Abstract
In this paper, after reviewing two distinct approaches to syntactic relations, Epstein et al.'s (1998) derivational approach and Chomsky's (2000) compositional approach, I show that, given Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely's (2010) analysis of structure-building (based on Merge (X, Y) => {X, Y}), the main empirical difference between these two approaches disappears. I then discuss Chomsky's (2007, 2008) suggestion that c-command is eliminable in favor of probe-goal and minimal search conditions. If probe-goal and minimal search conditions are sufficient to characterize not only the empirically desirable aspects of c-command, but also other syntactically significant relations, then any further characterization of such relations appears to be superfluous.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-22 |
| Number of pages | 22 |
| Journal | English Linguistics |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2011 Jan 1 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- c-command
- Merge
- minimal search
- probe-goal
- syntactic relations
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Language and Linguistics
- Linguistics and Language
Cite this
Relations in minimalism. / Kitahara, Hisatsugu.
In: English Linguistics, Vol. 28, No. 1, 01.01.2011, p. 1-22.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Relations in minimalism
AU - Kitahara, Hisatsugu
PY - 2011/1/1
Y1 - 2011/1/1
N2 - In this paper, after reviewing two distinct approaches to syntactic relations, Epstein et al.'s (1998) derivational approach and Chomsky's (2000) compositional approach, I show that, given Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely's (2010) analysis of structure-building (based on Merge (X, Y) => {X, Y}), the main empirical difference between these two approaches disappears. I then discuss Chomsky's (2007, 2008) suggestion that c-command is eliminable in favor of probe-goal and minimal search conditions. If probe-goal and minimal search conditions are sufficient to characterize not only the empirically desirable aspects of c-command, but also other syntactically significant relations, then any further characterization of such relations appears to be superfluous.
AB - In this paper, after reviewing two distinct approaches to syntactic relations, Epstein et al.'s (1998) derivational approach and Chomsky's (2000) compositional approach, I show that, given Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely's (2010) analysis of structure-building (based on Merge (X, Y) => {X, Y}), the main empirical difference between these two approaches disappears. I then discuss Chomsky's (2007, 2008) suggestion that c-command is eliminable in favor of probe-goal and minimal search conditions. If probe-goal and minimal search conditions are sufficient to characterize not only the empirically desirable aspects of c-command, but also other syntactically significant relations, then any further characterization of such relations appears to be superfluous.
KW - c-command
KW - Merge
KW - minimal search
KW - probe-goal
KW - syntactic relations
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864639442&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864639442&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.9793/elsj.28.1_1
DO - 10.9793/elsj.28.1_1
M3 - Article
VL - 28
SP - 1
EP - 22
JO - English Linguistics / Journal of the English Linguistic Society of Japan
JF - English Linguistics / Journal of the English Linguistic Society of Japan
SN - 0918-3701
IS - 1
ER -