Merge of Functional Heads:

A Theory of Amalgamation
@Tohoku University

Andreas Blümel ([email protected]) ¹

Nobu Goto ([email protected]) ²
Yushi Sugimoto ([email protected]) ³

¹University of Göttingen, Germany

²Toyo University, Japan

³University of Tokyo, Japan

February 12, 2023

 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

The goal of this presentation

▶ To show how to derive syntactic variation without assuming (macro-)parameters.

▶ Proposal: Functional heads are introduced to narrow syntax in different ways among languages
→ Evidence from English, German, and Japanese
– Phenomena
▶ the absence/presence of subject-verb agreement
▶ the absence/presence of expletive
▶ the absence/presence of VP-fronting
▶ the absence/presence of VP-ellipsis
▶ the absence/presence of wh-movement
→ Theoretical Consequences
– Labeling Theory (‘Privileges of the Rich’)
– Phase Theory (Cancellation of phases)

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 2 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Table of contents

Introduction Theoretical Consequences

Proposal 4.1 Labeling Theory
2.1 Amalgam of functional heads 4.2 Phase Theory
2.2 Contiguity Variation Revisited
2.3 Parametric Clusters Conclusion
Empirical Consequences
3.1 Subject-Verb agreement
3.2 Expletives
3.3 VP-fronting
3.4 VP-ellipsis
3.5 Wh-movement
3.6 Intra-variation

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 3 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Parametric Variation?
▶ Where does linguistic variation come from?
1. The Borer-Chomsky Conjecture: The locus of the
parametric variation might come from the
inflectional feature. (cf. Baker 2008; Sheehan
2021)
2. The Berwick-Chomsky Conjecture: Linguistic ▶ This presentation: set-/pair-Merge of
variation comes from externalization (i.e., functional heads
PF-component, cf. Berwick and Chomsky 2016)
i.e., Introducing functional heads by
3. No (macro-)parameter approaches (Richards
2008; Boeckx 2011; Boeckx 2014; Boeckx 2016; external set-Merge vs. external
Obata, Epstein, and Baptista 2015; Epstein, pair-Merge of functional heads before
Obata, and Seely 2018) introducing it to narrow syntax
– Underspecification of rule ordering in narrow syntax
(Obata, Epstein, and Baptista 2015; Epstein, Obata, and
Seely 2018)
▶ Agree-Move, Move-Agree order
e.g., T-subject agreement vs. T-object agreement

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 5 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Minimalist View of Parametric Variation?

The Borer-Chomsky
Lexicon: functional heads Conjecture

Our Proposal:
Combination of function heads formed by pair-Merge

Underspecification:
Narrow Syntax
The Berwick- Obata et al. (2015)
Chomsky Conjecture

Phonological component Semantic component

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 6 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Modes of Merge

Internal External
Internal Set-Merge(ISM)
Set-Merge External Set-Merge (ESM)
i.e., Move
Internal Pair-Merge (IPM) External Pair-Merge (EPM)
Pair-Merge
i.e., head movement (Chomsky 2015) e..g, Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely (2016)

Table: Modes of Merge

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 8 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Proposal

▶ Our Proposal: the clausal functional lexical items v, T and C can enter the clause in the
different ways in (1) (abstracting away from linearization):
Bundling Conjecture 

(1) a. [CP C [TP T [vP v …]]] the analytical type

e.g. English
b. [CP C [ ⟨𝑣,T⟩P ⟨v, T⟩ …]] the mixed type
e.g. German
c. [ ⟨𝑣,T,C⟩P ⟨v, T, C⟩ …] the synthetic/agglutinative type
e.g. Japanese
 

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 9 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Proposed Structure for English-type

(2) English
CP

_
▶ Specifiers (i.e., [spec,CP], [spec, TP],
[spec,vP]) are available.
▶ Movement to [spec,CP] C TP
→ A’-movement/Q-agreement
▶ Movement to [spec,TP] _
→ A-movement/𝜑-agreement
▶ EM to [spec,vP]:
→ introducing External Argument
T vP

v …
Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 10 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Motivation of proposed Structure of German-type

(3) German
CP

▶ Keine and Bhatt 2016: German has a

syntactic verbal cluster, (pace C 𝛼
Wurmbrand 2007; Salzmann 2013).
▶ In our terms, this verbal cluster is ⟨v, NPEA ⟨v, T⟩P
T⟩ (cf. Haider 1988; Bayer and
Kornfilt 1994). 𝛽 ⟨v, T⟩

NPIA R

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 11 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Motivation of proposed Structure of Japanese-type

▶ Fukui 1988; Fukui 1995a; Fukui and

Sakai 2003: Japanese has “defective”
T- and C-heads that function only as (4) Japanese
place holders, e.g. for tense 𝛼
morphemes.
▶ Clauses in Japanese are essentially NPEA ⟨v, T, C⟩P
VP-projections (Fukui 1986; Fukui
1995b).
𝛽 ⟨v, T, C⟩
▶ In our term, ⟨v, T, C⟩ is a head of the
clause
NPIA R
▶ v is “most prominent,” while
maintaining that Japanese has T and C.

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 12 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Contiguity

(5) a. Japanese
Bill-wa Mary-ga ku-ru (*tabun) to omotta.
Bill-TOP Mary-NOM come-NONPAST (*probably) C think
‘Bill thinks Mary (probably) comes.’ [ ⟨R,𝑣,T,C⟩ …⟨R, v, T, C⟩=ku-ru to ]
b. German
dass Cindy das Buch gelesen (*wahrscheinlich) hat
that Cindy the book read (*probably) has
‘that Cindy (probably) read the book’ [CP C=dass [ ⟨R,𝑣,T⟩P …⟨R, v, T⟩=gelesen hat ]]
c. English
Cindy has often embraced Mary. [TP T=has [ ⟨R,𝑣⟩P ⟨R, v⟩=embraced …]]

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 13 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Parametric Clusters

Japanese German English

subject-verb agreement no yes yes
licensed by free-standing T and/or C
expletive no no yes
requires a TP-projection
VP-fronting no ⟨R, v, T⟩P- yes
fronting
VP-ellipsis no no yes
licensed by free-standing T
WH-movement no yes yes
licensed by free-standing C

Table: Properties to capture

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 14 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Explaining parametric clusters: A generalization

(6) German-type
Patterns that are driven by our proposal 
CP
▶ A free-standing functional item (introduced
by set-Merge):
C 𝛼
→ there is a specifier; spec-head agreement is
available.
▶ The functional item enters the derivation as NPEA ⟨v, T⟩P
part of an amalgam (introduced by external
pair-Merge)
→ the specifier is reduced, and the spec-head 𝛽 ⟨v, T⟩
relation becomes unavailable.
 
NPIA R

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 15 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Parametric Clusters

Japanese German English

subject-verb agreement no yes yes
licensed by free-standing T and/or C
expletive no no yes
requires a TP-projection
VP-fronting no ⟨R, v, T⟩P- yes
fronting
VP-ellipsis no no yes
licensed by free-standing T
WH-movement no yes yes
licensed by free-standing C

Table: Properties to capture

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 17 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Subject-Verb Agreement: Our Prediction

(7) a. [CP C [TP SU T [ 𝜑 ] [vP v …]]] spec-head-type-agreement (T-SU)→ English

b. [CP C [ 𝜑 ] [ ⟨𝑣,T⟩P SU …⟨v, T⟩ ]] probe-goal-type-agreement (C-SU)→ German
c. [ ⟨𝑣,T,C⟩P SU …⟨v, T, C [ 𝜑 ] ⟩ ] no agreement → Japanese

1. English Type:
set-Merge of free-standing T: Initiates 𝜑-agreement and subject-raising
2. German Type:
– T within the amalgam: Does not initiate 𝜑-agreement, nor subject-raising
– set-Merge of free-standing C: Can initiate 𝜑-agreement (cf. Obata 2010; Legate 2011; Goto 2011).
3. Japanese Type: C within the amalgam: Does not initiate 𝜑-agreement

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 18 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Subject-Verb Agreement

Japanese German English

1 Watashi-ga hashi-ru. Ich renne. I run.
SG 2 Anata-ga hashi-ru. Du rennst. You run.
3 Kare-ga/kanojyo-ga hashi-ru. Er/sie/es rennt. He/she/it runs.
1 Watashi tachi-ga hashi-ru. Wir rennen. We run.
PL 2 Anata tachi-ga hashi-ru. Ihr rennt. You run.
3 Karera-ga/kanojyora-ga hashi-ru. Sie rennen. They run.
Table: Subject Verb Agreement

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 19 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Expletives

 Our Prediction 
(8) a. English
If the TP-projection is absent due to pair- because there is a man in the garden
Merge, there is no way to insert expletives b. German
in [spec,TP].
weil (*es) getanzt wird
 
because (*it) danced was
▶ In contrast to English, Japanese and
German do not feature structural
expletives.
→ This falls out immediately from the
absence of a TP-projection.

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 20 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

VP-fronting in Japanese

 Our Prediction 
(9) *[VP Ringo-o tabe] Taroo-ga tVP (si-)ta.
If the vP/VP-projection is absent due to apple-ACC eat Taroo-NOM (do-)PAST
pair-Merge, there is no way to move this lit. ‘ate apple, Taroo did.’
projection.
 

▶ Japanese: the clause head is ⟨v, T, C⟩.

→ There is no VP-constituent, which explains
why Japanese does not have VP-fronting
(9), (Funakoshi 2020, pp. 118–119).

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 21 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

VP-fronting in Japanese as FocP-fronting

▶ Japanese does allow VP-fronting (11) with

(11) [VP Ringo-o tabe-sae/mo/wa/dake]
the qualification in (10), cf. Funakoshi apple-ACC eat-even/also/TOP/only
2020, pp. 118–119:
Taroo-ga tVP si-ta.
(10) Generalization on VP-Fronting in Taroo-NOM do-PAST
Japanese: (Funakoshi 2020: p. 119,
(7))
VP-fronting is possible in Japanese
only if su-insertion applies and a focus
particle attaches to the verb in the
fronted VP.

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 22 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

VP-fronting in Japanese as FocP-fronting

▶ When a focus particle attached to

(12) 𝛼
{NP, R}, the focus particle becomes a
label of the structure.
▶ v is the dummy verb su – an independent NPEA ⟨v, T, C⟩P
word. v ceases to be an affix.
▶ ⟨v, T, C⟩ is then the dummy verb su plus 𝛽-Foc ⟨v, T, C⟩→do-past
tense (si-ta in 11):
NPIA R

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 23 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

VP-fronting in German

 Our Prediction 
(13) [ 𝛼 [Subject Ein junger Hund] einen
While the vP/VP-projection is absent due to a-NOM young dog a-ACC
pair-Merge, the amalgam phrase (e.g., ⟨v, T⟩ Briefträger gebissen] hat hier schon oft.
itself can be fronted (i.e., ⟨v, T⟩P-fronting). mailman bitten has here already often
  ‘It has happened often here already that a
young dog has bitten a mailman.’
▶ German: absence of free-standing T: no EPP
→ subjects can stay VP-internal (Wurmbrand
2006, p. 198)
→ ⟨v, T⟩P including the subject can move.
▶ T raises to C (in V1/V2-clauses) at PF,
following Zwart 2017.

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 24 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

VP-Ellipsis

▶ Sag 1976, 19ff: the Aux-node preceding the

(14) German
elliptical VP must be overt.
 Our Prediction  *Leyla WOLLte die Hausaufgaben nicht
Leyla wanted the homework not
If T is free-standing, VP-ellipsis is allowed. machen, doch Franz meinte, dass sie HAT.
  make but Franz meant that she has

▶ English has free-standing T → VP-ellipsis is ‘Leyla didn’t want to do the homework but
available. Franz said that she has (done it).’
▶ German: No free-standing T, but ⟨v, T⟩.
→ Therefore, German does not have VP-ellipsis
(14) (López and Winkler 2000; Repp and
Struckmeier 2020, p. 187).

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 25 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

VP-Ellipsis in Japanese

▶ Japanese: no independent VP-constituent

(15) Hanako-wa gakkoo-ni it-ta kedo,
+ no free-standing T Hanako-TOP school-to go-PAST but
▶ Our approach implicates that (15) is Taroo-wa ik-anak-atta.
argument ellipsis (e.g., Sakamoto 2015; Taroo-TOP go-NEG-PAST
pace Funakoshi 2016): (intended) ‘Hanako went to the school, but
Taroo didn’t go to the school.’

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 26 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Wh-movement

(16) a. [ ⟨Q,Q⟩ [QP WH]i [CQ …ti …]]

▶ The identification of a ⟨Q, Q⟩-label (Cable b. English
2010; Chomsky 2013) (16a). I don’t know whati John bought ti .
 Our Prediction  c. German
If C is free-standing, wh-movement is avail- Ich fragte mich weni Hans ti sah.
able. I asked REFL who-ACC Hans saw
  ‘I wondelightpink who Hans saw.’
(Sabel 2000, 413, (12-b))

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 27 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Wh-movement in Japanese

(17) a. [ ⟨v,T,C⟩P …WH …⟨v, T, CQ = 𝑘𝑎⟩]

▶ Japanese: lack of obligatory wh-movement b. Boku-ga John-ga nani-o katta ka
due to the absence of a CP projection. I-NOM John-NOM what-ACC bought Q
▶ CQ =-ka is “hidden” (cf. Blümel and Goto siranai (koto).
2020) in the amalgam ⟨v, T, C⟩. know-NEG-PRES (fact)
‘(the fact that) I don’t know what John bought.’
(Fukui 1988, 256, (12))

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 28 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Summary: Parametric Clusters

Japanese German English

subject-verb agreement no yes yes
licensed by free-standing T and/or C
expletive no no yes
requires a TP-projection
VP-fronting no ⟨R, v, T⟩P- yes
fronting
VP-ellipsis no no yes
licensed by free-standing T
WH-movement no yes yes
licensed by free-standing C

Table: Properties to capture

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 29 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

A clarification

▶ Are the different rule orderings fixed in a

given I-language?
– No!
– Obata and Epstein 2016: ”Intra and Inter
I-language variation” ▶ Principles and Parameters Approach
1. The variation displayed by different – Captures variation across languages
I-languages (e.g., cluster effect)
→ English, German and Japanese in this – Does not capture variation within a
presentation I-language.
– The variation displayed within a particular
I-language. (Obata and Epstein 2016, p. 134)
→ Basque

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 30 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

A remark on Basque

A descriptive generalization 

(Ormazabal, Uriagereka, and Uribe- (18) a. [CP IPi [C′ C ti ]]

Etxebarria 1994) CP
▶ SOV(C)-languages tend to feature WH
in-situ and Kayne’s (1994) approach to IPi C’
it.
▶ According to Kayne’s (1994) approach, ... C IPi
the sentence-final C comes about by
IP-raising:
▶ As [spec,CP] is occupied by IP, overt ...
WH-movement is blocked.
 

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 31 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

A remark on Basque

▶ On the face of it, Basque is a counterexample:

(19) a. … Mirenek Joni liburua irakurri dio-la … [ S-IO-O-V+I+C ]

… Mary-ERG John-DAT book-the-ABS read Aux-COMP …
‘…that Mary read the book to John’
b. Norii irakurri dio Mirenek ti liburua? [ WhIO -V-S-O ]
who-DAT read Aux Mary-ERG book-the-ABS
‘Who did Mary read the book to?’
c. *Mirenek nori liburua irakurri dio? *[ S-WHIO -O-V ]
Mary-ERG who-DAT book-the-ABS read Aux?

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 32 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

A remark on Basque
(21) Basque: Declarative
𝛼
▶ Ormazabal et al.’s solution:
1. IP-movement (declaratives) NPEA ⟨v, T, C⟩P
2. WH-movement (interrogatives)
𝛽 ⟨v, T, C⟩
→ Perhaps, this alternation could be recast in
our terms as EPM vs. ESM of Basque C: NPIA R

(20) Our suggestion (22) Basque: Interrogative

a. declarative: {…⟨v, T, C⟩} CP

b. interrogative: {C, { …⟨v, T⟩}}

wh C’

→ In (20b), ⟨v, T⟩ then perhaps undergoes head C 𝛼

movement to free-standing C, to yield the
surface serialization that we find (i.e., wh ⟨v, T⟩P

wh-V-S-O). 𝛽 ⟨v, T⟩

NPIA R

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 33 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Labeling Theory

(23) English-type
Labeling Algorithm: (Chomsky 2013; Chomsky 2015)  CP

1. H-XP → H is a label C 𝛼
2. {XP, YP} → ambiguous
After subject-raising. . . NPEA

▶ 𝛼: ⟨𝜑, 𝜑⟩
T 𝛽
▶ 𝛽: ⟨R, v⟩
→ the amalgam becomes the label of 𝛽 NPEA
 
⟨R, v⟩ …

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 35 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Labeling Theory

A proposal  (24) English-type

CP
The Labeling Algorithm (LA) privileges
rich amalgams (RAs). C 𝛼
 
NPEA
▶ Regardless of whether NP in
[spec,vP] moves out or not, the LA T 𝛽=⟨R,v⟩
finds the amalgam ⟨R, v ⟩.
NPEA
▶ Raising of subject is independent
from the labeling purpose of 𝛽.
⟨R, v⟩ …

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 36 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Labeling Theory

▶ 𝛼 is labeled by ⟨v, T⟩ ▶ 𝛼 is labeled by ⟨v, T, C⟩

(25) German-type (26) Japanese-type

CP 𝛼=⟨v,T,C⟩

C 𝛼=⟨v,T⟩ NPEA ⟨v, T, C⟩

NPEA ⟨v, T⟩ 𝛽 ⟨v, T, C⟩

𝛽 ⟨v, T⟩ ...

...

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 37 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

A Consequence: The absence of scrambling in English

(28) ??

(27) English NPj ??

a. John put that book on the table
b. *On the tablej ,that booki , John put tj ti . NPi CP
c. *On the tablej ,that booki , Bill thinks
that Jon put tj ti . C 𝛼

...

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 38 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

A Consequence: The presence of scrambling in German

(29) German
a. dass das Objekt dem Subjekt den ersten Platz streitig macht
That the object the subject the initial place contested makes
‘That the object competes with the subject for the initial place’
b. clause-internal scrambling (Haider 2006: 208, (6))
dass [dem Subjekt]j [den ersten Platz]i das Objekt tj ti streitig macht
That [the subject]j [the initial place]i the object tj ti contested makes
c. long-distance scrambling (Grewendorf and Sabel 1999:10-11,(21))
*dass [IP [dieses Buch]i [IP Hans dem Studenten gesagt hat [CP dass Maria ti besitzt]]]
that [IP [this book]i [IP Hans the student told has [CP that Maria ti owns]]]
‘Hans told the student that Mary owns this book’

▶ Caveat: Additional assumptions are required to exclude (29c), possibly in part by

resorting to improper movement banning movement from subordinate [spec,CP] to the
superordinate middle field (from Ā- to an A-position).
Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 39 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

A Consequence: The presence of scrambling in Japanese

(30) Japanese
a. clause-internal-scrambling
{Taroo-ga, Hanako-ni, sono hon-o} age-ta
{Taroo-NOM, Hanako-DAT, that book-ACC} give-PAST
‘Taro gave that book to Hanako’
b. long-distance scrambling
{Hanakoi -ni, sono-honj -o} Jiro-wa [Taroo-ga ti tj age-ta] to omot-te-iru.
{Hanakoi -DAT, that bookj -ACC} Jiro-TOP [Taroo-MP, ti tj give-PAST] C think-te-PROG
Lit. ‘Jiro thinks that Taroo gave that book to Hanako’

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 40 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

A Consequence: Structure for German and Japanese

(31) German (32) Japanese

?? ⟨v, T, C⟩

NPk C
NPj ⟨v, T, C⟩
C ⟨v,T⟩
NPi ⟨v, T, C⟩
NPj ⟨v,T⟩

NPi ⟨v,T⟩ NPEA ⟨v, T, C⟩

NPEA ⟨v, T⟩ 𝛽 ⟨v, T, C⟩

𝛽 ⟨v, T⟩
...
...

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 41 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Phase Theory
phase cancellation and phasal edge 

1. Chomsky 2015: phase cancellation

by internal pair-Merge in verbal X ...
domain
2. Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely 2016: CP
phase cancellation by external
pair-Merge in verbal domain
 
*
. . . X. . . Cphase TP
→ When a phasehood is activated,
subextraction from the phasal edge is
impossible (cf. Chomsky 2008; ...
Gallego and Uriagereka 2007) Edge Condition 
→ When a phasehood is canceled by
Syntactic Objects in phase edges become internally
pair-Merge, subextraction from the
frozen. (Gallego and Uriagereka 2007: 158, (8))
edge of the amalgam is possible.
 
Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 42 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Phase Theory
phase cancellation and phasal edge 

1. Chomsky 2015: phase cancellation

by internal pair-Merge in verbal X ...
domain
2. Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely 2016: ⟨T,Cphase ⟩
phase cancellation by external
pair-Merge in verbal domain
  ⟨T,Cphase ⟩

ok
. . . X. . . ⟨T,Cphase ⟩ 𝛽
→ When a phasehood is activated,
subextraction from the phasal edge is
impossible (cf. Chomsky 2008; ...
Gallego and Uriagereka 2007)  
Phase Cancellation
→ When a phasehood is canceled by
Phasehood is cancelled by pair-Merge (Epstein, Kita-
pair-Merge, subextraction from the
hara, and Seely 2016)
edge of the amalgam is possible.
 
Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 43 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Edge condition and phase cancellation

(33) English
??Who do you wonder [CP [which picture of ti ]j Mary bought tj ]?
(34) German
a. Ich denke [CP [NP Bücher über Evolution]i [C ′ hatk [keiner ti gelesen tk ]
I think [CP [NP books about evolution]i [C ′ hask [no one ti read tk ]
‘I think no one has read books about evolution’
b. *Worüberj denkst du [CP [NP Bücher tj ]i [C′ hatk [keiner ti gelesen tk ]]]?
what-about think you [CP [NP books tj ]i [C′ hask [noone ti read tk ]
‘What do you think no one read books about?’

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 44 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Edge condition and phase cancellation

(35) Japanese
a. [IP John-ga [CP [IP [CP Mary-ga sono hon-o katta to]i [IP Bill-ga ti itta]
[IP John-NOM [CP [IP [CP Mary-NOM that book-ACC bought that[i [IP Bill-NOM ti said]
to] omotteiru]
that] think]
‘John thinks that Bill said that Mary bought that book’
b. [IP sono hon-oj [John-ga [CP [IP [CP Mary-ga tj katta to]i [IP Bill-ga ti itta]
[IP sono hon-ACC [John-NOM [CP [IP [CP Mary-NOM tj bought that]i [IP Bill-NOM ti said]
to] omotteiru]
that] think]
(Saito and Fukui 1998: 465-466, (65))

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 45 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Summary of Theoretical Consequences

Labeling Theory  Phase Theory 

▶ The amalgam of heads becomes a ▶ If a phase head is introduced by

candidate for labels. set-Merge, its phasehood is activated.
▶ This solves the problem in {XP,YP} → Edge condition holds. e.g., English and
problem in German/Japanese types German
where subject may not move in ▶ If a phase head is amalgamated by
subject-predicate structure (i.e. pair-Merge and introduced into the
{subject, vP} and this is compatible derivation, the phasehood is
deactivated.
with Chomsky 2015.
→ No edge condition, i.e., subextraction
  from the edge positions are possible,
e.g., Japanese
 

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 46 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Variation revisited

▶ What do these patterns tell us?

– We are seeking parameter-free syntax since parameters cannot be a part of UG as primitives. We are trying to
drive cluster effects of parameters.
– Richards 2008, p. 145: ”PF has to ‘make do’ with what the syntax gives it. That is, the mapping to PF is
imperfect, which leaves it open to variation.”
– Biberauer and Roberts 2015, p. 7: Feature Economy
“Postulate as few formal features as possible to account for the input.”
– Roberts and Holmberg 2010, p. 41: Generalisation of the input
“If acquirers assign a marked value to H, they will assign the same value to all comparable heads.”
– Boeckx 2011, p. 217, (7): Superset Bias
Strive for parametric-value consistency among parameters (see also Pearl 2007; Yang 2007)
▶ “if the child learns that V precedes its complement and T precedes its complement, she will be inclined to
hypothesize that the next head she encounters will also precede its complement, and will only reject her
hypothesis if she finds enough positive counterevidence.” (Boeckx 2011, p. 217)
– Biberauer 2019: Factors 2 and 3
▶ the Maximise Minimal Means (MMM): a general cognitive bias.

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 48 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Linguistic Variation: So, after all, where is it?

Three Factors in language development ▶ Uniformity Principle

1. “In the absence of compelling evidence to the
1. Factor I: UG → features, Merge contrary, assume languages to be uniform, with
2. Factor II: Experience variety restricted to easily detectable properties
of utterances.” (Chomsky 2001, p.2, (1))
3. Factor III: The third factors (Chomsky 2005) 2. Strong Uniformity: “All languages share the same
  set of grammatical features, and every language
overtly manifests these features.” (Miyagawa
▶ Factor I → yields ‘microparameters’ (Richards 2008; 2010, p. 12, (15))
Boeckx 2011) ▶ Linearization/Externalization:
▶ Factor II → See Epstein 2016 underspecification (Richards 2008)
▶ Factor III → a locus of ‘macroparameters’
1. Efficient computation; e.g., Shortest Move should not be
parametrized. (cf. Boeckx 2011, p. 210)
2. An emergent view of parameters (e.g., Biberauer and Roberts
2015; Biberauer 2019)

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 49 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Linguistic Variation: So, after all, where is it?

Underspecification of rule ordering 

1. Obata, Epstein, and Baptista 2015:

– Narrow syntax can yield multiple optimal derivations driven by efficient computation.
– Rule ordering of Agree and Move
2. Obata and Epstein 2016; Epstein, Obata, and Seely 2018:
– Intra/inter I-language variation
3. Our proposal:
– The formation of functional heads
 

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 50 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Conclusion
1. Obata, Epstein, and Baptista 2015 discuss the different rule ordering in narrow syntax, the timing of
Agree (Agree-Move or Move-Agree).
2. Epstein, Obata, and Seely 2018 extend this idea to set-/pair-Merge rule ordering (when do
set-/pair-Merge apply).
3. Based on this idea, we suggest that macro-parametric variation can be captured, comparing among
English, German, and Japanese.
Bundling Conjecture 

(36) a. [CP C [TP T [vP v …]]] the analytical type

e.g. English
b. [CP C [ ⟨𝑣,T⟩P ⟨v, T⟩ …]] the mixed type
e.g. German
c. [ ⟨𝑣,T,C⟩P ⟨v, T, C⟩ …] the synthetic/agglutinative type
e.g. Japanese
 

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 52 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Parametric clusters
▶ We derived parametric clusters (i.e. some properties of macroparameters).

Functional features: v, T, C

Is v free- Is T free- Is C free-

standing? standing? standing?

Yes: vP-fronting Yes: [spec,TP] Yes: wh-

is available movement
No: no vP- No: No No: No
fronting [spec,TP] [spec,CP]

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 53 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Linguistic Variation: So, after all, where is it?

“Micro-parameters”
Lexicon: features Uniformity Principle
“Macro-parameters”

Our Proposal:
Combination of function heads formed by pair-Merge

head-parameter
Underspecification:
Narrow Syntax
Underspecification: Obata et al. (2015)
Richards (2008)

Phonological component Semantic component

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 54 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Thank you!
Any questions?

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 55 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Appendix: Typological Consideration

▶ These are possible derivations.

▶ Is linear order independent of “cluster formation” of functional heads by EPM?

C-initial C-final
A: {C, {T, {v, …}}} i) [CP C [TP T [vP v …]]] viii) *[CP [TP T [vP v …]] C ]
ii) [CP C [TP T [vP …v ]]] ix) *[CP [TP T [vP …v ]] C ]
iii) *[CP C [TP [vP v …] T ]] x) *[CP [TP [vP …v ] T ] C ]
iv) *[CP C [TP [vP …v ] T ]] xi) *[CP [TP [vP v …] T ] C ]
B: {C, {⟨v, T⟩ …}} v) ?[CP C [ ⟨v,T⟩P ⟨v, T⟩ …]] xii) *[CP [ ⟨v,T⟩ …⟨v, T⟩ ] C ]
vi) [CP C [ ⟨v,T⟩ …⟨v, T⟩ ]] xiii) *[CP [ ⟨v,T⟩P ⟨v, T⟩ …] C ]
C: {⟨v, T, C⟩ …} vii) ?[ ⟨v,T,C⟩P ⟨v, T, C⟩ …] xiv) [ ⟨v,T,C⟩P …⟨v, T, C⟩ ]
Table: Linearization options (with syntactic structures)

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 56 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

Appendix: Typological Consideration

C-initial C-final
A: {C, {T, {v, …}}} i) C ≻ T ≻ V ≻ O viii) T ≻ V ≻ O ≻ C
ii) C ≻ T ≻ O ≻ V ix) T ≻ O ≻ V ≻ C
iii) C ≻ V ≻ O ≻ T x) O ≻ V ≻ T ≻ C
iv) C ≻ O ≻ V ≻ T xi) V ≻ O ≻ T ≻ C
B: {C, {⟨v, T⟩ …}} v) C ≻ T ≻ V ≻ O xii) O ≻ V ≻ T ≻ C
vi) C ≻ O ≻ V ≻ T xiii) T ≻ V ≻ O ≻ C
C: {⟨v, T, C⟩ …} vii) C ≻ T ≻ V ≻ O xiv) O ≻ V ≻ T ≻ C
Table: Bare precedence relations corresponding to Table 6

→ Cluster formation of v, T and C by EPM might be either preferentially head-final or have more
options and be more “liberal” when it comes to “flattening” hierarchical structure to temporal
order than the “analytical” (ESMed) type.

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 57 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

References I
Baker, Mark (2008). “The macroparameters in a microparamatric world”. In: The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Ed. by Theresa Biberauer.
John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 351–373.
Bayer, Josef and Jaklin Kornfilt (1994). “Against scrambling as an instance of Move-alpha”. In: Studies on scrambling. Ed. by Norbert Corver
and Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–60.
Berwick, Robert and Noam Chomsky (2016). Why only us?: Language and Evolution. The MIT Press.
Biberauer, Theresa (2019). “Factors 2 and 3: Towards a principled approach”. In: Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special Issue.
Biberauer, Theresa and Ian Roberts (2015). “Rethinking formal hierarchies: A proposed unification”. In: Cambridge occasional papers in
Linguistics 7, pp. 1–31.
Blümel, Andreas and Nobu Goto (2020). “Head Hiding”. In: Proceedings of NELS.
Boeckx, Cedric (2011). “Approaching parameters from below”. In: The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature
of the Human Language Faculty. Ed. by Cedric Boeckx Boeckx and Anna-Maria Di Sciullo. Oxford University Press, pp. 205–221.
— (2014). Elementary syntactic structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
— (2016). “Considerations pertaining to the nature of logodiversity”. In: Rethinking Parameters. Oxford University Press.
Cable, Seth (2010). “Against the Existence of Pied-Piping: Evidence from Tlingit”. In: Linguistic Inquiry 41, pp. 563–594.
Chomsky, Noam (2001). “Derivation by Phase”. In: Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Ed. by Michael Kenstovicz. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
— (2005). “Three factors in language design”. In: Linguistic Inquiry 36(1), pp. 1–22.
— (2008). “On Phases”. In: Foundational Issues in Linguistics. Ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 133–166.
— (2013). “Problems of Projection”. In: Lingua 130, pp. 33–49.
— (2015). “Problems of Projection: Extensions”. In: Structures, strategies and beyond – studies in honour of Adriana Belletti. Ed. by
Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini. John Benjamins, pp. 3–16.
Epstein, Samuel (2016). “Why nurture is nature too”. In: biolinguistics 10, pp. 197–201.
Epstein, Samuel, Hisatsugu T. Kitahara, and Daniel S. Seely (2016). “Phase-Cancellation by External Pair-Merge of Heads”. In: The Linguistic
Review 33.1, pp. 87–102.
Epstein, Samuel, Miki Obata, and Daniel S. Seely (2018). “Is linguistic variation entirely linguistic?” In: Linguistic Analysis 41.3-4,
pp. 481–516.

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 58 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

References II
Fukui, Naoki (1986). “A theory of category projection and its applications”. PhD thesis. MIT.
— (1988). “Deriving the differences between English and Japanese: A case study in parametric syntax”. In: English Linguistics 5,
pp. 249–270.
— (1995a). “The principles-and-parameters approach: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese”. In: Approaches to language
typology. Oxford University Press.
— (1995b). Theory of projection in syntax. CSLI Publications.
Fukui, Naoki and Hiromu Sakai (2003). “The visibility guideline for functional categories: Verb raising in Japanese and related issues”. In:
Lingua 113, pp. 321–375.
Funakoshi, Kenshi (2016). “Verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis in Japanese”. In: Journal of East Asian Linguistics 25, pp. 113–142.
— (2020). “Verb-raising and VP-fronting in Japanese”. In: The Linguistic Review 37.1, pp. 117–146.
Gallego, Ángel and Juan Uriagereka (2007). “Sub-extraction from subjects: A phase theory account”. In: Romance Linguistics 2006: Selected
papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), New Brunswick, March-April 2006. Ed. by José Camacho
et al. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 146–162.
Goto, Nobu (2011). “Feature-Inheritance: Its Effects on Agree, Move, and Delete”. PhD thesis. Tohoku Gakuin University.
Grewendorf, Günther and Joachim Sabel (1999). “Scrambling in German and Japanese: Adjunction Versus Multiple Specifiers”. In: Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 17.1, pp. 1–65. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006068326583. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006068326583.
Haider, Hubert (1988). “Matching Projections”. In: Constituent structure. Papers from the 1987 GLOW Conference. Ed. by Anna Cardinaletti,
Giulelmo Cinque, and Giuliana Gusti. Venedig, pp. 101–121.
— (2006). “Mittelfeld Phenomena (Scrambling in Germanic)”. In: The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. John Wiley Sons, Ltd. Chap. 43,
pp. 204–274. ISBN: 9780470996591. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch43. eprint:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470996591.ch43. URL:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470996591.ch43.
Kayne, Richard S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.
Keine, Stefan and Rajesh Bhatt (2016). “Interpreting verb clusters”. In: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34, pp. 1445–1492.

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 59 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

References III
Legate, Julie (2011). “Under-Inheritance”. Talk given at the North East Linguistics Society 42, Toronto.
López, Luis and Susanne Winkler (2000). “Focus and topic in VP-anaphora constructions”. In: Linguistics 38.4, pp. 623–664.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2010). Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Obata, Miki (2010). “Root, Successive-Cyclic and Feature-Splitting Internal Merge: Implications for Feature-Inheritance and Transfer”.
PhD thesis. University of Michigan.
Obata, Miki and Samuel Epstein (2016). “Eliminating Parameters from the Narrow Syntax: Rule Ordering Variation by Third Factor
Underspecification”. In: Advances in Biolinguistics: The Human Language Faculty and its Biological Basis. Ed. by Koji Fujita and
Cedric A. Boeckx. Routledge, pp. 128–138.
Obata, Miki, Samuel Epstein, and Marlyse Baptista (2015). “Can crosslinguistically variant grammars be formally identical? Third factor
underspecification and the possible elimination of parameters of UG”. In: Lingua 156, pp. 1–16.
Ormazabal, Javier, Juan Uriagereka, and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (1994). “Word order and WH-movement: towards a parametric account”.
Handout. GLOW 17, Vienna.
Pearl, Lisa Sue (2007). “Necessary bias in natural language learning”. PhD thesis. University of Maryland, College Park.
Repp, Sophie and Volker Struckmeier (2020). Syntax – Eine Einführung. J.B. Metzler.
Richards, Marc (2008). “Two kinds of variation in a minimalist system”. In: Varieties of Competition. Ed. by Fabian Heck, Gereon Müller, and
Jochen Trommer. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 87. Universität Leipzig, pp. 133–162.
Roberts, Ian and Anders Holmberg (2010). “Introduction”. In: Parametric variation: null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University
Press, pp. 1–57.
Sabel, Joachim (2000). “Partial Wh-Movement and the Typology of Wh-Questions”. In: Wh-scope marking. Ed. by Uli Lutz, Gereo Müller,
and Arnim von Stechow. John Benjamins, pp. 409–446.
Sag, Ivan (1976). “Deletion and Logical Form”. PhD thesis. MIT.
Saito, Mamoru and Naoki Fukui (1998). “Order in Phrase Structure and Movement”. In: Linguistic Inquiry 29.3, pp. 439–474.
Sakamoto, Yuta (2015). “Disjunction as a new diagnostic for (argument) ellipsis”. In: Proceedings of NELS 45. Ed. by Thuy Bui and
Deniz Ozyildiz. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 15–28.

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 60 / 61
 Introduction Proposal Empirical Consequences Theoretical Consequences Variation Revisited Conclusion References

References IV

Salzmann, Martin (2013). “Rule ordering in verb cluster formation. On the extraposition paradox and the placement of the infinitival particle
te/zu”. In: Rule Interaction in Grammar. Ed. by Anke Assmann and Fabian Heck. Vol. 90. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte. University of
Leipzig, pp. 65–121.
Sheehan, Michelle (2021). “Parameters and Linguistic Variation”. In: A Companion to Chomsky. John Wiley Sons, Ltd, pp. 172–189. ISBN:
9781119598732. DOI: https://doi-org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.1002/9781119598732.ch11.
Wurmbrand, Susi (2006). “Licensing Case”. In: Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18.3, pp. 175–236.
— (2007). “How complex are complex predicates”. In: Syntax 10.243–288.
Yang, Charles (2007). “On productivity”. In: Language variation yearbook 5, pp. 333–370.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter (2017). “An argument against the syntactic nature of verb movement”. In: Order and structure in syntax 1: Word order and
syntactic structure. Vol. 1. Open Generative Syntax. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 29–47.

Merge of Functional Heads Blümel, Goto and Sugimoto February 12, 2023 61 / 61