embedded ECM subject must now cross a phaseboundary – presumably Cdef, unlike Tdef, is a phase. I leave this matter open.
6.

Concluding remarks

This paper has sought to demonstrate how phase theory can shed light on the properties – bothshared and idiosyncratic – of the core functional categories. The reworked phase theory
proposed in sections 3-4, along with the findings of section 5, allow all three of theunexplained asymmetries in section 1 to be reduced to a single asymmetry between phaseheads and nonphase heads:(35) a.
b.

[+ phase], [+ Merge-Expl], [+ [+/− defective]]: C, v[− phase], [− Merge-Expl], [− [+/− defective]]: T

That is, we obtain the cluster of properties in (36), with all three properties now falling out aspredictable.
(36) C and v are phase heads, Merge-Expl sites, and have a defective counterpart;T lacks all of these properties (and perhaps exists only to receive features from C,
ensuring Full Interpretation can be met).
Furthermore, not only can the reworked phase theory provide a principled explanation forthese properties of phasal functional categories, but it also allows us to derive numerous otherproperties of phases, namely those that previously had to be directly stipulated in the wordingof the PIC (cf. (11a-e)). The highly simplified, unified PIC that emerges thus has greaterclaim to attaining the level of a natural and necessary component of the language faculty.
The reader will have noticed, however, that our explanation of the three asymmetries in(1)-(3) has not been unified in its approach: whereas (1) and (2) were shown to derive fromthe LA-based reformulation of phase theory in sections 3-4 that dispenses with phase heads asa primitive notion, the explanation of (3) was premised on Chomsky’s (OP) featureinheritance system, a maximally phase-head-centric approach to phase theory. The questionthat arises, then, is to what extent these two seemingly diametrically opposed approaches tophases are compatible with each other. As we saw in section 5, both approaches, despite theirdiffering premises, involve pairs of functional heads, a suggestive convergence that may wellindicate an underlying unity. Thus section 4 proposed an advantageous view of phases, basedon the PICLA, comprising the pairwise composition of phasal LAs in (15)/(16) in conjunction
with the timing statement in (26). Section 5, on the other hand, proposed that Chomsky’s(2005) ‘all-powerful phase-heads’ revision of phase theory also yields pairs of phase heads
and nonphase heads. Can we thus unify the two approaches to phase theory (and thus our
account of the three asymmetries)?
As desirable as such a unification might be, it soon runs into seemingly insurmountableproblems. Foremost amongst these is that Chomsky’s feature-inheritance system is- 125 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

incompatible with PIC2, i.e. the pattern of search space in (13b). This is because T in
Chomsky’s system cannot do anything (act as a probe, etc.) until C is merged and featureinheritance takes place. Thus PIC2 becomes unformulable for Chomsky: even if T were tobelong to v’s LA as in (15b)/(18), the PIC1 pattern of search space is forced (i.e. T must sharesearch space with C). The PIC1/PIC2 distinction thus collapses. Although this is not in itself abad thing (after all, the elimination of this indeterminacy was the original motivation for the
LA-based reformulation of PIC in section 3 (cf. (14)), we saw in section 2 that the empiricalarguments weigh in favour of PIC2 over PIC1. This would seem to argue against Chomsky’s
radically phase-head-based, feature-inheritance view of phases and in favour of the radicallyLA-based approach in sections 3-4. Strengthening this conclusion is the fact that the rationale
for having feature-inheritance at all, i.e. the argumentation in (28)-(30), only goes throughunder (the original) PIC1, since PIC2 states that spell-out is delayed until the next phase but
one. To ensure Value-Transfer simultaneity/(28) and thus Full Interpretation under PIC2,
features on C would therefore have to be inherited all the way down to VP, rather than just to
the immediate complement, TP.
For now, I leave the issue of reconciling the two approaches unresolved, with a view tosettling the matter in future work.14

References
Abels, K. (2003). Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding. Ph.D. dissertation:
University of Connecticut.
Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (2001) The Subject-in-Situ Generalization and the Role of Case
in Driving Computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 193-231.
Bobaljik, J. (2002) A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 20: 197-267.
Boeckx, C. & K. Grohmann (2005) Putting Phases into Perspective. To appear in Syntax.
Bošković, Ž (2002) A-Movement and the EPP. Syntax 5: 167-218.
Bowers, J. (2002). Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 183-224.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka(eds) Step by step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89-156.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1-52
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography ofSyntactic Structures (volume 3). A. Belletti (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14

Any such reconciliation must not come at the price of compromising the advantages of a phasebased derivational system under SMT (cf. section 2). Thus, for example, one could quite easily
reconcile the two approaches by extending the delay provided for by (26), e.g. substituting LAn+3 for
LAn+2. This would buy the necessary extension to C/T’s probe range, with feature-inheritance in thelower phase triggered at the next phase but one. However, such an extension would not be sanctioned
under SMT – whilst the extra delay still provides for the necessary phase edge, spell-out is no longer‘as soon as possible’, undermining the computational rationale for having phases at all (see section 2).

-126-

On Phases, Phase Heads, and Functional Categories (M. Richards)

Chomsky, N. (2005). On Phases. Ms.: MIT.
Collins, C. (2002) Eliminating Labels. In S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely (eds.) Derivation andExplanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 42-64.
Epstein, S. (2006) On I(nternalist)-functional Explanation in Minimalism. To appear in Linguistic
Analysis (ed. Kleanthes Grohmann).
Epstein, S. D. & T. D. Seely (2002) Rule Applications as Cycles in a Level-free Syntax. In S. D.
Epstein & T. D. Seely (eds.) Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program.
Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 65-89.
Felser, C. (2003) Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114: 543-74.
Fox, D. (2002) Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gallego, Á. (2006) Phase Sliding. Ms., UAB & UMD.
Groat, E. (1999) Raising the Case of Expletives. In S. D. Epstein & N. Hornstein (eds.) Working
Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 27-43.
Holmberg, A. & C. Platzack (1995) The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lasnik, H. & M. Saito (1991) On the subject of infinitives. In Papers from the 27th regional meetingof the Chicago Linguistic Society, 324-43. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of
Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Reprinted in H. Lasnik. 1999. Minimalist Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Legate, Julie Anne (2003) Some Interface Properties of the Phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 506-16.
Matushansky, O. (2003). Going through a Phase. Ms. CNRS/Université Paris-8.
Müller, G. (2004) Phrase Impenetrability and Wh-Intervention. In A. Stepanov, G. Fanselow & R.
Vogel (eds.) Minimality Effects in Syntax. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Preminger, O. (2006) Feature Inheritance at the Phase Boundary. Paper presented at Edges in Syntax,
Nicosia, Cyprus (May 16, 2006).
Rezac, M. (2002) Cyclic Domains and (Multiple) Specifier Constructions. Ms.: University of Toronto.
Richards, M. (2004) Object Shift and Scrambling in North and West Germanic: A Case Study inSymmetrical Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Cambridge.
Richards, M. (2005) Bures revisited: On Object Shift, Phases, and Transitive Expletive Constructionsin Germanic. Ms., University of Cambridge.
Richards, M. (2006a) Dynamic Linearization and the Shape of Phases. To appear in Linguistic
Analysis (ed. Kleanthes Grohmann).
Richards, M. (2006b) On feature-inheritance: an argument from PIC. Ms., University of Cambridge.
Richards, M. & M. T. Biberauer (2005) Explaining Expl. In M. den Dikken & C. Tortora (eds.) The
Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sigurðsson, H. (1996) Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 146. University of Lund.
Svenonius, P. (2001) Impersonal passives: A phase-based analysis. In Proceedings of the 18th
Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Lund: Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de
Lund.
Svenonius, P. (2004) On the edge. In D. Adger, C. de Cat & G. Tsoulas (eds.) Peripheries. Dordrecht:
Kluwer, 259-287.
Taraldsen, K. (1995) On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In H. Haider, S. Olsen & S.
Vikner (eds.) Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 307-27.
Uriagereka, J. (1999) Multiple Spell-Out. In S. D. Epstein & N. Hornstein (eds) Working Minimalism.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 251-282.

- 127 -