Some Concepts and Consequences of MERGE
Organizer and Speakers:
Satoru Kanno (Tokyo University of Science), organizer
Hisatsugu Kitahara (Keio University)
Nobuhiro Miyoshi (Asahikawa Medical University)
Miki Obata (Hosei University)
Abstract
Since Aristotle, language has been seen as "sound with meaning." An important finding ofmodern linguistics is that they are mediated by hierarchical structures. To explain permissible
hierarchical structures of language, generative grammar has proposed phrase structure rules andtransformations. However, in mid-1990s, such structure building and movement operations areunified under the single operation Merge.
The first formulation of Merge is found in Chomsky (1995), which combines two syntactic
objects together, assuming labeling to be a suboperation, incorporated as part of the Merge
operation. Under this formulation, when α is merged with β, one of them will be a label for theresulting set of α and β:(1)

Merge (α, β) ={α, {α, β}}(1) shows that when Merge is applied to α and β, the operation results in the set {α, β} with α
as the label for the whole structure. Note that the Merge operation, formulated in (1), isasymmetrical in that one object is assigned more prominence over the other, and such prominent
object becomes a label for the whole structure.
In his subsequent work, however, Chomsky (2004) modifies the Merge operation,
dispensing with the labeling algorithm stipulated as part of the definition of Merge. Instead,labeling is taken to be part of the third factor principle of minimal search (Chomsky 2013).
Thus, Merge, being no longer responsible for labeling, takes two syntactic objects α, β, andforms just a two-membered set, as shown in (2).
(2)Merge (α, β) = {α, β}(2) shows that Merge is a symmetrical operation in that it encodes neither α nor β to be a label
for the resulting set, meaning that Merge is "projection-free" (see among others, Collins 2002,Chomsky 2007, 2013, 2015, and Narita 2014).
The formulation of Merge in (2) is simple and clear, but how exactly Merge operates togenerate derivations is subject to a minimalist critique. It must be the case that such generative
procedures presuppose the existence of workspace (WS), where syntactic objects constructed

by Merge are made available for subsequence operations, but the notion WS itself has remainedvague. To fix this problem, Chomsky (2017) makes WS explicit and reformulates Merge as an
operation on WS, called MERGE.
Under MERGE, the derivation proceeds as follows:(3) a. WS = [α, β, γ]b. MERGE (α, β, WS)
c. WS' = [{α, β}, γ](3a) shows a derivational stage where WS contains three syntactic objects. (3b) means that
MERGE operates on WS, selecting α and β. As a result, WS is updated to WS', as in (3c).
Notice that WS' contains the newly created set {α, β} and the unselected γ, but not those selected
α and β.
Chomsky (2019a, b) argues that under MERGE, operations called External Merge andInternal Merge are allowed, but there is a principled reason to block operations such as parallel
Merge (Citko 2005), Sideward Movement (Nunes 2004) and counter-cyclic Late Merge(Lebeaux 1998). This MERGE-based analysis, if on the track, will call for a new approach tothe so-called "multi-dominance" phenomena which empirically motivate these operations.
Theoretically speaking, however, MERGE (3) is arguably preferable over Merge (2) because
the former clarifies that so-called "movement" is illusion; there is no "raising" or "lowering."
What MERGE (3) does is to select α, β from WS and forms {α, β}, which enters WS', and therest follows from third factor considerations. Nevertheless, MERGE (3) confronts a number of
empirical questions, posed by the problem of descriptive adequacy. Thus, a tension arises
between theoretical explanation and empirical description. In order to resolve this tension, wewill clarify accompanying notions under MERGE, such as minimal search, in particular,labeling and agreement, which involves φ-features and Case. These notions are of criticalimportance for the current minimalist investigation.
In this workshop, we first review core concepts of MERGE, and then identify empiricalissues, paying special attention to MERGE, on the one hand, and minimal search, labeling, andthe theory of Case and agreement, on the other. By addressing these issues, further
consequences of MERGE will be identified and investigated.
Although MERGE is the latest conceptual innovation in syntactic theory under the generativeendeavor, we make this workshop as accessible as possible to researchers who are not familiar
with recent minimalist developments. The workshop provides a brief introduction of MERGE,
together with the review of the relevant background assumptions, which in turn allows theparticipants to actively take part in the discussion.

References
Chomsky, Noam (1995) “Bare Phrase Structure,” Government and Binding Theory and theMinimalist Program, ed. by Gert Webelhuth, 383-439, Blackwell, Oxford.
Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy,” Structures and Beyond: The
Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104-131, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UG from Below,” Interface + Recursion = Language?:
Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, ed. by Uli Sauerland andHans-Martin Gärtner, 1-30, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection: Extensions,” Structures, Strategies andBeyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia
Hamann, and Simona Matteini, 3–16, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Chomsky, Noam (2017) A talk given at the workshop entitled “Generative Linguistics in the
21st Century: The Evidence and the Rhetoric,” the University of Reading, May 11, 2017.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?init=quick&q=University%20of%20Reading%20chomsky&tas=0.21866556606255472.
Chomsky, Noam (2019a) MIT Lectures. http://whamit.mit.edu/2019/05/06/noam-chomskyslectures-now-online/
Chomsky, Noam (2019b) UCLA Lectures. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/noam-chomsky/
Citko, Barbara (2005) “On the Nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel
Merge,” Linguistic Inquiry 36, 475-497.
Collins, Chris (2002) “Eliminating Labels,” Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist
Program, ed. by Samuel D. Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, 42-64, Blackwell, Oxford.
Lebeaux, David (1998) Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar, Doctoral
dissertation, MIT.
Narita, Hiroki (2014) Endocentric Structuring of Projection-Free Syntax, John Benjamins,Amsterdam.
Nunes, Jairo (2004) Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement, MIT Press, Cambridge,MA.