The Role of Features in Determining the Order of Merge

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 , Payam-e-Noor University, Tehran

2 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Payam-e-Nour University, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Payam-e-Nour University, Tehran, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Features as the syntactic foundation of the sentence constituents have a special role in the syntactic operations and derivation of the sentence. Merge operation is responsible for the combination of the constituents and derivation of the sentence. In the derivation of the sentence, the constituents are put together based on the hierarchy of the projections but this question is raised that how the computational system of Language determines the order of merge for constituents and prevents the syntactic ill-formed sentences. In this paper based on the proposed “Proper Inclusion Relation” which regulates the order of merge for constituents, the derivation of sentences in the Persian language is studied. Based on this proposed relation, the computational system of Language only uses the constituents to merge and move that their morphosyntactic features are in Proper Inclusion Relation with each other. The results of this paper show that based on the theoretical foundation of this relation and considering the morphosyntactic features of the constituents in the Numeration and workspace of the computational system, the order of merge and the derivation of the sentence in the Persian language can be explained. Moreover, this relation can explain the free order of the adjunct in the Persian language well.

Keywords

References

 
-Abney, Steven (1987), The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect, PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Adger, David (2003), Core Syntax, a Minimalist Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-Chomsky, Noam. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
-Chomsky, Noam (1993), A minimalist program for linguistic theory, In Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (Current Studies in Linguistics 24), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-Chomsky, Noam (1995), The Minimalist Program (Current Studies in Linguistics 28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-Chomsky, Noam (2000), Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: essays on Minimalist syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik, 89–115, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-Chomsky, Noam. (2001), Derivation by phase, In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (Current Studies in Linguistics 36), 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (2008), Asymmetry in Merge, Biolinguistics 2.4: 260–290,
-Epstein, Samuel; M.Groat, Erich; Kawashima, Ruriko; and Kitahara,Hisatsugu (1998), A derivational approach to syntactic relations, New York: Oxford University Press.
-Gartner, Hans-Martin (1999), Phrase linking meets minimalist syntax, In Proceedings of the Eighteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed.by Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D.Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 159–169.Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press
-Holmberg, Anders (2000), OV order in Finnish. In Peter Svenonius (ed.), The Derivation of VO and OV (Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 31), 123–152, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hornstein, N., J. Nunes and K.K. Grohmann (2005), Understanding Minimalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
-Johnson, Kyle (2002), Towards an etiology of adjunct islands, Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
-Julien, Marit (2000), Syntactic heads and word formation: A study of verbal inflection, Tromsø: University of Tromsø dissertation.
-Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1991), The position of subjects, Lingua. Vol.85, 211- 258.
-Langendoen, Terence (2003), Merge, In Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley & Mary Ann Willie (eds.), Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar: In Honor of Eloise Jelinek (Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today (62), 307–318. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-Larson, R. (1988), On the double object construction, Linguistic Inquiery. Vol.19: 335-391
-Larson, R. (1990), Double objects revisited: reply to Jackendoff, Linguistic Inquiery, Vol.21: 589-632
-Matushansky, Ora (2002), Movement of degree/degree of movement, Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
-Müller, Gereon (2007), On deriving CED effects from PIC, Paper presented at the 30th Annual Colloquium of Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW 30), Tromsø, Norway. [12–14 April, 2007]
Nunes, Jairo & Juan Uriagereka (2000), Cyclicity and extraction domains, Syntax 3, 20–43.
-Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (2001), T–to–C: Causes and consequences, In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (Current Studies in Linguistics 36), 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-Radford, Andrew (2004), Minimalist syntax: Exploring the Structure of English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-Stabler, Edward (1998), Acquiring languages without movement, Syntax 1, 72–97.
-Starke, Michal (2001), Move dissolves into Merge: A theory of locality, Doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva.
-Svenonius, Peter (1994), C-selection as feature checking, Studia Linguistica, 48, 133–155.
-Zhang, Niina (2002), Move is Remerge, Language and Linguistics 5 (1), pp.189-209.
The Journal Of Linguistic and Rhetorical Studies
Volume 12, Issue 26
January 2022
Pages 163-196

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics