Zeijlstra 2014.pdf

8/17/2019 Zeijlstra 2014.pdf

1/22

is is a contribution from Minimalism and Beyond. Radicalizing the interfaces.Edited by Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork and Lilia Schürcks.© . John Benjamins Publishing Company

is electronic file may not be altered in any way.e author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies tobe used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible

to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to postthis PDF on the open internet.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from thepublishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

John Benjamins Publishing Company


2/22

On the uninterpretabilityof interpretable features

Hedde ZeijlstraGeorg-August-Universität Göttingen

In this paper I present several arguments that argue against the assumption in

current generative syntactic theory that certain formal features are semantically

active as well (so-called interpretable formal features). Instead, I propose that the

set of formal features and the set of semantic features (to the extent that they are

featural in the first place) are fully independent. An acquisitional and diachronic

theory further constrains the possible combinations of syntactic and semantic

features that can be lexically stored, which results in the apparent overlap in the

distribution of particular syntactic and semantic features (which has originally

been the cause of taking them on a par).

. Introduction

Ever since the introduction of functional projections in syntactic structures hosted

by formal features, questions have arisen as to: (i) what constitutes the set of formal

features in a particular grammar, i.e. is this pool of formal features in a particular

grammar given by UG or does it emerge in the process of language acquisition; and (ii)

what are the syntactic and semantic properties of formal features? Let’s start by havinga closer look at both questions.

. A universal set of formal features?

As for the first question, over the past two decades several proposals have been formulat-

ed that aim at accounting for the presence of the set of formal features in natural language

grammars. Initially, it was argued that UG provides this set of formal features and that

every language has the same set of formal features at its disposal, a view much in line with

the so-called cartographic approach, which in its most radical version assigns a universalsyntactic structure to all natural languages with variation lying in the way that (parts of)

this structure are phonologically realized (cf. Pollock 1989, Beghelli and Stowell 1997,

Rizzi 1997, 2004, Cinque 1999, 2002, 2006, Starke 2001, 2004, Miyagawa 2010).


3/22

Hedde Zeijlstra

More recently, an alternative view arose that states that the set of formal features

is as minimal as possible in every language. Under this view, sometimes referred to as

building block grammars or the WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) approach,

formal features and consequently functional projections should only be assumed to be

present if there is overt evidence for it (cf. Iatridou 1990, Grimshaw 1997, Bobaljik and

Trainsson 1998, Koeneman 2000, Nilsen 2003, Zeijlstra 2008)

Te main difference between the building block grammar/WYSIWYG approach

and the cartographic approach (in its most radical sense) is that the visible presence

of a particular formal feature in a particular language (for instance if it overtly heads

a functional projection) does not, on the first approach, imply its presence in all lan-

guages, whereas this is the basic line of reasoning under the latter approach (cf. Cinque

1999, Kayne 2002, Starke 2004). Tis reduces the question as to what constitutes the setof formal features to a question about the nature of UG. Is UG a rich body of knowl-

edge that contains the set of potential formal features that a language may be sensitive

to, or is UG, as has been proposed in more recent minimalist views (cf. Chomsky

2005), much poorer in nature and are the relevant formal features to be acquired in the

course of first language acquisition? Even though the latter view should be taken to be

the default hypothesis (given that one should only postulate things in UG that other-

wise cannot be accounted for), its correctness can only be evaluated against a concrete

proposal of how these formal features can be acquired in the first place. Formulating

such a proposal and evaluating its consequences is one of the goals of this article. In or-der to do so, in this paper, I further elaborate Zeijlstra’s (2008) proposal, which argues

that syntactic doubling is the only available cue to determine the presence of formal

features. However, I also argue that the implementation of this proposal drastically

changes the way that the nature of formal features should be considered.

. Syntactic and semantic properties of formal features

For Chomsky (1995), the set of formal features, i.e. the set of features that may partici-

pate in syntactic operations, is a set that intersects with the set of semantic features (see(1)). Consequently, formal features come about in two kinds: interpretable and unin-

terpretable formal features. Interpretable formal features ([iF]s) are features that are

part of the intersection of the two sets and therefore may both participate in syntactic

operations and receive an interpretation at LF. Uninterpretable features, by contrast,

are features that are only formal, and not semantic in nature and therefore cannot

receive an LF-interpretation.

(1)

[P]

•

[uF]

Formal featuresPhonological features Semantic features

•

[iF]

•

[S]

•


4/22

On the uninterpretability of interpretable features

Chomsky (1995, 2002) furthermore argues that every feature that reaches the inter-

faces must be interpretable (following the Principle of Full Interpretation):

(2) Full Interpretation (FI): Every element of an output representation shouldprovide a meaningful input to the relevant other parts of the cognitive

system.

o satisfy Full Interpretation, all uninterpretable formal features must be deleted in

the course of the derivation. For Chomsky, Agree is the only available operation that

is capable of deleting uninterpretable formal features: if an interpretable and a match-

ing uninterpretable formal feature stand in a particular (c-command) configuration,

the uninterpretable features can be ‘checked off ’ against the interpretable one and as

consequence be deleted. Once every uninterpretable feature has been deleted, the derivation can be fully interpreted at the interfaces; aer the deletion of those features that

are only formal in nature, all features le are either phonological or semantic features.

In later work, (Chomsky 2002), argued that this view should be modified as it

would otherwise face a look ahead problem: since it can only be determined at the level

of LF whether a particular feature is interpretable, the (un)interpretability of a feature

is not visible in the course of the derivation (which precedes transfer at LF). Hence,

deletion of uninterpretable features as such cannot be a trigger for syntactic opera-

tions. For this reason, Chomsky argues that deletion of uninterpretable features does

not form the trigger of syntactic operations, but rather feature valuation does: everyfeature that has not been valued in the lexicon needs to be valued in the course of the

derivation; valuation then takes place under Agree.

For this, Chomsky postulates that all formal features that are interpretable are also

lexically valued and formal features that are uninterpretable are also lexically unval-

ued. Again, only the former type of features (lexically valued and interpretable fea-

tures) are members of the set of semantic features. Furthermore, Chomsky argues that

during syntax all lexically unvalued features that are valued during the derivation, get

deleted prior to LF. As a result, all and only those formal features that are interpretable

survive at LF.Chomsky’s (2002) proposal in a way enriches the feature taxonomy by including a

second parameter, feature (un)valuedness, but given that for him interpretability and

valuedness always go hand in hand, the number of different types of formal features

remains identical. For Chomsky, there are still only two types of formal features: lexi-

cally valued and interpretable features and lexically unvalued and uninterpretable ones

(see (3),), where __ means unvalued and val means valued ).

(3)

[P]

•

[uF: __]


•

[iF: val]

•

[S]

•


5/22

Hedde Zeijlstra

Note, however, that it is a pure stipulation that (un)valuedness and (un)interpretabil-

ity always coincide. If that stipulation is given up, as has been proposed by Pesetsky

& orrego (2007), who argue that valuedness and interpretability should be disen-

tangled, formal features come about in four kinds: (i) interpretable and unvalued fea-

tures; (ii) interpretable and valued features; (iii) uninterpretable and unvalued features

and (iv) uninterpretable and valued features. Both two types of interpretable features

form a subset of the set of semantic features (although no clear examples are known of

the second type), both types of uninterpretable features do not. Pesetsky & orrego’s

(2007) taxonomy thus looks as follows:

(4)

[P]

•

[uF: val][uF: __]


• •

[iF: ___]([iF: val])

• •

[S]

•

Hence, different views on the nature of formal features are available, with both (un-)

interpretability and lexical (un)valuedness playing a role. However, at the same time

it should be mentioned that the primary motivation to adopt lexical (un)valuedness

as a second parameter is to solve the look ahead problem that pops up immediately

if feature uninterpretability is a property of features that is visible at LF only and if atthe same time its deletion would be the trigger for syntactic operations that take place

prior to LF.

However, as to the best of my knowledge has never been noted thus far, if fea-

ture uninterpretability would not be an LF phenomenon but instead a purely formal

property, this look ahead problem would disappear as well and consequently the need

to adopt lexical (un)valuedness as a second parameter to characterize properties of

formal features. In this paper, I argue for this alternative stand.

. Outline and scope

Te central aim of this article is to show that the learnability algorithm for formal

features that I propose entails that the connection between features that may check off

other features and LF-interpretability is not direct but rather indirect (and a result of

language acquisition rather than a property of the formal system) and that interpre-

table features are not semantic features as they lack LF-interpretability. Rather, the car-

rier of an [iF] generally (but crucially not always) carries the semantics of F as well. Te

feature taxonomy that I propose is, then, a simpler and more symmetric one, where

the set of formal features is autonomous and consists of two types of formal features:[iF]s and [uF]s, where [uF] encodes a need to stand in a proper Agree configuration

with [iF], and where [iF] encodes the ability to satisfy [uF]s configurational needs. Te

taxonomy is depicted below:


6/22


(5)

[P]

• • • •

[uF]


[iF] [S]

Te question that then arises is how the language learner can acquire which element

carries [iF] and which one carries [uF] and how the alleged connection between [iF]

features (the ‘checkers’) is captured by the proposed learnability algorithm.

In short, it is argued that the acquisition of formal features is governed, aer

Zeijlstra (2008), by so-called doubling cases, i.e. cases where the locus of interpreta-

tion of a particular semantic property (i.e. a semantic operator or feature) does not

correspond 1:1 with its morphosyntactic manifestation(s). Hence, formal features, [iF]and [uF], can only be acquired against the background of semantic mismatches. As a

result most, but crucially not all, elements carrying [iF] will therefore also carry the

semantics of F. Te correspondence between semantic content and the ability to check

off a particular formal feature must, then, be a property of language acquisition, not

of grammar itself.

. Acquiring formal features

As argued for in the introduction, the only way to evaluate the claim that the set of

formal features in a particular grammar is not part of UG but rather emerges in the

process of language acquisition (and therefore on the basis of language input only),

is by evaluating a particular procedure that may account for this emergence. In this

section, I propose such a procedure. In short, I argue that formal features can only be

acquired if a particular semantic feature is morphosyntactically doubled; this will form

a cue for language learners to assume that this semantic feature is formalized, i.e. that

it should be taken to be a formal feature as well. In 2.1, I outline the general formatof this learning algorithm and in 2.2, I illustrate it by applying it to the acquisition of

formal negative features.

. Proposal

Following/modifying earlier work (Zeijlstra 2008), I argue that formal features should

only be postulated by the language learner if the language input provides overt evi-

dence for it. In terms of learnability, this entails that the null hypothesis must be that

formal features are absent and that morphemes map phonological content directlyto semantic content. Hence, the starting assumption should be that any element that

seems responsible for the induction of a particular semantic context should also be

taken to be the carrier of this semantic content:


7/22

Hedde Zeijlstra

(6) Assume a 1:1 correspondence between morphemes and semantic content.

Assuming (6), it follows that only if a 1:1 relation between some morpheme and its

semantic contribution proves to be absent, other properties than semantic and pho-nological properties must be assigned. So, if a particular element, for instance a verbal

agreement marker, manifests the presence of some semantic context (e.g. the semantic

phi-features of the subject), then it must be taken to carry a corresponding uninterpre-

table formal phi-feature. If a language lacks any kind of phi-morphology, it therefore

lacks formal phi-features as well; only if phi-agreement is present does this provide

evidence for the language learner to assume that the verb contains some uninterpreta-

ble person, number and/or gender features. So, only semantically redundant elements

must be assigned [uF]:

(7) If some morpho-syntactic element α manifests the presence of some

semantic context F, but cannot be assumed to be the carrier of F itself, then

assign a formal feature [uF] to α.

Informally, (7) means that carrying [uF] may only take place if the element carrying

[uF] is able to mark the presence of some semantic property F without actively carry-

ing the semantics of F itself. Now, since a learnability requirement for the acquisition

of [uF]s is that they appear in a particular semantic context, in principle no [uF] fea-

ture can be present without a corresponding semantic operator F. But, if it is a formal

requirement that the element carrying this corresponding semantic property F must

be present if an element carrying [uF] is present, this element should not only carry

the semantics of F, but also a formal property that states that an element [uF] cannot

survive in the sentence without it; this formal property is, by definition, a feature [iF]:

(8) Assign [iF] to all morphosyntactic elements that introduce the semantic

context that is manifested by [uF]. If no overt morphosyntactic element

is responsible, assume some covert element to be present that carries the

semantics of F and that therefore should be assigned [iF].

So far, this is not new: as pointed out in Zeijlstra (2008), under Chomsky's (1995,

2002) analysis of formal features as in (1), if formal features must be acquired during

the process of language acquisition, uninterpretable features must form the cue, since

interpretable formal features are still part of the set of semantic features and there-

fore semantically indistinguishable from them. Te only distinguishing property of

interpretable features in comparison to purely semantic features under this approach

is their ability to check their uninterpretable counterparts. Consequently, (9) must be

true as well. As we will see later on, this is an important and necessary step, although

it may appear to be redundant now, given (8).

(9) Assign [iF] to all those elements that are responsible for the rest of the

grammatical occurrences of [uF].


8/22


o summarize, a feature [uF] is learnable. If some element does not carry the seman-

tics of F, but at the same time may only appear in a semantic context F, this element

carries [uF]. If some [uF] appears in a grammatical sentence, some element must carry

[iF]. Hence, [iF] features are learnable as well.

. Example: Negative Concord

Now, let us apply this proposal to the acquisition of formal negative features. As is well-

known, some languages do and other languages do not exhibit doubling phenomena

with respect to negation. In Dutch, every morphosyntactically negative element also

contains a semantic negation, but in Czech and Italian this is not the case, as is shown

in (10)–(12) below. According to the algorithm in 2.1, this entails Czech and Italianhave formal negative features at their disposal, but Dutch does not.

(10) a. Jan ziet niemand. Dutch

Jan sees n-body

‘Jan doesn’t see anybody.’

b. Niemand zegt niets.

n-body says n-thing

‘Nobody says nothing.’

(11) a. Gianni *(non) ha telefonato a nessuno. Italian Gianni has called to n-body

‘Gianni didn’t call anybody.’

b. Ieri *(non) ha telefonato nessuno.

yesterday has called n-body

‘Yesterday nobody called.’

c. Ieri nessuno (*non) ha telefonato (a nessuno).

yesterday n-body has called to n-body

‘Yesterday nobody called (anybody).’

(12) a. Milan *(ne-)vidí nikoho. Czech

Milan .saw n-body

‘Milan doesn’t see anybody.’

b. Dnes *(ne-)volá nikdo.

today .calls n-body

‘oday nobody calls.’

c. Dnes nikdo *(ne-)volá.

today n-body .calls

‘oday nobody calls.’

In Dutch, every morphosyntactically negative element corresponds to a semantic

negation. Tese negative elements are either the negative marker niet or a negative


9/22

Hedde Zeijlstra

quantifier, as illustrated below in (13). Note that the locus of the negative operator

at LF does not coincide with its relative position at surface structure, but this is due

to quantifier raising in (13b) or Verb Second in (13c), which both are independent

phenomena.

(13) a. Niemand komt. ¬∃x.[person’(x) & come’(x)]

n-body comes

‘Nobody is coming.’

b. Jan doet niets. ¬∃x.[thing’(x) & do’( j, x)]

Jan does n-thing

‘Jan does nothing.’

c. Jan loopt niet. ¬walk’( j)

Jan walks

‘Jan isn’t walking.’

Since there is no element that marks the presence of negation but is not semantically

negative itself, condition (6) is always fulfilled with respect to negation, and conse-

quently, there is no need to assign any [uNEG] feature, along the lines of (7). Since

there are no [uNEG] features to be assigned in Dutch, there is no reason to assign

[iNEG] features either (cf. (8)–(9)). Te only types of negative elements in Dutch are

the negative marker and the negative indefinites, and these contain a semantic nega-

tion and no formal negative feature:

(14) Dutch negative elements:

Niet ¬

Negative indefinites ¬∃

Tings are different, however, in Negative Concord languages. Let us start by discuss-

ing the Non-strict Negative Concord language Italian. Both n-words (the term for

negative indefinites in Negative Concord languages, aer Laka 1990) and the negative

marker may render a sentence negative:

(15) a. Gianni non ha telefonato. ¬call’(g, x)]

Gianni has called

‘Gianni didn’t call.’

b. Nessuno ha telefonato. ¬∃x.[person’(x) & call’(x)]

n-body has called

‘Nobody called.’

However, in Italian a combination of the negative marker with the n-word gives rise

to a single semantic negation. In fact, In Italian, postverbal n-words obligatorily need

to be accompanied by the negative marker non or a preverbal n-word. Tis means that

a large part of negative sentences in the L1 input consists of sentences such as (16).


10/22


(16) Gianni non ha visto nessuno ¬∃x.[person’(x) & see’(g, x)]

Gianni has seen n-body

‘Gianni has seen nobody’

Since (16) contains more than one negative element, but only one negation in its

semantics, only one of the negative elements can be semantically negative and the

other one must be semantically non-negative (otherwise semantic compositionality

would be violated). An n-word, like nessuno, which in isolation gives rise to a semantic

negation, together with a negative marker gives rise to just one semantic negation.

Following (7), an n-word must therefore carry an uninterpretable formal negative fea-

ture [uNEG]. Since non can still be assumed to be responsible for semantic negation,

it must be assigned [iNEG] along the lines of (8).

Te fact that non is the carrier of [iNEG] and n-words carry [uNEG] remainsproblematic in one respect, namely that Italian also allows sentences such as (17),

which provide evidence against nessuno’s semantic negativity. Here non is absent (and

may not even be included). Hence, all overt negative elements carry [uNEG].

(17) Nessuno ha telefonato a nessuno ¬∃x∃y[person’(x) & person’(y)

n-body have.3 called to n-body & call’(x, y)]

‘No-one has called anyone’

Now, following (8), some abstract negative operator must be assumed to be present

and carry [iNEG], otherwise no element could be responsible for the checking of the

n-words [uNEG] features:

(18) Op¬ nessuno ha telefonato a nessuno

[iNEG] [uNEG] [uNEG]

Te inventory of Italian negative elements is thus as follows: the negative marker car-

ries [iNEG] and contains a semantic negation; so does the covert negative operator

Op¬. Te n-words in Italian, however, are semantically non-negative and only carry an

uninterpretable formal negative feature [uNEG]. (19) Italian negative elements:

Non [iNEG] (+ ¬)

N-words [uNEG]

Op¬ [iNEG] (+ ¬)

Te learning algorithm in (6)–(9) enables the language learner to acquire the negative

inventory in (19). However, one cautionary note must be made here. Since Italian has

two semantically negative elements (non and Op¬), one of them being phonologically

null, the question what prevents overgeneralization of Op¬, inclusion? Why wouldn’tmany more sentences that the ones like (15b) and (17) contain Op¬? Te answer to

this question should receive a more general answer, since this is a general question

about the distribution of covert elements, and not necessarily about the distribution


11/22

Hedde Zeijlstra

of covert negative elements. In short, referring the reader to Zeijlstra (2008, 2012) for

more discussion, I argue that covert elements may only be postulated to be present in

some sentence if the grammaticality of the sentence could otherwise not be accounted

for. Tis is indeed the case in (15b) and (17), since no overt element can be said to be

responsible for the checking of any [uNEG] feature, but the other examples (which

contain non or are simply positive), are grammatical without postulating any covert

negative operator. Consequently, Op¬ cannot be present in such sentences.

In Czech, the application of the learnability algorithm, again, leads to slightly dif-

ferent results. First, since Czech is (strict) a (strict) Negative Concord language, nega-

tion must be formalized and n-words are attributed a feature [uNEG]. However, the

(default) assumption that the negative marker carries [iNEG] cannot yet be drawn on

this basis. o see this, take (20). (20) Nikdo ne-volá

n-body .

‘Nobody calls’

If ne carried a feature [iNEG], the negative subject would appear outside its scope,

which is in contrast with the fact that nikdo marks the presence of a negative context

in which it appears (see Zeijlstra (2004, 2008) for a much more extensive discussion

of these facts).

(21) Op¬ Nikdo ne-volá ¬∃x.[person’(x) & call’(x)]

[iNEG] [uNEG] [uNEG]

As a final consequence, single occurrences of ne cannot be taken to be realizations of

the negative operator, but must be seen as a marker of such an operator. In (22) the

negative marker indicates the presence of Op¬, which in turn is responsible for the

negative semantics of the sentence.

(22) Milan Op¬ ne-volá ¬call’(m)

[iNEG] [uNEG]A reviewer raises the question of why ne should be obligatorily present, as removing it

would not affect the Agree relation between the [iNEG]-bearing abstract operator and

the overtly realized [uNEG]-bearing n-words. Tis question, however, relates not to

a property of (Strict) Negative Concord specifically, but to the more general problem

of morphosyntactic agreement: why is it that particular elements, not only negative,

but also person, number or gender markers — whether inflectional morphemes or

independent elements — may not be omitted, despite the fact that they simply realize

uninterpretable features? Presumably, the morphological grid of the verbs requires all

kinds of agreement morphemes to be spelled out, but I should be acknowledged that

here we face a much more general problem which cannot be fully addressed within

the confines of the present paper. Tis question is, however, independent from the fea-

tural status of ne: regardless what causes its obligatory presence in negative sentences,


12/22


it does not have an interpretable [iNEG] feature, but rather an uninterpretable [uNEG]

feature.

Czech, thus, has a different inventory of negative elements than Italian. In Italian,

the negative marker is semantically negative and carries [iNEG]. In Czech, on the

other hand, it is semantically non-negative and carries [uNEG]. Te only semantically

negative element carrying [iNEG] in Czech is Op¬:

(23) Czech negative elements:

Ne [uNEG]

N-words [uNEG]

Op¬ [iNEG] (+ ¬)

Te acquisitional procedure outlined in Section 2.1 predicts that Czech and Italianare languages that have a formal negative feature at their disposal, whereas Dutch has

not. Te idea that these languages differ in terms of the formal features that are part

of their formal feature inventory comes along with a number of predictions. One of

these predictions is that languages without Negative Concord may not exhibit an overt

negative marker that occupies a head position in the clausal spine. Tis prediction is

indeed born out (cf. Zeijlstra 2004, 2008). Other predictions have been tested and con-

firmed as well and the reader is referred to the aforementioned papers for an overview.

It should also be noted that even though Czech and Italian do not differ with respect

to the presence of a formal negative feature, they do differ with respect to what ele-ment has what kind of formal features. In fact, the grammatical differences between

Czech and Italian with respect to the expression of negation follow directly from the

differences in terms of the kind of negative feature ([uNEG]/[iNEG]) that each nega-

tive element carries, fully in line with the Borer-Chomsky conjecture that states that

parametric differences between languages reduce to lexical differences (cf. Borer 1984,

Chomsky 1995).

For the remainder of the paper, the crucial assumption is not, however, the ex-

act inventory of negative elements, but rather the fact that the learning algorithm in

(6)–(9) predicts that only Negative Concord languages have formal negative feature([iNEG]/[uNEG]) and Non-Negative Concord languages do not have any formal neg-

ative feature. Other proposals, such as Brown (1999) and Progovac (2005), who take

Czech ne to carry [iNEG], or other views on Negative Concord as an instance of syn-

tactic agreeement (cf. Zanuttini 1991; Haegeman and Zanuttini 1991, 1996, Haegeman

1995 and Haegeman & Lohndal 2010) are thus still compatible with the grammatical

feature taxonomy that is proposed in Section 3.

. Interpreting interpretable features

A question that arises now concerns the interpretational status of interpretable for-

mal features, like [iNEG]. Does an interpretable formal feature such as [iNEG] have


13/22

Hedde Zeijlstra

semantic content itself or not? Under the outlined proposal, two logical possibilities

arise:

(24) [iNEG] (and therefore all [iF]s) are interpreted as carriers of the semanticsof negation (or F).

(25) Te element carrying [iNEG] (or [iF]) must be taken to carry a semantic

negation (or the semantics of F) as part of its lexical semantics; this means

that it is not the feature [iNEG]/[iF] itself that is being interpreted at LF.

Solution (24) represents the current view on formal features and, at first sight, appears to

be the preferred option. First, it immediately reduces the ability of interpretable formal

features to check and delete matching uninterpretable formal features to their semantic

properties. Moreover, the fact that only uninterpretable formal features have to be delet-

ed (and thus to undergo Agree) whereas interpretable features do not do so also imme-

diately follows: all other elements are semantically interpretable and do not violate Full

Interpretation. However, the option in (24) comes at a particular price, as it faces several

severe and some hitherto unnoted theoretical and empirical problems. I discuss these

problems below and argue that these problems do not surface under assumption (25).

. Teoretical problems

First, as already mentioned in 1.2, the assumption that uninterpretable features must

be checked and deleted, because otherwise they would make the derivation crash at

LF (due to Full Interpretation), introduces a major look ahead problem. For Chomsky

(1995), uninterpretable features must be deleted at the level of LF and feature checking

is a necessary condition for feature deletion. However, at the stage in the derivation

in which feature checking takes place, it is not yet known that the feature, if remained

unchecked, would cause the derivation to crash at a later stage, as has been pointed out

by Epstein et al. (1998), Epstein and Seely (2000) and others. Chomsky (2002), for this

reason, introduces the notion of feature valuation, and by stipulation, connects that tofeature interpretability (see 1.2) and thus has to expand the feature taxonomy with all

related problems.

However, this look ahead problem arises only under the view on feature interpret-

ability in (24). Te view on feature interpretability in (25) does not face this problem,

as here the difference between [iF]s and [uF]s is only formal in nature and thus visible

in the course of the derivation; the only property of [iF] is that it is able to check the

configurational needs of [uF].

Second, although it is an advantage that feature checking can be motivated in

terms of Full Interpretation, it can only do so by virtue of the stipulation that fea-ture checking leads to LF deletion of [uF]s. However, it is unclear why feature check-

ing should lead to deletion. Nothing principled motivates it, so the conjecture that

checked uninterpretable features are deleted is at best a stipulated one.


14/22


In fact, one may even wonder why the appearance of [uF]s at LF should make the

derivation crash. ake for instance the structure in (26):

(26) E

C

A B

D

Now suppose that A is semantically empty, i.e. it contains only formal features at LF.

In that case, the denotation of D is identical to the denotation of B. If no other gram-

matical condition is violated and D can be a semantic complement of C (or vice versa),

nothing renders (26) illegible at LF. Hence, the presence of uninterpretable featuresdoes not a priori violate Full Interpretation.

In fact, the idea that the presence of an uninterpretable feature at LF would violate

Full Interpretation is even contradictory. Arguing that the presence of some element

blocks the interpretation of a structure that would otherwise receive a proper inter-

pretation at LF presupposes that this element has interpretational effects and as such

cannot be said to be fully uninterpretable.

Again, under the view in (25), such problems do not necessarily arise. Tere is

no need anymore to allude to a principle such as Full Interpretation that gives rise to

a contradiction. Te triggering of syntactic operations, simply takes place as a resultof the need of certain learnable formal properties of lexical elements. As long as the

outcome of the derivation is legible to the interfaces, no further constraints on the

derivation have to be imposed.

. Empirical problems

Apart from these theoretical considerations, (24) also makes some predictions that do

not hold empirically. First, it is predicted that only elements with the semantic prop-

erty F may check [uF]s; second, it is predicted that elements that have the semantics

of F may check [uF]s. Both predictions are, however, too strong. Certain elements that

lack the semantics of F may sometimes check [uF]s and certain elements that carry

the semantics of F sometimes fail to check [uF]. Again, this would be ruled out under

(24), but is predicted to be possible under (25). Let me illustrate this again by means

of Negative Concord:

.. Non-negative contexts checking [uNEG]

N-words in complement clauses of verbs expressing doubt or fear, prepositions aswithout , or in comparatives, receive a non-negative interpretation, as the following

Spanish examples taken from Herburger (2001) illustrate:


15/22

Hedde Zeijlstra

(27) a. Pedro compró el terreno sin contarselo a nadie. Spanish

Pedro bought the land without telling to n-body

‘Peter bought the land without telling anybody’

b. Antec de hacer nada, debes lavarle las manos.

before of do n-thing, must.2 wash. the hands

‘Before doing anything, you should wash your hands.’

c. Dudo que vayan a encontar nada.

doubt.1 that will.3. find n-thing

‘I doubt they will find anything.’

d. Prohibieron que saliera nadie.

forbade.3 that went_out.3. n-body

‘Tey forbade anybody to go out.’ e. Es la última vez que te digo nada.

is the ultimate time that you tell.1 n-thing

‘Tis is the last time I tell you anything.’

f. Juan ha llegado más tarde que nunca.

Juan has arrived more late than n-ever

‘Juan has arrived later than ever.’

One can only maintain (24) (under the view that Negative Concord is an instance

of syntactic agreement) if all these non-negative licensers of n-words contain someunderlying negation (as has been proposed by Postal 2000 among others). Since all

these licensers are in some sense felt to be negative (they are all (Strawson-)Downward

Entailing), such underlying negations are not unnatural to expect. However, it should

be noted that languages vary to quite a large extent with respect to whether these con-

texts may license n-words, as shown below for Russian and Czech ‘without’.

(28) a. Bez nikoho Czech

without n-body

‘Without anybody’

b. * Bez nikogo Russian

without n-body

‘Without n-body’

Consequently, languages should then cross-linguistically (and language-internally)

differ with respect to whether some (Strawson-)Downward Entailing contexts must

be lexically decomposed into some negative element or not. However, as there is no

independent motivation for this assumption, this would be an instance of circular rea-

soning.

Tese facts, therefore, show that it is problematic to assume that every elementthat may license an element carrying [uNEG] contains a decomposable semantic ne-

gation. However, if that is not the case, there are semantically non-negative elements

that may check a feature [uNEG], which is a clear violation of (24).


16/22


.. Negative contexts that cannot check [uNEG]Another argument against the idea that [iF]s are semantic features is provided by ele-

ments that have some clear semantic property F, but are unable to check appearing

[uF]s in their local domain. One such example is provided by French negation. ake

the following data from Zeijlstra (2010):

(29) a. Personne (ne) mange. French

n-body eats

‘Nobody eats.’

b. Jean (ne) mange rien.

Jean eats n-thing

‘Jean doesn’t eat anything.’

c. Personne (ne) mange rien.

nobody eats n-thing

‘Nobody doesn’t eat anything.’

(30) Marie (ne) mange pas.

Marie eats neg

‘Marie doesn’t eat.’

(31) Personne (ne) mange pas (rien)

n-body eats n-thing ‘Nobody doesn’t eat (anything)’

Tis leads to the following question: what are the properties of French n-words and

French negative markers ne and pas, such that ne can combine with both n-words and

pas, while still yielding a single semantic negation, whereas pas and n-words may not

be combined in such a way?

Note that ne may also appear in various kinds of other (Strawson-)Downward

Entailing contexts, such as restrictive focus, comparatives, complement clauses of ex-

pressions of fear, avoidance, denial or doubt, conditionals and temporal before clauses,

as shown below (all examples have been taken from Rooryck (2008: 3–4) and Zeijlstra

(2012)):

(32) a. Jean (ne) voit que Marie.

Jean sees comp Marie

‘Jean only sees Marie.’

b. Jean est plus malin que Pierre (ne) l’est.

Jean is smarter Pierre it is

‘Jean is smarter than Pierre is.’

c. Il a barricadé la porte de peur/crainte qu’on (n) entre chez lui. he has blocked the door of fear that they enter with him

‘He blocked the door for fear that people might come in.’


17/22

Hedde Zeijlstra

d. Jean a évité que Lucienne (ne) tombe.

Jean has avoided that Lucienne fall.

‘Jean prevented Lucienne from falling.’

e. Nie/doute-t-il que je (ne) dise la vérité?

denies/doubts he that I tell. the truth?

Does he doubt/deny that I am telling the truth?

f. Je viendrai à moins que Jean (ne) soit là.

I will-come to less that Jean is. there

‘I will come unless Jean is there.’

g. Il est parti avant que nous (n’) ayons mange.

he is le before that we have eaten

‘He le before we ate.’

Tis makes it plausible to assume that ne is actually an NPI (cf. Zeijlstra 2010), which

may freely occur in a wide subset of all downward entailing contexts. Furthermore

assuming, along the lines of Kadmon & Landman (1993), Kria (1995), Chierchia

(2006, 2011) that the licensing requirement by NPIs lies in their pragma-semantic

properties, the fact that pas is semantically negative already accounts for ne’s possible

co-occurrence with pas. However, if that were the case, pas should be expected to

check the n-words’ [uNEG] feature, contrary to fact. Pas is never able to establish a

Negative Concord relation with an n-words.

Tese facts are mysterious under analyses where [uNEG] needs to be checked by

a semantically negative feature. However, once it is dropped that pas, being a semantic

negation, must carry a feature [iNEG], the facts follow immediately. Pas is semanti-

cally negative but lacks a feature [iNEG] and therefore cannot establish Agree relations

with n-words. Te only element carrying [iNEG] is the abstract negative operator Op¬;

n-words carry [uNEG] and therefore must be checked by this abstract negator. Ne,

finally, is an NPI and may appear under the scope of Op¬, pas and other (Strawson-)

Downward Entailing contexts.

(33) French negative elements: Pas ¬

Ne NPI

N-words [uNEG]

Op¬ [iNEG] + ¬

Again, the connection between so-called uninterpretable formal features and their

corresponding semantics seems weaker than previously assumed, something unex-

pected under (24), but predicted under (25).


18/22


. Proposal

On the basis of the arguments outlined above, I adopt (25) instead of (24), which takes

[iF] not to be a semantic feature, but a purely formal feature whose only property isthat it can fulfil some checking requirement by [uF]. Te fact that [iF] and F oen

correspond (i.e. elements meaning F carry [iF] and vice versa) is not a property of

grammar but the result of the acquisition mechanism of formal features. ake again,

the acquisition algorithm presented in Section 2, repeated below.

(34) Assume a 1:1 correspondence between morphemes and semantic content.

(35) If some morpho-syntactic element α manifests the presence of some

semantic context F, but cannot be assumed to be the carrier of F itself, then

assign a formal feature [uF] to α.

(36) Assign [iF] to all morphosyntactic elements that introduce the semantic

context that is manifested by [uF]. If no overt morphosyntactic element

is responsible, assume some covert element to be present that carries the

semantics of F and that therefore should be assigned [iF].

(37) Assign [iF] to all those elements that are responsible for the rest of the

grammatical occurrences of [uF].

Now, the relevance of (37) becomes clear. [iF] does not denote that some element has

to have the semantic property of F. Te only requirement that is needed is that it is

learnable that some element is able to check some [uF]’s feature. For covert checkers

this means that they must always carry the semantics of F, given (36), but for overt ele-

ments that is not necessarily the case. Tis learnability algorithm now, in accordance

with (25), solves the problems addressed in 3.1–2.

Teoretically, the checking requirement of [uF]s is no longer semantically mo-

tivated. [uF] is nothing than a formal encoding that this feature needs to stand in a

c-command relation with some element carrying [iF]. Checking [uF]s thus takes place

in syntax and no look ahead problem appears in the first place. Consequently, valua-

tion is no longer needed to make feature checking possible within syntax.

Concerning Full Interpretation, the stipulated requirement is dropped that [uF]s

must be deleted/erased at LF. Since [uF]s and [iF]s lack any semantic import, they do

not block legibility of the derivation at LF. Te structure, including semantically vacu-

ous elements, is still fully interpretable.

Te facts in 3.2 follow as well, since semantic negation is not a prerequisite for e.g.

verbs expressing doubt in Negative Concord languages to carry [iNEG]. However, at

first sight this may lead to an overgeneralization. In principle, now, every verb couldbe assigned a feature [iNEG], but the facts suggest that only (Strawson)-Downward

Entailing elements carry them. However, this can be readily explained in diachronic

terms. N-words historically emerge from NPIs (see Roberts & Roussou 2003, Jaeger


19/22

Hedde Zeijlstra

2010). So, what used to be an instance of NPI licensing must have been reanalyzed as

an instance of syntactic Agree.

(38) DE context NPI DE context[iNEG] N-word[uNEG]

Te Slavic minimal pair in (28), can be explained as well, as it can now be assumed that

Czech bez carries [iNEG], but Russian bez does not. So, the fact that only (Strawson-)

Downward Entailing elements carry [iNEG] also follows without assuming that this is

a formal requirement.

Moreover, the facts regarding French follow as well. In fact, it is even predicted

that French pas never got analyzed as carrying [iNEG], since it did not start out as a

negation at the moment that n-words were reanalyzed as n-words (in those days pas was still an NPI itself, reinforcing the by then negative marker ne).

Finally, it must be noted that even though the proposed system allows for a certain

amount of non-correspondence between [iF]s and the semantics of F, it still ensures

that there is a strong (though not absolute) correlation between semantic and formal

features. Aer all, without doubling properties with respect to some semantic property

F, no [i/uF] can be acquired in the first place. So, only by virtue of the relation between

[iF] and F in the acquisitional domain, some [iF] may be assigned to an element that

lacks the semantics of F. Some instances of this have been observed in the study to

negation, but other cases of this may be instances where some kind of feature is ob-ligatorily present on all members of a particular syntactic category, instead of only on

relevant ones. Examples to keep in mind, but also le to further study, are inherent

case, gender and declination features.

. Conclusions

In this article I argue that:

i. Te set of formal features in each language is acquired in the process of language

acquisition and is thus not part of UG;

ii. Te proper cue for acquiring formal features are so-called doubling cases, i.e.

cases where the locus of interpretation of a particular semantic property (i.e. a

semantic operator or feature) does not correspond 1:1 with its morphosyntactic

manifestation(s);

iii. Te set of formal features does not intersect with the set of semantic features:

all formal features are uninterpretable syntax-internal features in the sense of

Svenonius (2006); the close correlation between some formal features and somesemantic properties follows as a by-product of the acquisition mechanism for for-

mal features;


20/22


iv. Te set of formal features consists of two types of features: [iF] and [uF] features,

where [uF] features need to be c-commanded in their local domain by [iF] fea-

tures;

Tis leads to a taxonomy of grammatical features as depicted below:

(39)

[P]

• • • •

[uF]


[iF] [S]

In this sense, formal features are as independent and module-internal as phonologi-

cal and semantic features, and thus adhere to a very strict modular view, also betweensyntax and semantics. Te only reason why syntactic features may have some semantic

effect is that, in the process of language acquisition, formal features only emerge under

mismatches between sound and meaning.

References

Beghelli, Filippo and Stowell, im. 1997. “Distributivity and negation. Te syntax of each and

every.” In Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking , 71–107. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI:10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_3

Bobaljik, Jonathan David and Trainsson, Höskuldur. 1998. “wo heads aren’t always better

than one.” Syntax 1: 37–71. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9612.00003

Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages.

Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Brown, Sue. 1999. e Syntax of negation in Russian: A Minimalist approach. Stanford: CSLI

Publications.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. “Broaden your views. Implicatures of domain widening and the

“Logicality” of language.” Linguistic Inquiry 37: 535–590. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535

Chierchia, Gennaro. 2011. “Meaning as an inferential system. Polarity and free-choice phenom-ena.” Ms., Harvard University.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. e Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MI Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2002. “Derivation by phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael J.

Kenstovicz (ed.), 1–54. Cambridge, MA: MI Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2005. “Tree factors in language design.” Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22. DOI:

10.1162/0024389052993655

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.). 2002. Functional Structure in DP and IP. e Cartography of Syntactic

Structures, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.). 2006. Restructuring and Functional Heads. e Cartography of Syntactic

Structures, Volume 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Epstein, Samuel David, Groat, Erich M., Kawashima, Ruriko and Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1998. A

Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_3http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00003http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00003http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_3


21/22

Hedde Zeijlstra

Epstein, Samuel David and Seely, Daniel. 2002. Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist

Program. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. DOI: 10.1002/9780470755662

Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. “Projections, heads and optimality.” Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–442.

Haegeman, Liliane and Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. “Negative heads and the neg criterion.” eLinguistic Review 8: 233–251. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.1991.8.2-4.233

Haegeman, Liliane and Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1996. “Negative concord in West Flemish.” In

Parameters and Functional Heads. Essays in Comparative Syntax , Adriana Belletti and Luigi

Rizzi (eds), 117–179. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haegeman, Liliane and Lohndal, erje. 2010. “Negative concord and multiple agree: A case

study of West Flemish.” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 181–211. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.181

Herburger, Elena. 2001. “Te negative concord puzzle revisited.” Natural Language Semantics 9:

289–333. DOI: 10.1023/A:1014205526722

Iatridou, Sabine. 1990. “About AgrP.” Linguistic Inquiry 21: 421–459.

Jäger, Agnes. 2010. “Anything is nothing is something. On the diachrony of polarity types ofindefinites.” Natural Language and Linguistic eory 28: 878–822. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-

010-9113-1

Kadmon, Nirit and Landman, Fred. 1993. “Any.” Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422. DOI:

10.1007/BF00985272

Kayne, Richard. 2000. Parameters and Universals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Koeneman, Olaf. 2000. “Te Flexible Nature of Verb Movement.” Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht

University.

Kria, Manfred. 1995. “Te semantics and pragmatics of polarity items in assertion.” Linguistic

Analysis 15: 209–257.

Laka, I. 1990. “Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections.”

Ph.D. dissertation, MI.

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying Agreement-based and Discourse

Configurational Languages. Cambridge, MA: MI Press.

Nilsen, Øystein. 2003. Eliminating Positions: Syntax and Semantics of Sentential Modification.

Ph.D. disseration, Universiteit Utrecht.

Pesetsky, David and orrego, Esther. 2007. “Te syntax of valuation and the interpretability of

features.” In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, Simin

Karimi, Vida Samiian and Wendy W. Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

DOI: 10.1075/la.101.14pesPollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. “Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP.”

Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.

Postal, Paul. 2000. “An introduction to the grammar of squat.” Ms., NYU.

Progovac, Ljiljiana. 2005. “Negative and positive feature checking and the distribution of polar-

ity items.” In Negation in Slavic, S. Brown & A. Przepiórkowski (eds), Slavica Publishers.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “Te fine structure of the le periphery.” In Elements of grammar. Handbook

in generative syntax , Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. e structure of CP and IP. e Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach toGrammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/

CBO9780511486326

Starke, Michal. 2001. “Move Dissolves Into Merge: A Teory of Locality.” Ph.D. dissertation,

University of Geneva.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470755662http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1991.8.2-4.233http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.181http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014205526722http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9113-1http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9113-1http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00985272http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/la.101.14peshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486326http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486326http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486326http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486326http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/la.101.14peshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00985272http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9113-1http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9113-1http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014205526722http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.181http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1991.8.2-4.233http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470755662


22/22


Starke, Michal. 2004. “On the Inexistence of Specifiers and the Nature of Heads.” In Structures

and Beyond. e Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 252–

268. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Svenonius, Peter. 2006. “Interpreting uninterpretable features.” Linguistic Analysis 33: 375–413.Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. “Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation.” Ph.D. dissertation,

University of Pennsylvania.

Zeijlstra, Hedzer Hugo. 2004. “Sentential Negation and Negative Concord.” Ph.D. dissertation,

University of Amsterdam.

Zeijlstra, Hedzer Hugo. 2008. “On the syntactic flexibility of formal features.” In Teresa

Biberauer (ed.), e Limits of Syntactic Variation, 143–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

DOI: 10.1075/la.132.06zei

Zeijlstra, Hedzer Hugo. 2010. “On French negation.” In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting

of the Berkely Linguistics Society, Iksoo Kwon, Hannah. Pritchett & Justin Spence (eds).

Berkely, CA: BLS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/la.132.06zeihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1075/la.132.06zei

Zeijlstra 2014.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Zeijlstra 2014.pdf