Antisymmetry and Dynamic Antisymmetry

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of the theories of Antisymmetry and Dynamic Antisymmetry. It begins with a brief history of linearization and describes the fundamental difference between parameterized word order and universal word order. It presents a technical description of Antisymmetry and Dynamic Antisymmetry followed by a less technical synopsis. It also outlines various consequences and criticisms of these two theories and describes some current research in this domain.

1. Introduction

A fact about language, both spoken and signed, is that it must interface with the articulatory-perceptual system – that is, it must be uttered, ultimately appearing as a linear sequence of words or signs. Exactly how a hierarchical representation of a sentence is converted into a linear sequence of words or signs is still a matter of debate. The crux of the debate is whether the mapping from narrow syntax to linear order in the world’s languages is parameterized (Baker 2001, 2008) or universal (Kayne 1994, 2011). A parameterized view of linearization is most thoroughly articulated through the Headedness Parameter (Baker 2008; Stowell 1981; Travis 1984) and is most thoroughly addressed here. There are more fine-grained approaches to parameterized linearization (Wojdak 2008); however, I do not discuss these here. The universal approach to word order discussed here is Antisymmetry; however, there have been other universalist approaches to linearization (Fukui and Takano 1998). Indeed, much of the discussion on this topic has pitted a parameterized view of linearization with a universalist view. I touch on some of these discussions below.

The core ideas discussed in this paper are the following. I introduce the traditional Headedness Parameter and discuss some problematic aspects of it, and some recent arguments in favour of it. I cover the technical aspects of Antisymmetry and Dynamic Antisymmetry and give a less technical summary of these two proposals. Next, I discuss how Antisymmetry relates to Bare Phrase Structure and to the study of linguistic typology. I go on to discuss some empirical challenges to Antisymmetry. Finally, I discuss some empirical consequences of Antisymmetry.

2. A Brief History on Linearization

A well-known fact about languages is that word order differs from one to the next. Take English and Japanese, for instance. English has the order subject-verb-object (SVO), while Japanese is subject-object-verb (SOV).

(1)	a.	Mary read the book.
	b.	Makiko	hon-o	yonda
		Makiko	book-acc	read.pst
		‘Makiko read the book.’

As a result of numerous cross-linguistic studies, several Greenbergian universals concerning word order came to light (Greenberg 1963). The following properties of SOV and SVO properties come up frequently in discussion in many undergraduate syntax and typology courses.¹

property	SOV	SVO
adpositions	postpositions	prepositions
wh-movement	no (in situ)	yes
relative clauses	pre-nominal	post-nominal

In order to account for cross-linguistic differences in word order and to capture the Greenbergian universals, the headedness parameter (also known as the ‘directionality parameter’) was proposed (Chomsky 1981; Stowell 1981; Travis 1984). This parameter gives rise to four structural types of phrases, shown in (2) (S = specifier, H = head, C = complement).

A brief glance though the literature reveals that the first two settings predominate, leading to an informal “specifier on the left” universal.²

A major consequence of this approach was that clusters of word order properties (postpositions, post-nominal determiners, and OV order versus prepositions, pre-nominal determiners, and VO order; see Greenberg 1963) could be easily accounted for with one parametrically determined setting for headedness of all XPs. To be sure, the Headedness Parameter was conceived as a category-neutral specification of the linear order of the specifier, head and complementizer in a given language (Chomsky 1981; Stowell 1981). As with many macro-parameters, exceptions kept piling up, threatening the viability of this approach. Well known examples include prepositions in SOV languages (German, Persian) and SOV languages with post-nominal relative clauses (Hiaqui, Kurdish). A quick look through WALS (http://wals.info/) provides numerous examples. These disharmonic languages led some researchers to pursue micro-parametric approaches to word order and others to abandon a parametric approach altogether.

Despite the problems mentioned above, the Headedness Parameter was the dominant view of linearization until Kayne (1994) proposed his theory of Antisymmetry,³ which is the topic of the next section.

3. Classical Antisymmetry

Kayne (1994) proposed a radical theory of word order which relates linear order to asymmetric c-command, which is captured by the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). Kayne’s original formulation of the LCA was a technical tour de force that relied heavily on set theory. I present it here and give a less technical description of it after. The core of Antisymmetry is the LCA, which is formulated as follows.

(3)	Linear Correspondence Axiom
	d(A) is a linear ordering of T.	(Kayne 1994:6)

A is the complete set of ordered pairs {<X₁, Y₁>, <X₂, Y₂>, <X₃, Y₃> … <X_n, Y_n>} where X_i and Y_i are any two non-terminal syntactic nodes such that X_i asymmetrically c-commands Y_i. d(A) is the mapping from A to the set of ordered pairs of terminals such that a_i is dominated by X_i and b_i is dominated by Y_i. T is the set of terminal nodes. Thus, d(<X, Y>) is the Cartesian product of d(X) and d(Y). Alternatively, one can think of the LCA as follows. When a syntactic node X asymmetrically c-commands a node Y, all the terminal nodes dominated by X precede all the terminal nodes dominated by Y. (4) gives the definition of c-command adopted in Kayne (1994).

(4)	X c-commands Y iff X and Y are categories and X excludes Y and every category that dominates X dominates Y. (Kayne 1994:18).

The following example illustrates how the LCA is implemented. In these examples, a, b, and c are terminals; A, B, and C are minimal projections dominating only terminals, and AP, BP, CP are maximal projections. Both minimal and maximal projections count as categories with respect to the definition in (4). Consider now example (5).

The set A, upon which the LCA is evaluated, consists of the set of ordered pairs in (6), which gives rise to d(A) in (7), the mapping from A to the set of pairs of ordered terminals as explained above.

(6)	{<AP, B>, <AP, CP>, <AP, C>, <B, C>}

(7)	{<a, b>, <a, c>, <b, c>}

In order for a derivation to be linearized, every terminal node must be ordered with respect to every other terminal node, either directly, or by transitivity. In other words, linear ordering must be total. Furthermore, linear ordering cannot be contradictory. That is, if A asymmetrically c-commands something inside B, then B cannot asymmetrically c-command anything inside A. Such a configuration would result in contradictory linearizations, and the derivation would crash at the PF interface.

As a result of the LCA, tight restrictions are placed on phrase structure. Each maximal projection can contain only one specifier or one adjunct (the distinction between the two essentially being dissolved). Multiple adjunction or adjunction to a maximal projection that already has a specifier is prohibited. This is because the two adjuncts, or an adjunct and a specifier to the same maximal projection cannot be linearized with respect to each other.⁴ This is shown in the following example.

Here BP has either two adjuncts/specifiers (the distinction between the two having evaporated). There is no asymmetric c-command relation between AP and DP in this structure under Kayne’s definition of c-command. The reason for this is that the three instances of BP in example (8) constitute a single category. Thus, B is dominated by BP, but AP and DP are not. They are thus not dominated by any category in this structure. In order for a category β to dominate an element α every segment of β must dominate α. Since the lowest segment of BP does not dominate either AP or DP, the category BP does not dominate either of these elements. As a consequence, this structure introduces a contradictory ordering. Observe that AP asymmetrically c-commands D, giving rise to the order <a, d>; however, DP also asymmetrically c-commands A, giving rise to the contradictory order <d, a>.

Consider another contradictory ordering.⁵ In (9), BP asymmetrically c-commands C, and CP asymmetrically c-commands B. This gives rise to the set A in (10), and its image under the function d. We see that d(A) contains the contradictory ordering <b, c> and <c, b>, and the derivation crashes.

(10)	{<AP, B>,<AP, CP>, <AP, C>, <BP, C>, <CP, B>}

(11)	{<a, b>, <a, c>, <b, c>, <c, b>}

Such a simple and tight proposal has several consequences for phrase structure, expounded upon in Kayne (1994) and Bianchi (1999). One major consequence is the shape of phrase structure. The traditional distinction between specifiers and adjuncts is neutralized, and only one specifier may appear in a given phrase (i.e., multiple specifiers are banned, though see footnote 4). The order of the elements in a phrase is universally Spec-Head-Complement. Furthermore, right-adjunction is impossible.

4. Dynamic Antisymmetry

Recall that one of Kayne’s goals of Antisymmetry was to derive X-Bar Theory. As such, Kayne reasoned that the LCA holds at all levels of grammar since it was assumed that X-Bar Theory holds at all levels of grammar (i.e., DS, SS, LF). With the demise of X-Bar Theory in favour of a derivational theory of phrase structure, (namely, Bare Phrase Structure, which we discuss further below), the idea emerged that violations of the LCA are tolerated in the syntax, as long as they are (promptly) repaired. Chomsky suggested this early on in a brief discussion on Romance clitics (Chomsky 1995b:337). Also, Alexiadou (1997) suggests that adverb incorporation in Greek arises by the need to eliminate an LCA violation.

Moro (2000, 2004) formalizes these ideas into his “Dynamic Antisymmetry” research program, arguing that the LCA is a purely PF constraint (since linearization is required only by the articulatory-perceptual system. Moro discusses three specific contexts in which we find symmetric c-command, two of which were discussed above.

In these three examples, the elements in the ovals c-command each other. Moro proposes that this symmetry acts as a trigger for movement. In fact, Moro strengthens this and argues that symmetry, not morphology (i.e., uninterpretable features and the like), serves as the sole trigger for movement. When two elements are in a configuration of symmetric c-command, one of them must raise to a higher position to break this point of symmetry. Moro illustrates this with equative constructions such as in the following pair.

(13)	a.	The winner of the race is the man with the green hat.
	b.	The man with the green hat is the winner of the race.

Under Moro’s analysis, the two DPs the winner of the race and the man with the green hat c-command each other forcing one to raise. In this case, either DP can raise. In other situations, certain properties of the grammar will dictate that one of the two elements must raise.

Dynamic Antisymmetry has made a more modest impact on current syntactic research than the general Antisymmetric program, but its influences certainly are not absent (Baauw 1998; Barrie 2011; Guasti and Moro 2001; Hsieh and Sybesma 2007). One area I discuss briefly is noun incorporation (Barrie 2011). There I proposed that noun incorporation takes place as a symmetry breaking operation between the verbal root and the incorporated object (N). Consider the following hypothetical structures.

First, in (14)b, note that the verbal root and the DP object c-command each other, thus no linearization can take place directly between these two items. The verbal root does, however, asymmetrically c-command the material inside the DP (indicated as …X… here). No movement is required to satisfy the LCA. In (14)a, on the other hand, the verbal root and the nominal c-command each other. I proposed that this point of symmetry is resolved immediately by the N raising to SpecVP.

Among other things, this proposal captures the fact that noun incorporation constructions appear with the order N-V more frequently than V-N (Caballero et al. 2008).

5. Antisymmetry and Bare Phrase Structure

Given the definitions above, classical Antisymmetry is clearly incompatible with Bare Phrase Structure (Chomsky 1995a), a point that has been echoed several times in the literature (Barrie 2011; Oishi 2003; Richards 2008, 2010; Uriagereka 1999). There are two specific kinds of problems in dealing with the incompatibility between these two proposals. The first deals with the definitions used for defining the notions used for Antisymmetry (notably, c-command), and the second deals with the kinds of structures BPS imposes on the grammar. I discuss these in turn.

Recall that for Kayne c-command (and hence, the LCA) is defined only over categories and not over terminals. The distinction between a terminal and a category does not exist in BPS. BPS does, however, provide the notions of lexical item (LI) and syntactic object (SO). Uriagereka (1999) proposes that the LCA is evaluated only over LIs. He uses this fact to capture subject and adjunct island effects (Nunes and Uriagereka 2000). Richards (2001) and Barrie (2011) have argued that the LCA is evaluated over SOs rather than on LIs. Recently, Kayne (2011) has derived the universal order Spec-Head-Complement based on other properties of the grammar, thereby obviating the need for the LCA as a constraint on linearization (and obviating the problems in this section).

The other difficulty that BPS poses for Antisymmetry (specifically for the LCA) is apparent at the outset of the derivation. All tree structures start with the initial merger of two heads, forming a point of symmetry in Moro’s words. Thus, for Moro, the initial merger of two heads triggers raising; however, under a non-Dynamic view of Antisymmetry this is a fatal problem. This “initial merger” problem has been addressed in a variety of ways, of which I mention three.

Guimarães (2000) suggests allowing vacuous projections via “self-merge”. Assuming that all operations, including Merge, are costly, self-merge takes place only when necessary – i.e., at the start of the derivation. In the following structure, x has undergone self-merge to avoid a point of symmetry. Note that this requires some degree of look-ahead, however (see Barrie 2011 for discussion).⁶

Richards (2008) argues for a weakened view of Antisymmetry. Specifically, he argues that the symmetric c-command between a head and its complement is resolved by a parameterized choice between the two possible orders. This harks back to the traditional Headedness Parameter of Stowell (1981) and Travis (1984), of course, with one difference, however. The parameter is specifically a by-product of the LCA violation inherent in the structural relation between the head and its complement. Richards suggests that the asymmetric relation between a specifier on the one hand and the head and specifier on the other allows the LCA to universally order the specifier on the left.

6. Antisymmetry and Typology

More recently, Kayne (2003, 2009a,b, 2011) has argued that the Antisymmetry Program has important implications for typological research (though some of these points were made early on in his 1994 monograph). Kayne points out numerous typological gaps in the world’s languages that, under a headedness parameter, are mysterious, but that fall out naturally under an Antisymmetric view of syntax. This program of research was first laid out in Kayne (2003).⁷ Kayne argues that a Headedness approach to syntax predicts that we should find the mirror image of existing languages. That is, we should find “reverse-English” or “reverse-Japanese”. To date, no such languages have been found. Kayne argues that this is preliminary evidence that Antisymmetry is on the right track and outlines several instances where mirror-image properties are simply not found. I mention a few here, but leave the reader to explore the references above to obtain specific details.

Some logical gaps in word order possibilities include the following. There are many VO languages that prohibit an adverb from intervening between the verb and the object; however, there are no OV languages that have such a prohibition. Also, there seem to be many OVX languages (where X is any VP-internal adjunct such as locative PPs or adverbs), but there seem to be no XVO languages. Along the same vein, in Barrie (2009) I suggested that certain aspects of OVS order fall out naturally from an Antisymmetric perspective. Specifically, I argue that, while OXV is widespread in SOV languages, it is absent in OVS languages. I leave the reader to consult the references cited for the precise mechanics of how these facts are captured under an Antisymmetric approach.

Other approaches to typological studies grounded in Antisymmetry have looked at nominal constructions and serial verb constructions. Cinque (2005) examines Greenberg’s Universal 20, which deals with universal properties of the order of demonstratives, numerals, adjective and noun inside a noun phrase. He proposes that Greenberg’s Universal 20 can be captured under an Antisymmetric framework (though see Abels and Neeleman 2009 for a critical review). Carstens (2002) undertook a cross-linguistic examination of serial verb constructions (SVC), showing that the order of elements in SVCs in head-final languages is not the mirror image of those in head-initial languages. She shows that the uniformity in the structure of SVCs falls out naturally from an Antisymmetric view of syntax.

7. Some Consequences of Antisymmetry

Recall that one of the features of Antisymmetry is that right-adjunction is impossible. Several phenomena that have traditionally relied on right adjunction have had to be rethought in light of this. We will look at two of these in some detail here: relative clauses and adverbs. I end with a discussion on postpositions.

As stated, relative clauses have traditionally been assumed to be right-adjoined to NPs.

Kayne’s (1994) solution was to resurrect Vergnaud’s (1974) idea that the head of an externally headed relative clause actually originates inside the relative clause itself. Kayne’s proposed analysis for the construction in (17) is as follows.⁸

Some of the evidence proffered for this analysis comes from idioms (which Vergnaud himself first offered) and restrictive relative clauses that modify proper nouns.

(19)	a.	the advantage we took of that poor fool
	b.	the Toronto I knew thirty years ago

Under the assumption that relative clauses constitute material that is optional and distinct from the head [as the structure in (17) suggests], the constructions in (19) are somewhat of a mystery. In particular, it is unclear how the idiomatic reading on “take advantage” could arise if their parts are merged in separate domains (one inside the relative clause and the other outside of it). Also, expressions such as “the Toronto” are ill-formed without the relative clause attached. Note, however, that the data in (19) receive a straightforward explanation under Kayne’s proposed structure in (18). Bianchi (1999) offers one of the most in depth treatments of relative clauses within an Antisymmetric framework.

The traditional analysis of adverbs (defended most recently in Ernst 2002), holds that they are either left-adjoined or right-adjoined to whatever projection they modify. While left-adjoined adverbs in principle can be maintained, right-adjoined ones cannot.⁹ Thus, it is sentence-final adverbs in particular that require some special treatment.

Larson (2004) examines the traditional, right-adjunction analysis of sentence-final adverbs in detail and argues that such an analysis has several problems that are alleviated by adopting a Larsonian Shell (Larson 1988) analysis for sentence final-adverbs. Thus, Larson proposes the following structure (external argument not shown).

Finally, one of the most controversial aspects of Antisymmetry is its treatment of postpositions. Kayne (2003) posits a series of intricate movements to derive the correct order for postpositional phrases and non-finite clauses. These complex derivations extend to SVO languages, too. Consider, then, the derivation for the phrase looking at us first.

(21)	[PP [VP looking ti]j at [KP [DP us]i K tj]]

For postpositions, Kayne posits a ghost P head (labelled P’) with the following derivation. Note that English words appear in the following generic pre-verbal postpositional phrase. Note that the K head intervenes between the DP and the postposition, giving the order DP-K-P, which is the generally observed order in languages with both overt case marking and postpositions.

(22)	[PP [KP [DP us]i K tj]k at [P’P [VP looking ti]j P’tk]

What is noteworthy about these structures is that the string at us and its equivalent in the postpositional phrase construction is not a constituent. Observe that the pre-/post-position is merged above the VP and that the verb takes the DP in question as a complement directly. This rather strange state of affairs, Kayne argues, is tied to another observation concerning word order in non-finite clauses. Kayne notes that non-finite adjuncts display verb-final order far more frequently than non-finite complements in Estonian and Finnish. He argues an external property of a clause (whether it’s selected or not) can play a role in an internal property of a clause (verb-finality) only if we give up the traditional notion of a CP as a constituent. Likewise, he proposes derivations for such clauses similar to those shown above for PPs. Returning to PPs, Kayne argues that an internal property of PPs (prepositions versus postpositions) is correlated to an external property of PPs (pre-verbal versus post-verbal). Kayne relates this common fact about non-finite clauses and PPs, that is, the fact that internal properties of these elements are sensitive to external properties, to the discontinuous structure of the PP and CP.

8. Criticisms of Antisymmetry

Antisymmetry is not without its detractors and critics. For many, the highly complex derivations and seemingly unmotivated slew of movement operations are enough to shelve this hypothesis. More serious critiques of this hypothesis go beyond the simple aesthetics of the trees, however. I discuss some of these issues here.

As Abels (2008) notes, the LCA has the potential to be a “restrictive and predictive theory”, but only in the context of a restrictive theory of movement. Richards (2004, 2008) echoes the same concerns. In essence, Abels and Richards argue that an unconstrained view of movement renders the Antisymmetric program indefeasible. Specifically, Richards argues that with a few simple movements beyond those that Kayne argues, we can derive the very structures that Kayne is trying to rule out. An immediate, albeit unsatisfying response is that a restrictive theory of movement coupled with an unrestricted theory of phrase structure (aka Headedness and free left- and right-adjunction) is equally unpredictive. Of course, what we want is both a restrictive theory of phrase structure and a restrictive theory of movement, and it seems to me that attacking the problem on both ends is a worth-while scientific endeavour.

Borsley (1997) has pointed out several troublesome aspects of Kayne’s analysis of relative clauses. Despite the interesting evidence in favour of the NP raising account, Borsley offers substantial evidence that the gap in the relative clause is a DP trace and not an NP trace. He adduces evidence from the ability of the gap to induce Condition B effects, to control PRO, and to licence parasitic gaps. He suggests an analysis in which a full DP (rather than a bare NP) raises from argument position; however, he notes that some filter would be needed to ensure that both D heads are not filled. He also notes that Kayne’s analysis is problematic for Case. The gap in the relative clause is in one Case position; however, the full DP occupies its own Case position. Thus, the nominal appears to be assigned Case twice. Borsley notes other troublesome aspects of the raising analysis of relative clauses; however, I restrict my attention to these points here.

Bianchi (2000) addresses the concerns raised by Borsley. First, she notes that the two instances of D are in a local relation and suggests they merge via abstract incorporation. Under this configuration, together they license the insertion of a single overt determiner. In Bianchi (1999) she pursues an in depth analysis of relative clauses in which a DP raises rather than an NP as originally suggested by Kayne. She employs this enhanced structure to address Borsley’s concern about Case assignment. The following Polish example illustrates more clearly the problem mentioned above and Bianchi’s solution.

(23)	Widziałem	tego pana	który	zbił	ci	szybę.
	I.saw	the man.acc	who.nom	broke	your	glass
	‘I saw the man who broke your glass.’

Borsley suggests that the D/N complex should suffer a Case clash of sorts or somehow violate the Case Filter as it appears to be assigned Case twice. Bianchi, however, exploits the double DP structure adopted above, and argues that each DP is assigned Case independently of the other (despite the fact that they incorporate for the purposes of insertion of a single determiner). Borsley and Bianchi discuss additional aspects of relative clauses as they relate to Antisymmetry; however, lack of space precludes further discussion.

Sheehan (2011) offers an in depth discussion of extraposition within the context of Antisymmetry. Since Ross (1967) extraposition is traditionally considered to be a kind of rightward movement, impossible within Antisymmetry. Sheehan concentrates on relative clause extraposition and complement extraposition.

(24)	a.	A new film has just come out [that everyone wants to see].
	b.	A new picture has just been published [of Madonna].

Despite the problems these structures raise for the Antisymmetry program, Sheehan offers an analysis of these two types of constructions. She adapts Koster’s (2000) Antisymmetry-compliant parallel construal analysis for relative clause extraposition. Parallel construal is a kind of conjuction in which the “extraposed” relative clause is conjoined with a larger element (VP or TP) containing the DP associated with the relative clause. Again, I leave the precise details to the reader. For complement extraposition, Sheehan adapts Uriagereka’s version of the LCA and offers a scattered deletion account of this phenomenon. As briefly alluded to above, Uriagereka’s version of the LCA holds that all specifiers must undergo Spell-Out in order to be linearized. Sheehan demonstrates that derived specifiers can, under limited circumstances, escape obligatory Spell-Out since a lower copy exists to allow for linearization. In this case, though, the two copies of the derived specifier must undergo scattered deletion. Thus, the derivation of (24)b goes as follows.

(25)

Sheehan derives a whole host of properties of extraposed complements with this analysis. I leave the reader to look up the references cited for more details on this proposal.

Finally, Richards (2008:281) notes problematic aspects with respect to scope. Given Antisymmetry, it can never be the case that an element scopes over another object to its left. Richards notes exactly this kind of scenario in Japanese. He shows that an accusative object obligatorily takes scope under a negative marker, which appears to the right of the object.

(26)	Taroo-ga	zen’in-o	osie-rare-nakat-ta
	Taro-nom	all-acc	teach-can-neg-past
	= (i) ‘It’s not the case that Taro was able to teach all of them.’			[neg> all]
	≠ (ii) ‘It’s all of them that Taro was not able to teach.’?			[all >neg]

This argument tacitly assumes that the overt position of the elements in the clause is also where the elements are interpreted at LF. One could imagine that the quantifier, when marked with accusative Case, is obligatorily interpreted in situ (i.e., below neg), and thus the problem is only apparent. This glib suggestion is not meant to undermine the importance of examples such as (26), however. Richards raises a legitimate line of evidence that presents an important challenge to Antisymmetry, which deserves further scrutiny.

9. Summary

Kayne’s original proposal relating linear order to structure has since gone well beyond a simple account of linearization. We have seen that Antisymmetry impinges on typology and that the research program receives support from otherwise mysterious typological gaps in language. Antisymmetry also impinges on the study of parameters. Kayne, following Chomsky, assumes that parameterization is restricted to the Lexicon and that the syntax module is uniform cross-linguistically. This contrasts with the earlier that linear order effects are parameterized into head-final and head-initial languages. This kind of parametric approach is still being pursued, of course, notably by Baker (2001, 2008). Finally, Moro examined the effects of Antisymmetry within Narrow Syntax and developed his Dynamic Antisymmetry program to deal with the problem of displacement. In sum, Antisymmetry has played an active role in many areas of grammar that are still under active discussion, giving rise to numerous cross-linguistic research programs on these phenomena. Despite its wide-scale acceptance into generative grammar, Antisymmetry is not without its critics. Regardless, the Antisymmetry program has sparked numerous studies in morphology and syntax that have reached far beyond Kayne’s original proposal on linear order.

Footnotes

• *

   Correspondence address: Michael Barrie, Department of English Language and Literature, Sogang University, Shinsu-dong 1, Mapo-gu, 121-742, Room J902, Seoul, Korea. E-mail: [e-mail]

• 1

   Of course SOV and SVO language do not exhaust the possibility of basic word order. For discussions on verb-initial languages see Carnie and Guilfoyle (2000), and for the vanishingly rare object-initial languages, see Derbyshire (1977) and Derbyshire and Pullum (1981). Many languages are also described as not having a basic word order (e.g. Hale 1983).

• 2

   Note, however, that there have been attempts to formalize the “Spec-left” property of grammar (Oishi 2003; Richards 2008).

• 3

   There are other proposals that refer to directionality in phrase structure and yet are sensitive to Antisymmetry. One recent proposal of note is the Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC), which restricts the combinations of directions in which phrases can appear together (Biberauer and Sheehan forthcoming; Biberauer et al. forthcoming).

• 4

   Guimarães (2008) argues that some constructions with multiple specifiers are actually compliant with the LCA. This is true only if one of the specifiers is a head and if there is no higher head that selects the XP with multiple specifiers as a complement. As we will we will see below, multiple specifiers are permitted in Dynamic Antisymmetry (as long as any point of symmetry that is formed is subsequently removed).

• 5

   Note that the DP in (9) does not have a head. The inadmissibility of this kind of structure can be used to derive endocentricity. Thus, just as Kayne removes X’-Theory as a primitive from UG, deriving it instead from the LCA, endocentricity can also be removed as a primitive from UG. See Moro (2000), however, who uses the point of symmetry in the structure in (9) for small clauses. See Guimarães (2008) for related discussion, though.

• 6

   Kayne (2009a) exploits Guimarães’ proposal to suggest that the noun/verb distinction falls out from Antisymmetry.

• 7

   Readers who are interested in Japanese are warned that they will find none in this inappropriately named paper.

• 8

   See Kayne for details on relative clauses introduced by overt relative pronouns such as which or who.

• 9

   I address only sentence-final adverbs here, see Cinque (1999) for a general treatment of adverbs within an Antisymmetric framework. Cinque (2010) offers a similar treatment for adjectives.

Short Biography

Michael Barrie is an assistant professor at Sogang University in Seoul. He did his dissertation on Dynamic Antisymmetry and noun incorporation in 2006 at the University of Toronto, which was published by Springer. His main research interests are Minimalist theory, linearization, and Iroquoian syntax. Mike is also an avid chorister.

Acknowledgement

I wish to thank the participants of various conferences for probing questions which have helped me to understand various aspects of linearization better. All errors and shortcomings in the discussion are mine.