This paper explores the syntactic structure of transparent free relatives (TFRs), exemplified by John is what you might call a bookworm. By observing that TFRs share properties with specificational pseudoclefts and equatives, we characterize TFRs as instances of specifying coordination. Specifically, we analyze TFRs as small clauses with the wh-clause (what you might call) and the pivot of the construction (a bookworm) mediated by Koster's (2000) colon head representing specifying coordination. The analysis successfully accounts for the construction's transparency with respect to categorial matching and number agreement and overcomes empirical or theoretical difficulties that previous analyses faced.
When pair-Merge takes two phrases and forms an ordered pair, AdjP (adjunct phrase) becomes invisible since such AdjP has been pair-merged on a separate plane (see Chomsky (2004)). When pair-Merge takes two heads, say v*, √root, and forms <√root, v*>, v* becomes invisible since v* is affixal (see Chomsky (2015a: 12)). There is, however, no purely conceptual ground for supporting the analysis of the adjunction on a separate plane or the invisibility of affixes. Thus, both of these assumptions are conceptually dubious. To solve this problem, I reformulate pair-Merge of heads by adopting a definition of an ordered pair in set theory. Finally, it is shown that the reformulation explains empirical facts such as the double object construction, the cognate object construction, the small clause construction and the ECM (Exceptional Case Marking) construction.
This paper elaborates on Chomsky's (2013, 2015) framework and revisits sentential subject constructions in English. The first part of the paper refines the Labeling Algorithm, demonstrating that feature sharing requires agreement in which each of the merged non-heads bears an unvalued feature that is consequently deleted. The second part of the paper analyzes sentential subject constructions in terms of the refined the Labeling Algorithm. A novel analysis is proposed in which C and sentential subjects in SPEC-T are required to bear topic-related features for labeling success. In conjunction with the refined Labeling Algorithm, the proposed analysis successfully captures a number of peculiar properties of sentential subjects.
This paper adopts Johnson's (2001) topicalization approach, in which a deletion site undergoes topicalization to the left periphery. This approach, in conjunction with a bottom-up construction of a cartographic CP periphery, allows for a unified analysis of a variety of (im)possible extractions from the deletion site TPTop in terms of the interactions between A′-movements. Specifically, I argue that an element may be extracted out of the deletion site when it moves to a lower position than TopP, but it may not be extracted out of the deletion site when it moves to an upper position than TopP.
This paper examines two problems concerning relativization that have remained unaccounted for in syntactic research: i) the lack of reconstruction effects of the relative head in wh-relatives; and ii) the source of the choice of a complementizer C/that or wh-relative pronoun. The primary aim of this study is to provide a detailed explanation for these problems, using the general approach to relativization, Tonoike's (2008) DP movement approach, with necessary elaboration added. The description of the elaboration is twofold: concerning problem (i), we adopt the Late Merge Strategy of Takahashi (2016); and concerning problem (ii), it is proposed that the partitive Case feature assignment is a deciding factor executed in parallel with the case of the relativization of the existential there subject.