What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
Elementary Syntactic Structures: Prospects of a Feature-Free Syntax
Most syntacticians, no matter their theoretical persuasion, agree that features (types or categories) are the most important units of analysis. Within Chomskyan generative grammar, the importance of features has grown steadily and within minimalism, it can be said that everything depends on features. They are obstacles in any interdisciplinary investigation concerning the nature of language and it is hard to imagine a syntactic description that does not explore them. For the first time, this book turns grammar upside down and proposes a new model of syntax that is better suited for interdisciplinary interactions, and shows how syntax can proceed free of lexical influence. The empirical domain examined is vast, and all the fundamental units and properties of syntax (categories, parameters, Last Resort, labelling, and hierarchies) are rethought. Opening up new avenues of investigation, this book will be invaluable to researchers and students in syntactic theory, and linguistics more broadly.
222 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
October 27, 2026
This is a very dense and insanely badly edited and written book
But it’s also fascinating: CB thinks that the standard model of syntax with Merge driven by features doesn’t work, because there is no theory of features, and also because Merge likely builds up words, which are (or must start) featureless.
CB proposes a bare syntax: Merge operates on roots. The asymmetry is introduced by phases. Categories are functional, and parametrically lexically realized. Eg verbs are nouns (so they have no real internal argument), merged as little ‘v’s upstairs.
CB shares with DM the idea that all selection facts must be reduced to configuration facts determined by simple computational principles. Syntax does not see anything about “sell” taking n arguments. Form and meaning are radically distinct. Link to Pietroski, according to whom lexicalization turns all concepts (of various addicities) into monadic concepts, combinable in boring pair-like ways
The transformation of lexical into functional categories is documented by grammaticalization. Conclusion: all lexical categories are configurational flavors of transitive or intransitive phase derivations
Phases are cyclic transfers of unconstrainedly merged structure to externalization/interpretation -> if all asymmetries in UG are phasal, they will all be interpretive
Cyclic transfer or spell out allows the syntax to keep minimum structure in WM. What is spelled out is the complement of the phase or complement domain; what is not is the edge domain: the phase head, and the specifiers and adjuncts above. Therefore, what is available for further syntactic computation is a function of derivational timing, as previously spelled out phase complements become “impenetrable” (PIC)
Richards 2010: no 2 elements of the same syntactic category can be transferred at the same time. So for a and b = 2 same category elements, the external systems will tolerate a syntax that combines them as long as they’re separated by a phase boundary. So phases (or cycles) must be small, otherwise the external systems will be overflown with more elements than they can distinguish per spell out point
Then you can reduce the H-a schema (Narita 2010, aka the X°-XP schema) to phase edge-phase complement domains respectively, WITHOUT helping yourself to precooked lexical categories and features
If you take a and b and a labels b (ie a is the edge and b the complement), you can now introduce g, and no need to transfer (because a already has a distinct identity from g by virtue of labeling b), and d, but now you need to transfer so that g ≠ d. this makes {g, a} the complement domain of d (since b is now impenetrable, per PIC). It is a transitive phase. {b} is/was an intransitive phase
But it’s also fascinating: CB thinks that the standard model of syntax with Merge driven by features doesn’t work, because there is no theory of features, and also because Merge likely builds up words, which are (or must start) featureless.
CB proposes a bare syntax: Merge operates on roots. The asymmetry is introduced by phases. Categories are functional, and parametrically lexically realized. Eg verbs are nouns (so they have no real internal argument), merged as little ‘v’s upstairs.
CB shares with DM the idea that all selection facts must be reduced to configuration facts determined by simple computational principles. Syntax does not see anything about “sell” taking n arguments. Form and meaning are radically distinct. Link to Pietroski, according to whom lexicalization turns all concepts (of various addicities) into monadic concepts, combinable in boring pair-like ways
The transformation of lexical into functional categories is documented by grammaticalization. Conclusion: all lexical categories are configurational flavors of transitive or intransitive phase derivations
Phases are cyclic transfers of unconstrainedly merged structure to externalization/interpretation -> if all asymmetries in UG are phasal, they will all be interpretive
Cyclic transfer or spell out allows the syntax to keep minimum structure in WM. What is spelled out is the complement of the phase or complement domain; what is not is the edge domain: the phase head, and the specifiers and adjuncts above. Therefore, what is available for further syntactic computation is a function of derivational timing, as previously spelled out phase complements become “impenetrable” (PIC)
Richards 2010: no 2 elements of the same syntactic category can be transferred at the same time. So for a and b = 2 same category elements, the external systems will tolerate a syntax that combines them as long as they’re separated by a phase boundary. So phases (or cycles) must be small, otherwise the external systems will be overflown with more elements than they can distinguish per spell out point
Then you can reduce the H-a schema (Narita 2010, aka the X°-XP schema) to phase edge-phase complement domains respectively, WITHOUT helping yourself to precooked lexical categories and features
If you take a and b and a labels b (ie a is the edge and b the complement), you can now introduce g, and no need to transfer (because a already has a distinct identity from g by virtue of labeling b), and d, but now you need to transfer so that g ≠ d. this makes {g, a} the complement domain of d (since b is now impenetrable, per PIC). It is a transitive phase. {b} is/was an intransitive phase
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review