Thomas S. Stroik. Locality in minimalist syntax. In the series Linguistic Inquiry
Monograph 51. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press. Pp. x + 149. US $32.00(softcover).
Reviewed by Jason Ginsburg, University of Aizu
In Locality in minimalist syntax, Stroik proposes that displacement in language resultsfrom Remerge of Syntactic Objects (SO) that contain unchecked features. Stroik
attempts to demonstrate how his theory accounts for a variety of recalcitrant data,primarily involving wh-constructions. The book has some shortcomings with respect toorganization, for example, (e.g., repetition of essentially the same analyses in different
chapters, discussion of a single topic spread across different chapters, etc. There are alsoenough typos to occasionally create confusion. However, this book presents several
interesting proposals regarding the structure of the human language faculty that areworthy of examination.
In chapter 1, “Optimal design for human language”, Stroik discusses problems withMinimalist Program (MP) (Chomsky 1995) accounts of displacement (e.g., reliance onan EPP feature, reliance on economy conditions, etc.), presents his new proposal,SURVIVE, and shows how it overcomes these problems. SURVIVE is presented as apurely derivational theory (Brody 2002), since once elements are Merged into aderivation they can no longer be accessed by further operations. Stroik accomplishes
this feat via the proposal that an SO can be copied multiple times from a Numeration.
Another proposed advantage of SURVIVE is that it is crash-proof (Frampton andGutmann 2002), since ill-formed constructions are underiveable.
In chapter 2, “The SURVIVE Principle”, Stroik elaborates on the nature ofSURVIVE (1) while attempting to demonstrate the advantages of this proposal overfeature-driven “Greed-based” and “Attract-based” (p. 37) movement analyses of theMP.
(1) The SURVIVE Principle
If Y is an SO in an XP headed by X and Y has an unchecked feature incompatible
with (i.e., cannot potentially be checked by) the features of X, Y must Remerge
from the WorkBench with the next head Z that c-commands XP. (p. 45)
According to SURVIVE, Lexical Items originate in a Numeration and are mergedtogether in a workspace. The WorkBench is “the union of the WS [worskpace] and theNumeration (p. 44).” An SO remains in the WorkBench, from where it can be copied
and remerged multiple times into the derivational workspace until all of its features arechecked. If an SO has any features that are not compatible with a head that it is Merged
with, then the SO “survives” and must Remerge with the next head that is Merged intothe derivation. For example, in (2), SURVIVE propels the subject DP they both torepeatedly Remerge from its base position with all subsequent heads until it arrives inits final position where all of its features are checked. The possibility of quantifier
floating of both is given as evidence for this proposal.
(2) They (both) were (both) expected (both) to (both) have (both) been (both) electedto the Senate. (p. 39)
An important component of SURVIVE is that if an SO is not incompatible with a local
head, where feature compatibility is “a could-potentially-be-checked-by relation” (p.
37), the SO cannot undergo Remerge. In (3a), with the simplified derivation in (3b),both wh-phrases undergo Remerge with every higher head until they arrive in theembedded C. C contains feature-checking features that check the wh-features of where.
These feature-checking features on C then become deactivated; however, even thoughthese feature-checking features are deactivated, they are not incompatible with what,since they are the type of features that check wh-features. As a result, what is not
repelled and the derivation stalls.
(3) a. *Where did Chris tell you what to put (p. 41)
b. [CP what [where [C [TP to [VP put (what) (where)]]]]] (p. 42)
Stroik goes on to explain how SURVIVE accounts for Super-Raising and somemultiple-wh-constructions.
In chapter 3, “Some Wh puzzles”, Stroik demonstrates how SURVIVE accounts fora variety of wh-construction data, primarily but not exclusively in English. Stroik relies
heavily on features of a wh-phrase (4), which he claims are subfeatures of a [WH]feature.
(4) a. [OP]: operator featureb. [REF]: referential featurec. [REF/WH]: “reference-dependent-on-wh feature” (p. 72)
d. [DISC]: discourse feature
These wh-subfeatures play an important role in the derivations of wh-questions such as(5a), as shown in (5b).
(5) a. Who read what (p. 72)
b. [who[OP, REF] [what[REF/WH] [C [who[OP, REF] [what[REF/WH] [T [who[OP, REF]
[what[REF/WH] [v [read what[REF/WH]]]]]]]]]]]The in-situ what is base-generated with a [REF/WH] feature, a dependent feature that
requires checking by a [REF] feature. The subject who is base generated with [OP] and[REF] features. SURVIVE propels both what and who to undergo Remerge with all
subsequent heads until they arrive in the matrix CP. Once in the CP, the [OP] and [REF]
features of who are checked by matching feature-checking features of C. At this point,
the dependent feature [REF/WH] of what is checked in C by the [REF] feature of thec-commanding who, thus resulting in the referentiality of what being dependent on thereferentiality of who; this gives (5a) a pair-list interpretation. It is crucial that who ends
up c-commanding what within the CP. This is achieved via the proposal that when
multiple SOs undergo Remerge, the Remerge order reflects the initial Merge order.
The wh-subfeature [DISC] (4d) is found in echo questions, such as (6), and does not
require checking from another element in the derivation, thereby accounting for thevirtually unconstrained distribution of wh-phrases in echo questions.
(6) Pat likes books that criticize who (p. 63)
Stroik extends his analysis to account for: intervention effects that arise when awh-phrase is base generated in a larger referential phrase (a wh-phrase with a[REF/WH] feature becomes stranded in a specifier of a phrase with a referential head),Superiority effects (a [REF/WH] feature of a wh-phrase that crosses over a higher
wh-phrase cannot be checked), that-trace effects (a wh-phrasal subject becomes
stranded in a CP, headed by that, with matching subject agreement features), andmultiple wh-fronting in Slavic languages (movement of all wh-phrases is driven by anoperator and/or focus feature).
In chapter 4, “Conclusion”, Stroik restates some problems with current MP theoriesof movement and emphasizes that SURVIVE, which has “only local, feature-driven
Merge-type operations” is “a radically simple design for the computational system ofHL [human language]” (p. 124). In addition, Stroik briefly addresses how his theory canbe extended to account for other phenomena such as head movement.
One of the most interesting components of this book is the author’s attempt, via
SURVIVE, to develop a purely derivational theory of displacement in which there isonly local Merge and elements internal to the derivation are no longer accessible.
However, this simplification of the grammar adds complexity to other components ofthe grammar. First, SURVIVE necessarily requires that, in many cases, multiple copiesof SOs appear in a derivation. Consider the case of long distance wh-movement, inwhich a wh-phrase must be Remerged with every single head between its base position
and its final landing site. Also, consider verb agreement in English, in which a verb
shows agreement with T, or consider quirky Case in Icelandic, in which T shows
agreement with an object. SURVIVE would require the agreeing element (a verb, a DP,etc.) to be Remerged until it arrives in T (or some other final landing site), even though
it is pronounced in a lower position, and the pronounced form is dependent on thisagreement relation. How is the pronounced form of a lower copy of an SO, which isdependent on an Agree relation with a higher element in a derivation, accounted for in apurely derivational theory in which there is no access to already Merged elements?
Furthermore, when multiple copies of an SO are present in a derivation, questions arise
with respect to how the grammar determines which copy (or possibly copies) topronounce. Stroik states that “the sensorimotor interface pronounces elements where therelevant morphophonetic features are checked (p. 133).” What is the nature of thesemorphophonetic features? In addition, in order to enable SURVIVE to account for
wh-constructions, Stroik relies on a fairly complex system of features. For example, in(7), who has a [DISC] feature (see (6) above), and in (8), the same wh-phrase who has[OP] and [REF] features and what has a [REF/WH] feature (see (5)).
(7) Pat likes books that criticize who[DISC](8) Who[OP, REF] read what[REF/WH]
Are these extra complexities (the appearance of numerous copies, the need to determine
which copy to pronounce, a complex feature system, etc.) worthy of the theoreticaladvantages of SURVIVE? Investigation of SURVIVE, with respect to these and otherissues, is certainly a worthwhile avenue of research.
Despite its short length, this book manages to cover many topics, account for avariety of troublesome syntactic data that have been debated for years, and raise anumber of interesting issues. This is an intriguing book that should be of interest tosyntacticians working on displacement phenomena, as well as to those who areinterested in the development of an “optimal” Minimalist theory of syntax.REFERENCES
Brody, Michael. 2002. On the status of representations and derivations. In Samuel D.
Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, eds., Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist
Program, 19-41. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frampton, John and Sam Gutmann. 2002. Crash-proof syntax. In Samuel D. Epsteinand T. Daniel Seely, eds., Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program,90-105. Oxford: Blackwell.