대한언어학회 전자저널

Kim, Dae-Ik. (2023). Is verb movement as a syntactic operation illegitimate? The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 31(4). 35-55. The Verb movement has appeared in many versions of generative grammar and the minimalist program. In GB as an instance of Move-α, verb movement was thought to be subject to standard well-formedness conditions applying to syntax. However, in the case of adjunction of a lower head to a higher head, verb movement operation violates several well-motivated constraints on syntactic structure, thus leading to Chomskys (2001) claim that head movement can be attributed to PF and later the Chomskys (2021) claim that verb movement takes place in the morphological component under Merge system. In this article, I argue that verb movement operation is a syntactic one and show how to deal with the problems raised by adjunction analysis in syntax. Moreover among the three recent approaches designed to get rid of multi-dominance caused by verb movement adjunction it is concluded that Kims (2023) labeling algorithm approach (amalgamating X0 and Y0 if X0 intersects Y0) is preferred to the others, showing that this approach is totally compliant with the standardly suggested minimalism.

# 동사이동(verb movement) # 통사부(syntax) # 음성부(PF) # 의미부(LF) # 최소주의(minimalism) # 병합(Merge) # 다중지배(multi-dominance) # 어순 공리(LCA) # 혼합체(amalgamation) # 인접(adjunction)

• 김대익. (2021). 동사이동과 짝병합. 현대문법연구, 60, 47-68.
• Baker, M. (1985). The mirror principle and the morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 373-415.
• Baltin, M. (2002). Movement to the higher V is remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 653-669.
• Boeckx, C., & Stjepanović, S. (2001). Head-ing towards PF. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 345-355.
• Brody, M. (2000). Mirror principle. Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 29-56.
• Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
• Chomsky, N. (1991). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. ms. MIT. [Reprinted in The minimalist program, (pp. 129-166). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995.]
• Chomsky, N. (1993). Minimalist program for linguistic theory. ms. MIT.
• Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-157). Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phrase, In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language (pp. 1-53). Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy in structures and beyond. In A. Belletti (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures (pp. 104-131). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33-49.
• Chomsky, N. (2015). Problems of projection: extensions. In E. Domentico, C. Hamann & S. Matteini (Eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: studies in honor of Adrian Belletti (pp. 3-16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Chomsky, N. (2019). Some puzzling foundational issues: The reading program. Catalan Journal of Linguistics. Special Issue, Generative syntax: questions, crossroads, and challenge (pp. 263-285). https://revistes.uab.cat/catJL/article/view/sp2019-chomsky
• Chomsky, N. (2021). Minimalism: where are we now, and where can we hope to go. Gengo Kenkyu, 160, 1-41.
• Chomsky, N. (2023). The miracle creed and SMT. ms. (to appear).
• Citko, B. (2005). On the nature of merge: external merge; internal merge, and parallel merge. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 475-96.
• Dékány, É. (2018). Approaches to head movement: a critical assessment. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(65), 1-43.
• Edmonds, J. (1978). The verbal complex V′- V in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 151-175. Fiengo, R. (1977). On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 35-62.
• Grodzinsky, Y., & Finkel, L. (1998). The neurology of empty categories aphasics' failure to detect ungrammaticality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(2), 281-292.
• Kayne. S. (1989). Notes on English agreement. Unpublished manuscript. New York: Graduate Center, CUNY.
• Lapointe, S. (1980). A lexical analysis of the English auxiliary verb system. In T. Hoekstra, H. van der Hulst & M. Moortgat (Eds.), Lexical Grammar, 215(54). Dordrexcht: Foris.
• Lecher, W. (2005). Interpretive effects of head movement. Unpublished manuscript. University of Tübinggen.
• Matushansky, O. (2006). Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 69-109.
• Moro, A., & Roberts I. (2023). The duality of syntax: unstable structures, labelling and linearization. Unpublished manuscript.
• Pollock, J. Y. (1989). Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365-424.
• Schoorlemmer, E., & Temmerman, T. (2012). Head movement as a PF phenomenon: evidence from identity under ellipsis. In C. Jaehoon, E. Hogue, J. Punske, D. Tat, J. Schertz & A. Trueman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 232–240). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
• Roberts, I. (2010). Head movement and the minimalist program. Unpublished manuscript.
• Omune, J. (2019). A merge-based approach to head adjunction. Journal of Inquiry and Research, 109, 167-185.
• Ouhalla, J. (1991). Functional categories and parametric variation. New York: Routledge.
• Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation. doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA