FIVE REASONS FOR BUILDING PHRASE STRUCTURES
TOP-DOWN FROM LEFT TO RIGHT *Cristiano Chesi
University of Siena

1.

Introduction: Structure Building Operations and Directionality

In this paper I will summarize five arguments supporting an explicit formalization of aminimalist grammar which is derivational and directional: derivational since constituents anddependencies are built dynamically, piecemeal, using structure building operations such as
merge and move in a phase-tailored computation; directional in the sense that these structurebuilding operations operate strictly from left-to-right as proposed by Colin Phillips (1996,2003) and top-down (Chesi 2004). This directionality issue is obviously the main differencewith respect to standard minimalist approach1.
The issues I will summarize are both formal and empirical and are tightly related to therevised definition of merge and move: first of all I will go trough Phillips’ (2003) arguments,
showing how merge should be redefined in a left-to-right manner, merge-right, based on theevidence that intermediate constituents can be targets for coordination. This will allow us tocapture interesting conflicting results among constituency and c-command tests (section 3,
Phillips 2003) in a cross-linguistic perspective (Choi and Yoon 2006). Two formal arguments
will be presented, then, in order to introduce the directionality shift with respect to the move
operation and the notion of derivation by phase: unmotivated intermediate steps for
movement (section 4, Chesi 2004a) and growing complexity with respect to cross-phasal
dependencies (section 6, Chesi 2004b) suggest that top-down, left-to-right derivations areinteresting solutions to be explored systematically: the complexity argument, in fact, isolatesa natural class of constituents which exactly correspond to strong islands; left-to-rightderivations are able to provide an unified account of such constituents, as in Huang (1982),
without loosing the ability to discriminate important empirical differences (section 5, Chesi
2004a). This is especially true for parasitic gaps constructions: we will be able to recast theconnectedness effect (Kayne 1983) in derivational terms without stipulating any complex-NP
constraint (section 7, Bianchi and Chesi 2005).

* I am grateful to the audience of the Joint Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Language
Acquisition at Nanzan for suggestions and remarks. Special thanks go to Valentina Bianchi, Tomohiro
Fujii, Keiko Murasugi, Mamoru Saito and Kensuke Takita for their comments, patience and support.
1

In this paper I will not stress the similarity of this proposal with respect to other influential
frameworks (such us Dynamic Syntax, Cann and al. 2005); notice however that this assumption is notcompletely original.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1, 71-105© 2007 Cristiano Chesi

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

2.

Rationale Behind the Arguments

As stressed by Ross (1967), a language can be thought of as a set of constraints on how
we can make infinite use of finite means given a, powerful enough, recursive procedure. The
main problem didn’t change that much in the last 40 years: move α and the projection
principle before (Chomsky 1965), then merge, move and agree now (Chomsky 2005a), arevery general and (too) powerful devices that allow us to figure out very important universal
principles, but which require a big effort so as to be able to define precisely the upper boundof our language set: it is a matter of fact that these operations are defined in such a general
way to be practically insufficient to constrain many relevant empirical phenomena.
Within the spirit of the minimalist enterprise, I will try to show that a more restrictive
definition of merge, move and the notion of phase (deeply inspired by Kayne’s theory ofantisimmetry), can be successfully rephrased in top-down, left-to-right terms, attaining
superior results in terms of simplicity and empirical adequacy, at least with respect to arelevant subset of key phenomena, without loosing computational tractability. This solution
departs from the simplest assumptions proposed within the standard minimalist approach(Chomsky 1995-2005b) that, in fact, lead to solutions which are only seemingly simpler andmore essential than the ones proposed within the government and binding framework:
theoretical complexity is mainly projected onto (often underspecified) lexical features,
recasting potential universal properties to language specific properties (much as intransformational rule-based approach, Chomsky 1965); this way UG specification would
become very complex and problematic in terms of explanatory adequacy.
3.

Argument 1: Intermediate Constituency

A standard assumption within the minimalist mainstream is that the merge operation is
the first source of recursion in natural language:(1)

merge (Y , merge (X, ... merge (C, merge (A, B))...))

A, B, C, X and Y are either lexical elements or results of other merge operations; in thissecond case, merge can be reasonably thought of as a recursive operation:(1') merge(John , merge(said, ... merge(Mary, merge(bought, merge(the, book)))...))The bottom-to-top directionality of the derivation guarantees that at any application of thisstructure building operation a (piece of a) constituent is built, either satisfying someselectional requirement or complying with adjunction. In any case, last merged elements will
always (derivationally, in the sense of Epstein and al. 1998) C-command previously merged
ones, according to the no-tampering condition (Chomsky 2005a). Since constituents and Ccommand relations are both built by merge (internal and/or external), results for tests
involving constituency and C-command relations should not conflict as shown below(Phillips 2003):-72-

Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)(2) a.

Gromit [likes cheese] and [hates cats].

(coordination)b.

Gromit [likes cheese] and Wallace does too.

(deletion/ellipsis)c.

[Like cheese] though Gromit does, he can’t stand Brie. (movement)d.

Wallace and Gromit like each other.

(reciprocal binding)e.

*Each other like Wallace and Gromit.

(illicit reciprocal binding)This prediction seems to be correct for a relevant subset of constituents but not for all:(3)a.

Wallace gave [Gromit a biscuit] and [Shawn some cheese] for breakfast.

b.

[Wallace designed] and [Gromit built] an enormous tin moon-rocket.

c.

Wallace gave Gromit [a biscuit in the morning] and [some cheese just before
bedtime]d.

* [Gromit a biscuit] Wallace gave for breakfast.

e.

Alice [knew that Fred wanted to talk] and [hoped that he wanted to argue] withthe president.

f.

* Alice [knew that Fred wanted to talk] with the queen and Ethel did _ with thepresident.

Coordination (3.c) Vs. topicalization (3.d), for instance, would suggest that the clustercomposed by the direct and the indirect object, in a double-object construction, gives rise toconflicting predictions about constituency. Coordination (3.e) conflicts also with ellipsis (3.f)
if we look at the cluster [verb + embedded clause subpart].
In the end, also the branching directionality of the structure is questioned looking at Ccommanding vs. fronting examples:(4)a.
John wanted to give books to them in the garden, and [give the books to themi in
the garden] he did on each otheri’s birthdays.
b.

John wanted to give books to them, and [give the books to themi] he did in thegarden on each otheri’s birthdays.

In (4), while anaphor binding would predict the standard right-branching structure (5.b), VPfronting conspires for a left-branching structure as in (5.a), where a VP-subconstituent can be
moved, leaving lower PPs stranded (Phillips 2003):-73-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(5) a.

b.
on each otheri’s
birthdayin the garden

give
the books
to themi

to themi

in thegardengive the books
3.1

on each otheri’s
birthdayStandard Solutions: Test-targets and Cascades/layers

In order to account for the contrasts presented above, various solutions have been
provided in literature. Two main classes of proposals can be isolated: a selective target
solution and a solution based on flexible constituency.
As for the first class, the crucial idea is that C-command (e.g. binding) and constituency(e.g. movement, ellipsis, coordination) tests all target specific and idiosyncratic structuralproperties: in a transformational based approach (e.g. Ross 1967) coordination is a special
rule involving a certain kind of constituents2 while movement apply to another cluster of
constituents.
On the other hand, with respect to the second class of solutions, the central idea is that asentence might have multiple parallel structural representation. A representative proposal canbe considered the one involving layered Vs. cascade structures, suggested by Pesetsky(1995): the layered structure (5.a) is the locus where phrase extractions are computed, while
the cascade structure (5.b) is the locus of binding, negative polarity items interpretation andso on.
We can conclude, with Phillips (2003:41) that “although the syntactic literature contains
many excellent characterizations of the range of constituents picked out by individual
structural diagnostics, there is no general theory of why particular tests yield the results thatthey do. As a result, discrepancies between the results of constituency tests have typically not
been very informative”.
3.2

Inadequacies: A Cross-linguistic Perspective on Argument Cluster Coordination

A general lack of understanding and the stipulative flavour of the solutions justpresented seem to emerge as soon as we look at the data from a cross-linguistic perspective.
As noticed by Koisumi (2000) and Choi & Yoon (2006), Japanese (and Korean) Vs. English,
allow for specific argument cluster coordination:
2

Or better, specially constrained variables (rather than constituents) representing (sub-)constituents(e.g. the clausal-coordination rule would involve a variable corresponding to the cluster [subject-verb]
as in (3.b)).

-74-

Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)(6) a.[[Mary-ga ringo-o 2-tu] to [Nancy-ga banana-o3-bon]] tabeta (koto).
[[M.-NOM apple-ACC 2-CL] and [N.-NOM banana-ACC 3-CL]] ate
Lit. ‘[Mary two apples] and [Nancy three bananas] ate.’(Mary ate two apples, and Nancy three bananas.)b. [[Mary-ga John-ni ringo-o 2-tu] to [Nancy-ga Bob-ni banana-o 3-bon]] ageta (koto).
[[M.-NOM J.-DAT apple-ACC 2-CL] and [N.-NOM B.-DAT ban.-ACC 3-CL]] gave
Lit. ‘[Mary two apples to John] and [Nancy three bananas to Bob] gave.’(Mary gave two apples to John, and Nancy gave three bananas to Bob.)
Moreover, constituency tests in Japanese (and Korean) Vs. English do not conflict:
(7)

(8)

a. Wallace gave [Gromit a biscuit] and [John some cheese] for breakfast (coordination)b. *[Wallace a biscuit] and [Gromit some cheese] gave to John

(coordination)c. *[Gromit a biscuit] Wallace gave ____ for breakfast(fronting)d. *What Wallace gave is [Gromit a biscuit]((pseudo-)cleft)

a. Mary-ga [[ John-ni ringo-o 2-tu] to [Bob-ni banana-o 3 hon]] ageta (koto) (coord.)
M-Nom J-Dat
apple-Acc 2-Cl and B-Dat banana-Acc 3-Cl gave (fact)‘Mary gave two apples to John and three bananas to Bob’b. [[John-ni ringo-o 2-tu] to [Bob-ni banana-o 3-bon]] Mary-ga _ ageta (koto) (scram.)
J-Dat apple-Acc 2-Cl and B-Dat banana-Acc 3-Cl M-Nom gave (fact)
Lit. ‘(the fact that) [two apples to John and three bananas to Bob] Mary gave’c. Mary-ga age-ta no-wa [John-ni ringo-o 3-tu] da
M-Nom give-Pst Nm-Top J-Dat
apple-Acc 3-Cl be((pseudo-)cleft)

Lit. ‘It is [three apples to John] that Mary gave’
This contrast is unexplained under the above mentioned theories.
3.3

A Possible Solution: Merge Right and Incremental Structure Building

Phillips proposes that a slight modification of (5.b) would be sufficient to account for
any apparent contrast that seems to involve the left-branching structure proposed in (5.a). His
solution is based on a left-to-right structure building procedure as illustrated in the simplified
example below:-75-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

(9)

a.

b.

c.

VP
V
give

VP
NP
books

V
give

VP

V
give

V
give
V
give

NP
books

VP

d.

VP
VP

NP
books

VP
V
give

VP

NP
books

PP
P
to

VP
V
give

NP
them

VP
VP

PP
to them

PP

V
give
P
in

NP
the garden

The derivation in (9) (reminiscent of Larson’s 1988 VP shells) yields a solution to theconstituency problem: in fact, both (9.b) and (9.c) represents temporary constituents (later
destroyed by further merge operations) that can be targeted by specific operation at specificpoint of the derivation. This is the cornerstone of the left-to-right structure building procedure
Phillips proposes: temporary constituency is the property, created during the derivation, we
could use to account for apparent paradoxes. Crucially, a left-to-right processing procedure
creates temporary constituents that are different from the ones built by standard bottom-totop3 derivation proposed by Chomsky (1995):(10) “The boy kissed Mary”
a. left-to-right derivation (Phillips’ proposal):merge 2

merge 1

theboy

the boykissedmerge 3the boykissed3

MaryThat is quite different from bottom-up, which simply means starting from input data rather thanfrom structure projections. On the other hand, Bottom-to-top means starting from the inner verbal shell,
then adding higher and higher layers piecemeal.

-76-

Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)b. bottom-up derivation (standard minimalist proposal):

kissedMarymerge 3

merge 2

merge 1

theboy

the boykissedMary

For instance, only (10.a) creates the temporary constituent [the boy kissed] that can betargeted for coordination4. The directionality of the process could be sufficient to account forthe cross-linguistic asymmetry between English on one hand and Japanese-Korean on theother: subject-object cluster never creates a temporary constituent in English while it does inJapanese-Korean5. Since these kinds of constituents are relevant for phenomena such as thosedescribed in (6), (7), and (8), Phillips takes this to be a proof of the fact that the grammar
incorporates a simple structure-building procedure, merge right:(11) Merge right (Phillips 1996:18)
new items must be introduced at the right edge of the structure6
This allows Phillips to make a series of predictions which turn out to be correct in a crosslinguistic perspective:
Prediction 1: A constituency test may refer to only those strings that are constituents at the
point in the incremental derivation when the test applies (e.g. subject-object cluster
coordination in Japanese-Korean Vs. subject-verb cluster coordination in English, (6) Vs. (7))
Prediction 2: Contradictions between constituency tests can only arise when those tests apply
at different stages in the incremental derivation of a sentence (e.g. coordination targets
intermediate constituents while movement and ellipsis only target maximal constituents, (3))
Prediction 3: Constituency changes during the course of a derivation, but most c-command
relations do not. Therefore, tests involving c-command relations should not conflict with one
another (2.d-e)).
4

Notice that Phillips’ account too has to stipulate the selective nature of the target for constituency
tests: coordination can target temporary constituents; movement only targets maximal phrasal
constituents.
5

Choi and Yoon’s (2006) story is more complex and requires a modification of the selection
relation between the verbal complex and its arguments (we will discuss this proposal in section 5). forthe purposes of this section, the directionality shift is however sufficient to account for theasymmetries between Japanese-Korean and English.
6

This definition is not sufficient to produce the right branching structures we would need; Phillips
introduces a “branch right” bias that I will implicitly adopt without discussion; this bias forces themerge operation to “select the attachment that uses the shortest path from the last item in the input tothe current input item” (Phillips 1996:19).

-77-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

4.

Argument 2: Unmotivated Intermediate Steps in Successive Cyclic Movement
A second source of recursion in natural language is A'-movement7:(12) merge (move (A), ... merge (move (A), ... merge (A, B)...)...))
A classical example is successive cyclic wh-movement in head-initial languages:(12') Whoi do you believe [ti that Mary think [ti that ... [ti that everybody admires ti]...] ] ?
Independently of the specific devices used to account for displacement (probe-goal, edge
features etc.) every intermediate step, necessary to escape the phase impenetrability condition(or subjacency or barrier-hood, depending on the adopted framework) in any bottom-to-top
derivation, has to be triggered by some feature: in the classical minimalist understanding of
wh-movement (Chomsky 1995), for instance, crucially movement could not blindly alter the
relevant wh- feature that triggers the last step of the wh- chain. If this could happen, either wewould have a non-deterministic operation that at any step could leave the element undisplacedor move it at will (leading, in any case, to a grammatical result) or else preventing the elementfrom moving further (then stranding it in a ungrammatical position). A pertinent (recurrent)
question, then, is related to what triggers intermediate steps in successive cyclic movement.
4.1 Standard Solutions: Formal/edge Features
Within the minimalist mainstream, essentially two influential solutions have been
proposed in order to make successive cyclic A'-movement possible:
i. Formal Features (FFs), e.g. Probe-Goal approach described in Chomsky (2000:135)
ii. Edge Features (EFs), Chomsky 2005
The nature of the two solution differs substantially in terms of paired deletion: while FFs
are both on the probe and on the goal and deletes against each other causing a freezing effect((13.a-a'); Rizzi 2004), EFs are present only on the phase head and force internal merge asshown in (13.b-b'):(13) a.

... [+FF C] everybody admires [-FF -WH who]?8a'.

... [+FF [-FF -WH who] C] everybody admires <who> ?

b.

... [EF C] everybody admires [WH who]?

b'.

... [EF [WH who] C] everybody admires <who> ?

7This is true at least for head-initial languages. Something has to be said for head-final languages
but for sake of compactness I can not address the issue here.
8

The formalism used (+/-FF) is inspired by Stabler (1997) proposal.

-78-

Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)

FFs describe movement strictly in terms of uninterpretable-interpretable feature checking,while EFs charge the entire burden of the movement operation on the phase-head that forcesinternal merge to comply with scope/discourse-related “edge requirements”.
4.2

Inadequacies: Finitary Nature of the Lexicon and the Non-selectivity of Edge
Features

Both solutions leave some theoretical problems open: as for the first solution, the use of
FFs would predict any single step to be triggered by a single (different) feature. Unless wewould assume that A'-move is indeed a non-recursive operation, successive cyclicity would
need an infinite number of formal features on the wh-element as shown below9:(14) a.

a'.

[+WH C] do you think [+FF C] Mary said ... [+FF C] everybody admired[-FF -FF .... -FF -WH who]?
[+wh [-WH who] C] do you think [+FF <-FF -WH who> C] Mary said ...
[+FF <-FF -FF .... -FF -WH who> C] everybody admired <-FF -FF .... -FF -WH who> ?

This is in contrast with the finitary nature of the lexicon.
On the other hand (Chomsky 2005b:5,17), EF on a phase head would require movement(re-merge or internal merge) of the relevant wh-element to the (relevant) position in (the left
periphery of) the phase edge. This would allow, in fact, a successive cyclicity without
requiring an infinite number of feature on a lexical item, as shown below:(15) a.
a'.

[EF C] do you think [EF C] Mary said ... [EF C] everybody admired [who]?
[ who EF C] do you think [<who> EF C] Mary said ... [<who> EF C] everybody
admired <who> ?

However a problem with this device derives from the definition of internal merge which isessentially a genuine instance of merge: it is not clear, at least to me, how EFs should force
internal Vs. external merge if the element to be displaced is not marked anyway. Why should
EF on C not be satisfied by an expletive or, in general, by external merge? Another (related)problem comes from the fact that we should expect a minimal variation of (15) to begrammatical, contrary to fact:(15') a.
a'.

John thinks [EF C] Mary said ... [EF C] everybody admired [who]?
*John thinks [who EF C] Mary said ... [<who> EF C] everybody admired <who> ?

The intimate relation between the wh-element in its verbal selected position and the verysame element in its scopal position (the dual semantics property of the conceptual-intentional9

For the sake of simplicity I did not introduce +FF on the edge of vP. This would have been
obviously unproblematic.

-79-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

system, Chomsky 2005b:7) is lost if we do not have any featural mark-up requiring
movement both on the wh-element and on the relevant phase edge/criterial position.
It is worth to mention a variant of the first mechanism suggested by Luigi Rizzi (2004):
Rizzi proposes to eliminate the +/- distinction, marking the wh-element and the attracting
complementizer head both with the very same feature F. In order to account for successive
cyclicity Rizzi needs to include formal features f (crucially different from the one that triggers
the last step in the bottom-to-top derivation and creates the freezing effect) in the sense of
McCloskey (2002). Following this idea, the derivation can be rephrased as follows:(16) a.
a'.

[F C] do you think [f C] Mary said ... [f C] everybody admired [F who]?
[F [F who] C] do you think [f < F who> C] Mary said ...
[f < F who> C] everybody admired < F who> ?

This solution removes three important problems: first, it removes the inconvenient asymmetry
between interpretable and uninterpretable features (as Rizzi noticed, we can hardly believethat question-related criterial positions and/or wh-elements involve morphologically overt
uninterpretable features); second, it does not violate the finitary nature of the lexicon (since
the wh-element only bears one relevant F feature); third, it is compatible with the freezing
effect and can circumvent the expletive-strategy (when the wh-element is marked with F, if
an expletive satisfies the complementizer F requirement by matching, then the F features on
the wh-element would stay unmatched; if we assume that F requires a matching in a criterial
position, sentences such as (15') are correctly predicted to be ungrammatical).
There is however one last standing problem: why are formal features f inserted phase-byphase in the computation? “Nothing but a teleological device so as to reach a criterial
position” can hardly be considered an explanatorily adequate answer and it diminishes theadvantages of having a derivation by phase.
4.3

A Possible Solution: Move as a Left-to-right Dependency Using a Memory Buffer

A solution for the problem of successive-cyclicity without using teleological devices,
comes from parsing: memory buffered long distance dependencies.
Minimally speaking, to implement a memory-based dependency we need:a. a definition of the memory buffer;
b. a deterministic procedure to move elements into the memory buffer;c. a deterministic procedure to reintegrate moved elements in the structure;d. a condition of success that allow us to determine, depending on the content of thememory buffer, whether or not the sentence is grammatical.

-80-Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)a. As for the structure of the memory buffer, let us assume a standard Last In First Out(LIFO) memory (used for instance in push-down automata10): the last element moved in thememory buffer is then the first one to be re-inserted in the structure. This would easily allow
to capture nested dependencies11. Henceforth I will use a graphical representation (roundedboxes) to represent the memory buffers:
(17)
Mn
:

P1

...

Pm

M stands for M(emory)-buffer and will be followed by an identification number n which will
relate it, univocally, to a specific syntactic object (a phase in a top-down derivation). P1... Pm
are elements stored in the memory buffer: P1 is the first inserted element, Pm the last inserted
one. Due to the LIFO structure of the memory buffer, Pm will be retrieved and reintegrated in
the phrase structure before P1.
b. c. In order to regulate storage of an element in the memory buffer and the unloading
procedure, we need to define a principle (strongly inspired to the Linear Correspondence
Axiom proposed by Kayne 1994):(18) Linearization Principle (LP)if A dominates B, then eithera. <A, B> if B is a complement of A (that is, A selects B), orb. <B, A> if B is a functional projection12 of A
Following Grimshaw (1990), assume functional projections to be structured as extended
projections (possibly with a fixed order as expected following cartographic inquiries, Belletti
2004, Cinque 2002 and Rizzi 2004b); consider then complement projections as larsonian VPshells. This is what we would expect in terms of phrase structure:

10

This is not a dangerous assumption in computational terms, our grammar could in fact be no more
powerful than context-free grammars. See Hopcroft and al. (1990) for a discussion of this point.
11

Probably, this assumption will turn out to be too strong and it could be somehow weakened inorder to capture some relevant empirical phenomena (cross-serial dependencies, apparent freedom inword order for topicalized elements). See Chesi 2004 for a discussion on how to capture these
phenomena. Refer to Chesi 2004 also for a discussion on how this device is sufficient to capture
relativized minimality effects (Rizzi 1990) using different slots in order to store different typologies of
elements (e.g. A(rgumental), Mod(ifier), Q(uestion) etc..). The discussion of these aspects is irrelevant
for the present discussion and will be omitted.
12

Assume functional projection to subsume both the notion of functional head and of its specifier,following Starke 2004.

-81-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

(19)

V
V

Force

V

...
Rizzi’sleft periphery

V

Mood

V

...
Asp
Cinque’s functional
projections

Larsonian
VP-shells

VV-headV

Subject

V
Object...

In this sense the verbal head projects upward and dominates (in a label-free grammar, Collins
2001) every functional projection that precedes it. On the other hand, Larsonian shells areprojected in accordance with selectional requirements encoded on the verbal head in thelexicon13.
According to the Linearization Principle in (18), an argument is inserted in the memory
buffer if it is placed on the left of the V-head: Wh-elements in the left periphery, topicalizedarguments and the subject in SVO languages, for instance, will be all inserted in the memory
buffer and discharged in the argumental positions as soon as they can be selected14.
d. Lastly, we need to specify a clear relation between the content of the memory buffer andthe (un)grammaticality of the sentence. The most natural assumption is that the memory
buffer must be empty at the end of the derivation: if not, we would have an unselected
element within our structural description and that would violate the principle of Full
Interpretation (Chomsky 1986). Then to guaranty a full interpretation we simply need to
explicitly state a success condition:(20) Success condition(in order for the sentence to be grammatical) memory buffer(s) must be empty at theend of the derivation.
To summarize, a left-to-right movement operation stores in a memory buffer elements which
13

Mutatis mutandis, we can assume that nominals project a parallel structure. For an attempt toderive some interesting parallelism among nominal and verbal functional domains refer to Ogawa
2001, Grohmann 2003 and Laenzlinger 2005 among others.
14

This leads to a theory in which move preempts merge. This assumption seems to be empiricallytenable as suggested by Richards (1999).

-82-

Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)

are not properly selected (according to LP) and seek to satisfy, before the end of thederivation, the required selectional dependencies according to the lexical heads that will beprocessed.
Before investigating the relevant domain where successfully seeking for a satisfaction of
the selectional requirements, let me introduce a simple formalism to properly describe a
Structural Description (henceforth SD). By default, usually, we assume that a sentence can be
structurally described in terms of dominance and precedence relations as sketched below:(21)

X

dominance:
X → A, Y, B, C
Y→BC

Y

A
B

C

precedence:<A, B, C>
In a label free system, as the one I am assuming now, X and Y should be replaced by the
projecting head as shown below:(22)

Bdominance:
B<A
B<C

B

A
B

C

precedence:<A, B, C>We can now subsume the set of dominance relations in local terms by using immediate
dominance: B immediately dominates A if B is the first (branching) node above A. When B
will immediately dominates A we will write “B < A”.
Another technical aspect to clarify is related to lexical selection: when a lexical element
has to take an argument, this selectional requirement has to be encoded somehow in thelexicon. In order to avoid non-determinism15 I assume that this selection is related tothematic selection. Functional specifications are then not properly selected, but stipulatively
ordered/licensed according to cartographic inquiries. Following a fairly natural assumption,
we refer to the feature that requires merge of an argument as a select feature. The crucial
aspect of a top-down derivation hinges on these features that allow the derivation to add
pieces of structure to the processed sentence. This intuition can be stated as follows:
15

Refer to Chesi 2004 for the full discussion of this point.

-83-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(23) Top-down projection
a lexical head projects the minimal SD (that is the minimal set of necessary immediate
dominance relations) based on its select features.
This implies, for instance, that as soon as we process a verbal head with a select feature
requiring a determined nominal, we add to the SD the minimal set of dominance relations
satisfying this requirement, i.e. V < N, N < D, or, more explicitly16:
...

(24)

V

...
V
buy

N
D
(a)

N
(book)The set of dominance relations introduced in the SD should be unified (in the sense of
Shieber 1986) by merging (merge right, as in (11)) either an element already present in thememory buffer (first option) or another element newly introduced in the derivation (second
option).
We are now in a position to introduce the last piece of theory to deal with movementfrom a left-to-right perspective: the notion of phase in a top-down derivation (Chesi 2004):(25) Notions of phasea.

phase (definition)a phase is a complete derivation involving: a top-down projection of a potential SD structure, a set ip of lexical items such that any item is either the head of the phase or afunctional specification of the head of the phase, a memory buffer M, to store unselected items and retrieve selected ones, initialized
as empty, unless some items be inherited from the un-empty memory buffer of a
selecting previous phase (this inherited element will be part of ip and will be
legitimated within the phase by being merged in the relevant position of the leftperiphery, edge of the phase, as phonologically null element17);b.

completeness (definition)a phase is complete if the head of the phase is saturated, namely if any mandatory

16

Notice that we do not need to specify the set of precedence relation, since implied by LP. I will
skip here the discussion of how to codify select feature which is now an irrelevant unwanted
complication (cfr. Stabler 1997, Chesi 2004).
17

Unless specific setup of some parameterized options.

-84-Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)

selectional requirement (agent, patient etc.) is satisfied/projected;
c.

complementation (definition)a phase takes only complete phases as complements (a top-down projection can beconsidered a complete phase in order to close the phase generating thisexpectation);d.

phase selection/licensing requirement (definition)a phase has to be selected (exceptional default selection comes for the firstprojected phase); unselected phases can be introduced in the computation before
their selection point to comply with a functional specification of thesuperordinate phase;e.

memory buffer inheritanceitems in the memory buffer, at the end of the phase, can be transferred only to thememory buffer of the last selected phase.

Notice that this definition allow us to process phases either in parallel or sequentially: in thefirst case, a superordinate phase is still open when we process another phase (we will call thisphase nested from now on); in the second case, we close the previous phase before processing
the sequential one; this happens essentially when we project the last selected complement of aphase (hereafter this second phase will be the selected, or sequential, phase).
A minimal assumption for the system to work is to assume that phase heads are N and18

V :(26) What did John buy?
M1
1 :
P2

What

P2

4

P3

3

buy

tP3tP3P4

2
did

P3 John

tP2

P5
P1
(m
(m
atr
atr
The derivationof the sentence in (26) proceeds as follows:ix)
ix)
a. a default verbal phase is projected (P1)b.

since the verbal phase is interrogative, this functional feature has to be explicitly
marked; in English this can be done by merging the relevant wh-element within the

18

This will roughly corresponds, respectively, to DP and CP phases in a bottom-to-top derivation.
As for vP phase, it is not completely clear to me what relevant empirical data could be captured withthis phase level in a top-down grammar: notice that reconstruction effects could be predicted using
VP-shells and intermediate traces on the line of Barker (2007).

-85-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

specific left-peripheral position. That is how [N what], phase P2, is introduced in thederivationc.

since it is unselected (by LP) it is inserted (step 1) in the memory buffer (M1) of thematrix V-phase (P1)d.

did is compatible with a tense functional specification of the matrix V-phase, thenlicensed in this position19e.

[N John] (phase P3) is introduced to satisfy a subject-criterial requirement (functional
specification of P1) and moved in the memory buffer since unselected (step 2)f.

then [V buy] is processed as the head of the matrix V-phase (P1). Since it has two
selection requirements to be satisfied (an agent and a patient, both N-phases), theseselect features will project two phases, P4 e P5.

g.

P4 is a nested phase and will be unified by merging P3 (the first accessible elementin M1);

h.

P5 is the last phase projection then is a selected/sequential phase which will inherit
the content of the memory buffer of M1, eventually satisfying the last selectional
requirement of the previous phase by merging P2.

I would like to stress that, despite the similarity with a parsing algorithm, this is not a parsing
strategy: the elements entering the derivation can be thought of as selected using “standard”(sub)numeration(s) device. Full Interpretation and the non-ambiguity of the cartographic
structural positions force left-to-right linearization in a deterministic way. From a chaindriven perspective, this solution simply shifts the focus from the standard tail-position(selected position, always lexically derivable), to the head-position of a chain (scope position,
dynamically determined by the speaker in a multiple clausal sentential context). The shift isnecessary in order to make the movement operation deterministic without any look-ahead
device for intermediate steps.20
We are ready now to account for successive cyclicity: this definition of movement
predicts that an element (e.g. a N(ominal) phase) can be discharged only in a selected/
sequential phase (i.e. post-head, e.g. after a V(erbal) head). Suppose then that the next
projected phase is not a N-phase, as expected, but a V-phase (e.g. believe can project a Vphase): the N-element in the memory buffer will be however discharged in the new V-phase19

We could easily implement an aux-to-C movement in interrogatives, but this would uselessly
complicate the derivation.
20

This is because the scope in A'-movement is always marked solely by the surface position of theA'-moved element. The selected position is indeed deterministically identifiable given the definitionof phase and the inheritance mechanism of the memory buffer in (25). Covert movements (e.g.
Quantifier Raising) are a different matter, however compatible with the proposed model (Bianchi andChesi, 2007).

-86-

Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)and, since it will be not properly selected (the phase projection added the minimal set of
dominance relation so as to expect a V-phase, not a N-phase), it will be reloaded within thememory buffer of the just projected V-phase. And so on, up to a compatible selected position,
if any, in a successive cyclic way as sketched below:(27) Who do you believe that Mary said [ that... ] that everybody admires?
[CP [DPWho]i do you believe ... [CP ti [that everybody admires ti ]]?
(28)
M1
1 :

P2

P3

m-4
4

3

Mn-2
m-3

2
P2

Who

P1
(matrix)do

P3 youbelieve tP3...

tP2 that

P2

m-1

m-2
everybody

Pn-1

Pn-2

P5

m
admires tP5

tP2

Pn

The algorithm initializes a V-phase (the CP in (27), P1 in (28)). Then it computes the whphrase, which constitutes a separate N-phase (P2). Since this wh-phrase is not selected, it isstored in the local memory buffer (M1) of P1 by Move (step 1). Then, the computation of P1
proceeds integrating the auxiliary as a tense specification and it stores the nested N-phase P3
which will be retrieved as soon as the head of the matrix V-phase P1, believe, is processed. At
this point (step 3) P3 is discharged in the subject position and P1 is closed since we reachedthe last selected complement. The wh-phrase (P2) in the memory buffer M1 is thendischarged in the memory buffer of the selected-sequential phase (this is in order to comply
with the success condition). This memory buffer transmission minimally employs step m-4(re-merge the content of the memory buffer of P1 in the left periphery of the complement CP,
Pn-2) then, since this position is unselected, the wh-phrase is re-stored in the local memory
buffer of Pn-2 (step m-3). As a result, this "inheritance" mechanism leaves an intermediate
copy/trace in the edge of the complement CP phase. 21 This way the computation canproceeds cyclically, phase-by-phase through selected phases, without using any
formal/edge/teleological feature. Eventually the wh-phrase P2 will be discharged in a object
position of a verb (e.g. phase Pn, selected by the V head admires, phase Pn-2) where it will bedischarged from the local memory buffer of P4 and re-merged (step m): the SuccessCondition is thus satisfied at the end of the computation.
5.

Argument 3: Nested Phases are (Strong) Islands
In SVO languages, sentential subjects of (di)transitive verbs behave like (strong, in the21

As pointed out by Luigi Rizzi, p.c., although this assumption is not strictly necessary for thealgorithm to work, it seems fairly natural and it allows us to capture various successive cyclicity
effects, like e.g. Irish complementizer alternations (McCloskey 2002).

-87-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

sense of Cinque 1990) islands (29); on the other hand, subjects of unacussatives and passives(30) seem to allow for smoother extractions (Chomsky 2005b):(29) a.

*I wonder who [IP [books of t] are on the table]b.

*I wonder what [IP [reading t] would be boring]

(30)

a.
b.

[Of which car] was [the driver ti] awarded a prize?
It was the CAR (and not the TRUCK) of whichi [DP the driver ti ] was found.

On a par with the first class of subject, “true” adjuncts too, (31) Vs. (32), are considered to bestrong islands for extraction:(31) a.
b.
(32)*Which concert did you sleep [during t]*How did you leave [before fixing the car t]a. What did John arrive [whistling t]?
2000:200)b.

(Borgonovo and Neeleman

What did John drive Mary crazy [trying to _x t]?

Looking at cross-linguistic variation, adjuncts (33.a) but not subjects (33.b)22 behaves likeislands in head-final languages such as Japanese (Saito & Fukui 1998):(33) a. ??Nani-oi [John-ga [PP Mary-ga ti katta kara] okotteru] no.
what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought since angry Q‘Whati, John is angry [because Mary bought ti].’b. ?Nani-oi [John-ga [NP [IP Mary-ga ti katta] koto]-o mondai-ni siteru] no.
what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought fact-ACC problem-into making Q‘Whati , John is making an issue out of [the fact that Mary bought ti ].’c. ?Nani-oi [John-ga [CP [NP [IP Mary-ga ti katta] koto]-ga mondai-da to] omotteru] no.
what-ACC John-NOM Mary-NOM bought fact-NOM problem-is that think Q‘Whati , John thinks that [the fact that Mary bought ti ] is a problem.’

22

The sentence is degraded since it involve an extraction from a complex NP, but crucially does notcontrast with (33.c) (Saito & Fukui 1998).

-88-Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)

5.1

Standard Solutions: Condition on Extraction Domains

The classical solution to account for the islandhood of both subjects and adjuncts has
been proposed by Huang (1982):(34) Condition on Extraction Domains (CED)
extraction is only possible out of phrases which are properly governed, where a node A
is taken to properly govern a node B iff
i. A c-commands B and no major category boundary intervenes between A and B,
ii. B is contained within a maximal projection of A, andiii. B is assigned its thematic role by A
This condition essentially predicts extractions from objects.
Another interesting solution, from a derivational minimalist perspective, is proposed by
Uriagereka (1999): he suggests that cyclic spell-out could explain islandhood if we take into
account economy conditions in terms of linearization requirement: in fact it could be simpler
for the linearization system (i.e. some implementation of Kayne’s LCA) to apply to smaller
chunks rather than to the whole set of lexical elements in the structure. In this sense, subjects
and adjuncts can be shipped to spell-out as independent workspace within which linearization
can target only the relevant subset of elements. The matrix sentence and its object(s?) areindeed linearized/spelt-out at once since linearized within the same workspace. Assuming thatelements from independent derivational workspaces cannot freely enter the linearization ofother workspaces, this proposal elegantly accounts for islandhood effects.
5.2

Inadequacies: Intermediate Status of Adjuncts and Cross-linguistic Variation

Needless to say, both solutions require non trivial modifications so as to accommodate
the contrast (29) Vs. (30) and (31) Vs. (32). Also the cross-linguistic variation pointed out in(33) seems to be unexplained. More precisely, we could force the application of CED at
specific derivational point in order to allow for extraction from passives/unaccusatives (thenmoving this condition from a representational to a derivational framework) so as toaccommodate (29) Vs. (30); moreover we could attribute the transparent status of some“lower” adjuncts (such as without- or after-clauses) Vs. “higher” adjuncts (because- clauses)
to the fact that these adjuncts have to be somehow thematically related to the predicated event
structure (on the line of Borgonovo and Neeleman 2000 and Truswell 2006). Japanese data ishowever unaccounted for. The same is true for a multiple spell-out approach (where in fact itwould be more problematic to explain why the subjects of unaccusatives/passives should be
linearized within the matrix clause and not be independently shipped out to distinct
derivational workspaces as other subjects).
5.3

A Possible Solution: Islands are Nested Phases

The top-down perspective on the ungrammaticality of strong islands is radicallydifferent from the standard view: as shown in (35), the ungrammaticality of this sentence,-89-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

repeated below, does not come out from the impossibility of extracting an argument from theisland, but from the impossibility of integrating the unselected element within the phase inwhich it has been introduced or within another phase, sequential with respect to theoriginating one:(35) *Who did [close friends of _ ] become famous?
M1
: 1
P2

Who

P2

P3

3

*4

become tP3

famous2

didP3

close friends of

P4
P1(matrix)(matrix)
While the islandhood of subjects of (di)transitive verb is directly derivable, subject ofpassives/unaccusatives permeability needs a very strict application of the memory buffer
inheritance mechanism; the definition is repeated below:(25) e. memory buffer inheritanceitems in the memory buffer, at the end of the phase, can be transferred only tomemory buffer of the last selected phase.

theIn this sense we need, first, to discharge the preverbal subject in the very thematic position
projected by the unaccusative/passive phase-head, then, since last selected argument,
discharge within this fulfilled projection the other element inserted in the memory buffer.
Unless the nominal phase have no thematic requirement fulfilled by “external merge”, thesentence will be predicted to be grammatical.
The contrast (31) Vs. (32) is indeed more problematic: first observe that the LP in (18)does not allow an adjunct to be to the right to the related lexical head for which it is afunctional specification23. Despite the fact that we need to weaken the LP so as to capture thepossibility to have adjuncts to the right, we should observe that adjuncts, since attached to a“functional specification”, in the sense of (18)-(19), have to be considered genuine nested
phases. This intuition is depicted below:(36) ??[Those boring old reports]i, Kim went to lunch [without reading ei].
M1
: 1
P2

Those ...

*2

P2

P3 Kimwent

P4 to lunch*3
P5 without reading tP2

P1(matrix)
23

This is a standard prediction in any theory that assume some version of Kayne’s LCA.

-90-

Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)

Ignoring the behaviour of phases P3 and P4, the relevant part of the derivation is that P2 isstored in the memory buffer since unselected (step 1) but then it can be neither discharged inP5 (step 2) since P5 is nested/unselected, nor in a sequential phase, since went does notproject any other phase.
In order to explain why a functional-related constituent is linearized, against LP, to theright of the relevant modifying head, I would like to sketch a notion of heaviness:(37) Heaviness
when a constituent licensed in a functional position bears more features than thefunctional licensed ones (then it is a (nested) complex phase), it would rather belinearized in a phase-peripheral position
Obviously the intuitive motivation of this definition (reducing complexity, by marginalizing
nesting) has to be systematically explored; especially whether this is a preference or aconstraint has to be empirically determined; however notice that some important constraints(e.g. right-roof constraint) would be readily predictable by (37). Tentatively, as in Bianchi
and Chesi (2005), I will assume that the “complex” structure of the functional phase-headincludes some sort of select feature (parallel to the one on the phase head, e.g. a mannerphase-head as in (39.a) selects a PP as an argument) and, coherently with top-down projection
definition (23), this feature introduces the needed SD at the end of the matrix phase (keeping
however its nested relationship with this superordinate phase as in (39.b)24:(39)

a.
[select_PP MANNER]

b.

V

...

[select_PP

MANNER]

V

...

PP

Since [manner] is a functional specification of the verbal phase, it has to be computed while
this superordinate phase is still open (then it is a genuinely nested phase as expected). Only
the special (complex) structure of this functional projection should be responsible for theright-hand position of the selected PP.
Note that the right-hand modifier is not selected by the lexical head (unlike Larson 1988,
1990)25 hence, it is not a sequential phase but a nested one. This idea would allow us tocapture the unexpected behaviour of some right-hand modifiers which seem to be transparent
for extraction (e.g. (32)) by assuming a minimal difference between (39.b), where the island
24

This is necessary in order to prevents the matrix phase from being interrupted. Then we need toassume that the top-down projection of this functional specification will follow the top-down
projection of the head of the matrix clause.
25

In this way the modifier is structurally superior to the VP-internal constituents; this avoids anumber of problems with a generalized Larsonian "adjunct as complement" analysis (see Bianchi
2001 for discussion).

-91-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

PP is “selected” by the functional specification, and (39.c), where the PP is a sequential phasebecause the select feature is specified on the verbal head:26(39) c.
MANNER[=PP V]PP

In the end we need to account for cross-linguistic variation (33): an interesting
unconventional solution is suggested by Choi & Yoon, 2006 (as mentioned in section 3.2)
and it challenges directly the head directionality parameter. This proposal can be simply
stated as follows: while in English predicates selects their argument (a P(redicate)-centeredlanguage), in Japanese arguments selects their predicates (A(rgument)-centered language).
The idea of inverse selection adopted is very powerful and potentially very restrictive and I
do not have enough space here to explore many potential implications. Let me simply noticethat to accommodate this parameterization within our model we simply need to allow
nominal phases, by means of their case-marking, to project intersectively their top-down
requirements: that is, a nominative and an accusative nominal phase would conspire so as toproject a relevant verbal phase (or better, the minimal set of verbal shells constituting asequential-selected verbal phase). In this sense, case-marked nominals are not nested phases
then can be landing site for unselected phases. On the other hand adjuncts do not select any
verbal phase, but simply license a functional specification of a verbal-phase (in accordancewith LP, they lay on the left of the verbal-head). Then we expect adjuncts but not casemarked arguments to behave like nested phases, or if you prefer, strong islands.
6.

Argument 4: Growing Complexity in Nested Phases

Before exploring another advantage of thinking to strong islands in terms of nested
phases from a top-down, left-to-right derivational perspective, it is worth pointing out that thedistinction nested/selected phase is interesting also from a computational point of view.
Phases are introduced in the linguistic theory to reduce complexity (Chomsky 2001). Moreprecisely, chunking the derivation by phases reduces the space of most problems by reducing
the number of states to be explored. This can be shown if we take a simple combinatorial
problem such as lexical ambiguity: there are lexical items, in any natural language, which areambiguous among various syntactic classes (e.g. “run” can be both a verb and a noun);assume we need to process n ambiguous items, all of them ambiguous among a certain
number c of categories. A brute force algorithm would evaluate cn possibilities. Now assume26

The idea that a selectional specification for a manner PP can be associated directly to a lexical
head is made plausible by the existence of “selected adjuncts” (cf. Rizzi 1990): e.g., a verb likebehave requires a manner specification; a verb like weight requires a measure specification of acertain kind; a verb like be born requires a locative or temporal specification, etc.

-92-

Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)that phases are the natural domain within which ambiguities resolution takes place27; if wewould have 8 elements distributed in 2 phases (4 per phase), to be disambiguated among 3
target categories, using or not using phases make a big difference as shown in the following
table (162 possibilities, using phases, versus 6561 possibilities without phases):(38)
space of the problem
e.g. 8 ambiguous elements,
two phases (4 elements perphase), 3 categories
number of possibilities tobe explore to disambiguate
the example sentence

without using phasescnusing phasesc+ cn_ph2

38

34+ 34 (=81 + 81)

6561

162

n_ph1

The same is true if we consider the ambiguity generated by movement: minimally speaking
any movement operation introduces at least an extra immediate dominance relation (i.e. “C <A” in the example below):
(39)

B
B

A
B

C
C

(A)

Combinatorially speaking, exploring which dominance relations have to be associated to agiven set of precedence relations has, at least, the complexity order of O(2n-1), where n is thelength of the totally ordered sequence (namely the number of words in the processed
sentence): this is because among n items we should define n-1 relations, at best (the minimum
number of relations that would make a tree of n leafs, fully connected) and any of these
relations could be ambiguous about the projecting head (e.g. A<B or B<A). Complexity
increases, if we consider simple movements (even without considering successive cyclic
movements the complexity grows significantly): at worse any item could have beenpotentially moved from/to any lower (licensed/selected) position, the complexity order of the2
problem increases up to O( 2 (n !n)/2 ): this is because, potentially, any element could establish adominance relation with any other element that follows it: e.g. with 4 elements {A, B, C, D}
27

Given the definition of phase as extended projection, this is a reasonable assumption: functional
elements (such as determiners or adverbials) often are unambiguous, then they can help
disambiguating other elements within the same phase. However, even if the domain of disambiguation
would turn out to be bigger (2-3 phases, for instance) the structure of the argument presented in thissection would be still valid.

-93-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

we could have 6 possible dominance relations {A-B, A-C, A-D, B-C, B-D, C-D}; with 5
elements {A, B, C, D, E} we could have 10 possible dominance relations {A-B, A-C, A-D,
A-E, B-C, B-D, B-E, C-D, C-E, D-E} and so on. Then (((n-1)+1)*(n-1))/2. This is clearly nota satisfactory result, since the growing rate of any of these functions would make the problem
quickly intractable.28
Interestingly enough, intractability can be tackled by adopting the phase idea. We haveassumed, following the definition I gave in section 4.3, that movement is triggered by thepresence of an element that is not (licensed/)selected; in this case, this element will be stored
in “memory” up to the point where another element selects it. Following Chomsky (2001), let
us assume that if movement happens, it has to happen within the phase: then given a limited
context corresponding to the phase boundaries, either we find the selecting head within it, so
we can connect the moved object to its base position (projecting a set of dominance relations,according to Phase Projection, (25), that minimally satisfy this selection necessity), or we do
not find any selecting element, then the expectations to find a selecting head for theunselected moved element will be projected onto the lower (selected) phase29. And so on.
Properties of intermediate positions30 strengthen the idea that traces on the edge of thephase serve as “memory refresh” (phase balance, Felser 2001), that is, the undischarged
elements within the previous memory buffer are allowed to enter the “phase numeration”(then being part of the next selected phase) in order to make (certain kind of) Long Distance
Dependencies possible. This mechanism produces a remarkable reduction of complexity: forany moved element, we would have only two possible “landing site” positions within a phase
to be evaluated (one left-edge position, used as a memory refresh or one selected position) 31.
Then for any phase the number of dominance relations required would be, at worst, 22k (incase anything would have been moved to the left periphery of the phase32). The complexity
28

We do not need to argue that complexity, in fact, is even worse than that since unpronounced
elements can enter dominance relations (possibly without being linearized) and there is no way todetermine how many empty elements could be present, in principle, in a sentence of length n.
29

Leaving an intermediate trace on the “left-periphery” of this lower phase, as discussed in section

4.3.
30

They are not selected positions; they are available for binding, reconstructions effects; they are nottriggered by any apparent satisfaction of semantic requirements, they are in fact accounted for, in abottom-to-top perspective, by purely formal features (cf. section 4).
31

It has been often assumed that moved constituents stop by intermediate positions which are
different from the “base position” and from the “edge” of each phase (see Sportiche 1988 for a
discussion on floating quantifiers). Notice that despite the fact that in order to account for these
positions we need to consider a weakening of some stronger assumptions about movement as
expressed in 4.3, these considerations do not affect the argument in this section.
32

k is the number of functional features, plus 1 lexical head, minus 1, since for linking n elements
we would need n-1 relations.

-94-Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)order of the problem, considering any dominance as ambiguous, would be O(22k). Opening aphase before having closed the previous one, again, leads to a duplication of the number ofpossible dominance relations and so on as long as new phases are opened. The real order ofthe problem is then O(2p2k) with p representing the number of open phases at the same time.
The relation between the length of the input (n) and this function is expressed in terms ofphases, since any phase represents a chunk of this input; in particular, the number of lexical
items in n would determine the number of phases (which could be n, at worst; k can bearbitrarily fixed).

Functions:

N° of relations to be evaluated
n=6
n=9(p=2, k=2)
(p=3, k=2)

Brute
force
2
(n -n)

2 2

Nested Phases
2p2k
Selected Phases
p · 22k≃ 32K≃ 68.000M

256

4096

32

64

Note that long distance dependencies within a phase would not produce any remarkable effecton the complexity of the problem, while discontinuous constituency relations among phases
would increase the complexity of the problem in a linear way if any phase is closed before thenext one starts (selected phases). On the other hand, there is an exponential increase ofcomplexity any time we open a phase before having closed the previous one (nested phases).
This expected increase of the complexity, related to the movement of elements across open
phases could be linked, potentially, to the ban on memory discharge within strong islands (asshown in the previous section). Then “extraction from a strong island” or, from thisperspective, movement within nested phases, could also receive a principled explanation interms of economy conditions.
7.

Argument 5: Parasitic Gaps

The last piece of evidence supporting a top-down, from-left-to-right derivational view ofthe structures building operations comes from parasitic gaps constructions:(40) a. * [Which famous playwright]i did [close friends of ei] become famous?
b. ? [Which famous playwright]i did [close friends of ei] admire ei ?
(41) a. * Who did [my talking to ei] bother Hilary?
b. √ Who did [my talking to ei] bother ei?

-95-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(42) a. * Whoi did you consider [friends of ei] angry at Sandy?
b. √ Whoi did you consider[ friends of ei] angry at ei ?
Violations of extraction from preverbal subject islands (40.a) gerundive subject islands (41.a),and small clause subject islands (42.a) can be rescued by a legitimate gap on a right branch(40.b), (41.b), and (42.b). This data shows that extraction from the left-branch subject ispossible under certain configurations. Parallel examples come with adjuncts, as shown by thecontrast below:(43) a.

??

b.

√

Those boring old reports, Kim went to lunch [without reading ei].

Those boring old reports, Kim filed ei [without reading ei].

Interestingly enough, not all adjuncts behaves as islands as noticed in section 5 (following
examples are from Pollard and Sag, 1994):(44) a.

Who did you go to Girona [in order to meet e]?

b.

This is the blanket that Rebecca refuses to sleep [without e].

c.

How many of the book reports did the teacher smile [after reading e]?

Moreover, bleeding complex NP island constraint seems to be possible, but only when thecomplex NP is within the subject:(45) a.
b.
(46) a.
b.
7.1*A person who [people [CP that talk to ei]] usually have money in mind?

A person who [people [CP that talk to ei]] usually end up fascinated with ei?*[Which book]i did John meet [a child [CP who read ei]]
* [Which book]i did John gave ei [to a child [CP who read ei]]]Standard Solutions: Connectedness and Sideward Movement

A representational solution for parasitic gaps constructions is due to Kayne (1983) and it
is know as the Connectedness Condition. Roughly speaking, two nodes (e.g. the moved
object and its trace) are connected when there is a continuous path between them formed by aset of nodes that respect a specific configuration. More precisely, this set of nodes forming
the path is called a g-projection. The g-projection is defined recursively so as to be able toinclude canonically governed nodes upward in the tree as described in (47)-(48):(47) W and Z (Z a maximal projection, and W and Z immediately dominated by some Y) arein a canonical government configuration iff
a. V governs NP to its right in the grammar of the language and W precedes Z
b. V governs NP to its left in the grammar of the language and Z precedes W-96-

Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)(48) Y is a g-projection of X iff
i. Y is an ( X' ) projection of X or of a g-projection of X, or
ii. X is a structural governor and Y immediately dominates W and Z, where Z is a
maximal projection of a g-projection of X, and W and Z are in a canonical government
configuration
Y
W

Z
X

Then in a VO language like English, every right branch is in a canonical government
configuration, by (48).
The Connectedness Condition (henceforth, CC) requires that the set of the g-projectionsof (the governor(s) of) the empty category(ies) bound by a given binder and the binder itself
form a connected subtree:(49) The g-projection set Gβ of a category β is defined as follows (where γ governs β):a. ∀π, π = a g-projection of γ → π ∈ Gβ
b. β ∈ Gβ andb'. δ dominates β and δ does not dominate γ → δ ∈ Gβ33(50) Connectedness Condition (CC)Let β1 ... βj, βj+1 ... βn be a maximal set of empty categories in a tree T such that ∃α∀j,
βj is locally bound by α. Then {α} ! ( ! Gβj) must constitute a subtree of T.
1= j= nIn case of a single gap, the CC requires that all the maximal projections in the path between
the gap and its binder be on a right branch. Consider for instance the ungrammatical example
in (1a): as the tree graph below makes clear, the g-projections of the gap stop at the level ofthe preverbal subject, which is a left branch and hence not in a canonical government
configuration. Therefore, the g-projections cannot extend upward to reach the binder, and the
CC is violated:34

33

Clause b' takes care of government across a clausal boundary δ.

34

As in Kayne (1983), the numerical indices are introduced for expository purposes to mark the gprojection paths of the empty categories, and have no theoretical significance.

-97-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(40.a) *αWhich famous
playwright

did

1
1
1

close
friends

1

1

famousbecomeeαof
The rescuing effect in (40.b) is due to the fact that the g-projections of the lower gap in theobject position extend upward and connect to the g-projections of the illegitimate gap within
the subject, as shown in the tree below. As a result, the two g-projections sets form aconnected subtree including the binder, and the CC is satisfied:(40.b)22αWhich famous
playwright

2
did
1
2

1
1

close
friends

1

1

2admire

2
eα

eα
o
f
On the contrary, no rescuing effect arises if the legitimate gap is too high in the tree for its gprojection set to connect to that of the illegitimate gap, as in the following example:-98-

Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)(51) * a person who you admire e because [close friends of e] became famous
2
α

2

who

2
you
2
2

2

admireeαbecause

1
1
1

close
friends

1ofbecame famous1eα

Nunes and Uriagereka (2000) recast the CC in derivational terms: following the argument
briefly introduced in section 5.1 (Uriagereka, 1999), the subject/adjunct islandhood is
described in terms of phase cyclicity with relative multiple spell-out plus the notion of
sideward movement: this notion allows an element α, within a certain derivational space, tobe extracted and merged within the matrix derivational space under certain circumstances,namely when the (sub)numeration of the matrix phase would not be sufficient to satisfy allthematic requirements of the phase head. To recover from otherwise ungrammatical results,
the peripheral wh-element/argument of the independent derivational workspace can beextracted and merged in the requested argumental position (sideward movement) then behave
as a common wh-element newly introduced in the computation by external merge. This
proposal is sufficient to subsume both subject-related and adjunct-related connectedness
effects (40)-(43).
7.2

Inadequacies: Complex NP-constraint

Observe that there are at least two empirical problems with the standard CC: adjuncts(44) and Complex NP-islands selectivity (45), (46).
Since adjuncts are on a right branch, they should be properly governed by the definitionin (48); this should give rise to CC but in fact this is not the case since sentence in (43.a),reported here, is ungrammatical unless an extra gap is inserted in the matrix clause (43.b):(43) a.

??

Those boring old reports, Kim went to lunch [without reading ei].

b.

√

Those boring old reports, Kim filed ei [without reading ei].

Longobardi (1985) proposes a modification of the notion of g-projection in order to block it-99-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

when it “starts” from a right-hand modifier. The minimal change he needs to introduce is thatmaximal g-projection be properly governed (where properly governed means to be anargument or a predicate of the governing category). In this sense adjuncts are not properly
governed and they block g-projection and CC. Then, in order to explain why certain adjuncts
are more transparent to extraction than other, we need to incorporate a more subtle proper
government condition sensitive to the event-predicated semantic structure on the line of
Borgonovo, Neeleman (2000) and Truswell (2006).
On the other hand, the mysterious behaviour of complex NP islands depending on theirposition does not follow either from Kayne’s / Longobardi’s revisited CC or from Nunes andUriagereka’s theory of multiple spell-out plus sideward movement: both theories have toimplement ad hoc solutions for this problem.
7.3

A possible Solution: Only Selected Phases are Recursive Branches

The theory of island-hood sketched in 5.3 is sufficient to subsume the CC if we add anextra possibility to our memory buffer devices:(52) Parasitic use of the content of the memory buffera nested phase can use elements in the memory buffer of the superordinate phases but
only parasitically, that is, without the removing the used elements from the originating
memory buffer.
This does not violate any phase-condition in (25) and allows us to capture every relevant
example in a natural way (dotted lines mark parasitic use of the content of the memory
buffer):(40.a)
M1
:

1
P2

P2

M3
:

4

Which famous playwright

did

P3

*6

5

2

P3

P2

3
become tP3

close friends of tP2

famous

P4
(ma
trix
)

P1
(matrix)(40.b)

1
P2

M1
:

P2

P3

Which famous playwright

5

2
4
did

P3

M3
:

P2

6

3

close friends of tP2

admire

tP3

tP2

P4

P1
(matrix)-100-Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)

The top-down derivation predicts that (40.a) is ungrammatical not because P2 cannot beinterpreted within P3, but because it could be discharged only within a phase which is
selected by P1 which in fact is not there.35 On the other hand, in (40.b) the verb admire
projects the required phase and the memory buffer (M1) can be discharged, complying with
the Success Condition at the end of the derivation. As for adjuncts the relevant derivation, isreported below (cfr. with (36)):(43.b)M1: 1
P2

Those ...

P2

2

3
went

P3 Kim

P4 filed tP2

P5 without reading tP2

P1(matrix)
In the end, the ambiguous status of the complex NP constraint is easily accounted for:(45.b)
1
P2

M1
:

P2

2

P3
M5
:

4

a person who

P3

people

6

5

P2

3

that talk to tP2

end up fascinated with tP3

P4

P1(matrix)(46.b)

4
1
P2

M1
:

Which book

P2

P3

3

2
did P3 you

give tP3 tP2

M4
:

*5

tP2

P5
(
m
at
ri
x)

to a child P5 who read tP2

(
P4
P1
m
(
(matrix)atm
In (46.b) (but not in (45.a)) the memory buffer of the relevant
phaseri(M4 for (46.b) Vs. M5
at36
for (45.a)) is empty then no element can satisfy the thematic requirementx) expressed in P5.
ri
x)
35

This solution is very similar to Nunes and Uriagereka’s intuition which would predict (40.a) to beungrammatical because of the absence of a selected position within the matrix phase which would
have triggered sideward movement of the wh-element from the subject.
36

In this case, depending on the structure we would assume for double object constructions, we
could predict the following sentence to be significatively better than (46.b):[Which book]i did John give [a child [CP who read ei]]] ei-101-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

8.

Conclusion: An Overall Picture of the Proposed Grammar and Further Challenges

In this paper I summarized a few arguments showing that a derivational grammar issuperior in capturing many crucial phenomena if we consider a directionality shift withrespect to the standard minimalist approach. Adopting a left-to-right, top-down formulationof the structure building operations we can capture in a relatively simple way:
1. asymmetric results of constituency-based tests within the same language and acrosslanguages;
2. successive cyclicity in A'-movement without unmotivated intermediate steps;
3. (strong) islands conditions including tricking border-line phenomena with eventpredicated arguments and with subject depending on verbal subcategorization((di)transitives Vs. unaccusatives/passives); moreover we can explore productively
some degree of cross-linguistic variation in terms of islandhood (Japanese objectsubject non asymmetric behaviour Vs. adjuncts islandhood);
4. a well behaved characterization of strong islands in terms of computational
complexity
5. a reformulation of the connectedness conditions in derivational terms, accounting forcomplex NP-islandhood variability depending on the structural position of thecomplex NP.
In sum, to capture these results we need to re-orient the following structure building
components:
a. merge (Chomsky 1995) became merge right (Phillips 1996); it postulates a strict
parallelism between linearization and right-branching structure: it predicts that every
time an element is introduced in the computation (strictly from left-to-right) thiselement enters a constituency relation, potentially destroyed during the following
derivation.
b. phases are derivational spaces (in the sense of Uriagereka 1999) which have to beproperly selected and which roughly correspond to extended projections originatingfrom the phase-head (minimally, nouns and verbs). The structure of the functional
projections within the phase (following cartographic inquiries) is cross-linguistically
fixed; thematic requirements of the phase head project (top-down, on the right edge ofthe structure) hierarchically ordered ph(r)asal shells (much as in Larson 1988). Phases
can appear both in a functional position (then they are licensed but not selected) and inthematic, post-head, position. In the first case we consider these phases as nested; inthe second case the phases are selected. Nesting and selection, a crucial distinction inorder to account for movement-based dependencies, is regulated by the Linearization
Principle, inspired by Kayne’s LCA.

-102-

Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)c. movement became a long-distance memory-buffered left-to-right dependency seeking
for selected/licensed positions according to Linearization Principle. Any unselected
element/phase is moved into the memory buffer (a LIFO memory) of the relative
phase and discharged in the first compatible selected position. Every phase has its
own memory buffer; memory buffers must be empty at the end of any phase in orderfor the sentence to be grammatical (Success Condition). The content of the memory
buffer, if any, can only be discharged onto the last phase selected by the current phasehead.
It is fair to acknowledge that there are also important challenges yet to be tackle: first of all
we need to explain how case-marked phases (e.g. “to whom” like elements) can be nested
phases; it is a matter of fact that as soon as we introduce in the numeration a case-marked
element, we should have already processed the relevant selecting head (potentially arbitrarily
far in the structure). A possible discussion of this problem could start from the solution
sketched above to account for the non-asymmetric behaviour of subjects and objects inJapanese in terms of islandhood: assume a “case-marked” elements simply is allowed toproject a specific top-down projection, “to whom”-like elements simply project a relevant
VP-shell that, unless satisfied by further elements processed in some phase-tailored (selected)
derivational workings space, would lead to ungrammaticality.
Another challenge is to determine how the relevant C-command relations can be
captured in top-down derivational terms, especially the binding conditions: LP and phasenesting could be sufficient to recast major empirical phenomena without making any
reference to the (representational) notion of C-command. This seems to be possible along thelines of Schlenker (2005) and Bianchi (2007) (see also Shan and Barker 2006 for a left-toright approach to quantificational binding which dispenses with C-command).
Many of these problems, so far, seem to have at least a(n interesting) conceivable
explanation in this radically different, though very restrictive, directionally non-standard
minimalist approach.

References
Barker, C. (2007) “Reconstruction as Delayed Evaluation.” Ms., Los Angeles.
Belletti, A. (2004) Structures and Beyond, Oxford University Press.
Bianchi, V. (2001) “Antisymmetry and the Leftness Condition: Leftness as Anti-c-command.” Studia
Linguistica 55, 1-38.
Bianchi, V. (2007) “Non-redundancy and Backward Anaphora.” XXX GLOW Colloquium, Tromso.
Bianchi, V. and Chesi, C. (2005) “Phases, Strong Islands, and Computational Nesting.” Ms.,
University of Siena [presented at GLOW 28, 2005, Geneva].
Bianchi, V. and Chesi C. (2007) “Quantifier Raising in a Top-down Grammar.” XVII Colloquium on
Generative Grammar, Girona.

-103-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Borgonovo, C. and Neeleman, A. (2000) “Transparent Adjuncts.” The Canadian journal of linguistics
45, 199-224.
Cann, R., Kempson, R. and Marten, L. (2005) The Dynamics of Language: An Introduction, Oxford:
Elsevier.
Chesi, C. (2004a) Phases and Cartography in Linguistic Computation: toward a Cognitively
Motivated Computational Model of Linguistic Competence, unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
University of Siena.
Chesi, C. (2004b) “Phases and Complexity in Phrase Structure Building.” The 15th Meeting ofComputational Linguistics in the Netherlands, 59-75.
Choi, Y., and Yoon, J. (2006) “Argument Cluster Coordination and Constituency Test (Non)Conflicts.” NELS 37, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In Martin, R., Michaels, D. andUriagereka, J., eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89-155.
Chomsky, N. (2005a) “Three Factors in Language Design.” Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1-22.
Chomsky, N. (2005b) “On Phases.” Ms., MIT.
Cinque, G. (1990) Types of A-dependencies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, G. (2002) The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Vol. 1, Functional Structure in DP and IP,
Oxford University Press.
Collins, C. (2001) “Eliminating Labels.” MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20, 1–25.
Epstein, S., Groat, E. M., Kitahara, H., and Kawashima, R. (1998) A Derivational Approach to
Syntactic Relations, Oxford University Press.
Grimshaw, J. B. (1990) Argument Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grohmann, K. K. (2003) Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies, John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hopcroft, J. E. and Ullman, J. D. (1990) Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, andComputation, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Kayne, R. S. (1983) Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris.
Koizumi, M. (2000) “String Vacuous Overt Verb Raising.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9, 227285.
Laenzlinger, C. (2005) “Some Notes on DP-internal movement,” GG@ G 4, 227–260.
Larson, R. (1988) “On the Double Object Construction in English.” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 589–637.
McCloskey, J. (2002) “Resumption, Successive Cyclicity, and the Locality of Operations.” In Epstein,
S. and Seely, D., eds, Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, 184–226.
Nunes, J. and Uriagereka, J. (2000) “Cyclicity and Extraction Domains.” Syntax 3, 20-43.
Ogawa, Y. (2001) A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections, Oxford University Press.
Phillips, C. (1996) Order and Structure, Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Phillips, C. (2003) “Linear Order and Constituency.” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 37-90.

-104-

Five Reasons for Building Phrase Structures Top-Down from Left to Right (C. Chesi)

Richards, N. (1999) “Dependency Formation and Directionality of Tree Construction.” MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 34, 67-105.
Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rizzi, L. (2004a) “On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects.” Ms.. University of
Siena.
Rizzi, L. (2004b) The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Oxford University Press.
Ross, J. R. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Saito, M. and Fukui, N. (1998) “Order in Phrase Structure and Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 29,
439-474.
Schlenker, P. (2005) “Non-Redundancy: Towards a Semantic Reinterpretation of Binding Theory.”
Natural Language Semantics 13, 1-92.
Shan, C. and Barker, C. (2006) “Explaining Crossover and Superiority as Left-to-right Evaluation.”
Linguistics and Philosophy 29(1), 91–134.
Shieber, S. M. (1986) An Introduction to Unification-based Approaches to Grammar, Center for the
Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Sportiche, D. (1988) “A theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure.”
Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-449.
Stabler, E. (1997) “Derivational Minimalism.” Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: FirstInternational Conference, LACL'96., Nancy, France, 68.
Starke, M. (2004) “On the Inexistance of Specifiers and the Nature of Heads.” In Belletti, A., ed.,
Structures and Beyond, Oxford University Press, 252-268.
Steedman, M. (2000) The Syntactic Process, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Truswell, R. (2006) “Extraction from Adjuncts and the Structure of Events.” Ms., London.
Uriagereka, J. (1999) “Multiple Spell-out.” In Epstein, S., and Hornstein, N., eds., Working
Minimalism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

-105-