REVIEW ARTICLE ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT KAZUKI KUWABARA Kanda University of International Studies* Dynamic Antisymmetry, by Andrea Moro, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000, xi+142pp. Keywords: antisymmetry, bare small clauses, copular sentences, multiple- spec constructions, split wh-movement 1. Introduction Displacement and phrase structure are specific properties of human languages, both of which have been foci of inquiries in the history of generative grammar. In the current theoretical framework, these two are generally assumed to be independent properties. For example, within the minimalist program, the displacement property of language is related to morphology: movement is regarded as a way to wipe out uninterpretable features of lexical items that do not feed the conceptual-intentional component (Chomsky (1995b)). On the other hand, the notion of phrase structure is assumed to be derived from the principles regulating the operation "Merge" (Chomsky (1995b)) or the mapping between hierachical structure and linear order (Kayne (1994)). This monograph by Andrea Moro is a collection of interesting and ambitious case studies that provides a new perspective on two central aspects of natural language, namely, movement and phrase structure. In particular, Moro explores the hypothesis that movement is triggered * I am grateful to anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments and sug- gestions on an earlier version of this article, and to Fujie Sakai for her encourage- ment and support. I would also like to thank Bruce Horton for acting as an infor- mant and Kate Allen for stylistic improvements. All remaining errors and inade- quacies are, of course, my own. English Linguistics 20: 1 (2003) 274-298 -274- (C) 2003 by the English Linguistic Society of Japan ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 275 by the factors associated with the geometry of phrase structure as opposed to those associated with morphology. In the discussion that follows, I will concentrate on four empirical domains to which the theory of dynamic antisymmetry has been applied and discuss some problematic aspects of their analyses. This paper is organized as fol- lows. In Section 2, I will present an overview of the theory of dy- namic antisymmetry. Section 3 considers the analyses of copular sen- tences and split wh-movement, and discusses their potential problems. In Section 4, I will examine two instances of a multiple-spec construc- tion. Section 5 will address some general questions that emerge from the theory of dynamic antisymmetry. Section 6 concludes the paper. 2. The Weak Version of LCA and Movement Before proceeding, let us take a brief overview of the central aspects of Kayne's (1994) theory of phrase structure, on which Moro's work is based. It has been generally assumed that linear order and hierachical structure are independent properties. Thus, any given hierarchy can be associated with more than one linear order. However, interlocking these two properties, Kayne proposed a theory of phrase structure which aims at deriving the major properties of X-bar theory from a single axiom called Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). The basic idea of the LCA is that hierarchy and precedence are not independent, but each can be mapped onto the other. More specifically, the LCA states that given two nonterminals, X and Y, and the terminals they dominate, x and y, if X asymmetrically c-commands Y, x precedes y.1 To illustrate how the theory works, let us concentrate on the specific configuration that is excluded by the LCA. A structure like (1) in which a phrase K exhaustively dominates two nonterminals (M and P) is ruled out. 1In Kayne's theory, the notion of c-command is defined as follows: (i) X c-commands Y iff X and Y are categories and X excludes Y and every category that dominates X dominates Y. (Kayne (1994: 16)) This definition of c-command exclusively referring to categories rather than segments provides us with important consequences that there is no distinction between ad- juncts and specifiers, and they can occur only once in each phrase. I will come back to this aspect of the theory in Sections 4.1-2. 276 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003) (1) In (1), the nonterminal M asymmetrically c-commands the nonterminal Q, and the nonterminal P also asymmetrically c-commands the nonter- minal N. Therefore, the terminals dominated by M and P would not be linearly ordered. Following Moro, I will call this offending struc- ture 'a point of symmetry.' Note here that the LCA, which excludes the structure in (1), has the effect of deriving part of the basic tenet of the X-bar theory that all phrases be headed.2 Kayne assumes that the LCA holds at all levels of representations, according to which a con- figuration like (1) would never be generated. However, given that the organization of words into linear order is a PF phenomenon, it is possi- ble to regard the LCA as a condition applying at PF. This interpreta- tion of the LCA is also desirable in the light of the minimalist thesis that all conditions must be related to either one of the interface levels (PF and LF). Adopting this weak version of the LCA, Moro, argues for the following conjecture: (2) Movement is driven by the search for antisymmetry.3 According to (2), movement is regarded as a device to nullify the point of symmetry. In other words, whenever a symmetrical structure like (1) is generated, movement intervenes to rescue the structure by turn- ing one of the elements (i.e. either M or P) constituting the point of symmetry into a phonetically empty element (trace), which by defini- tion is not visible in the linear sequence at PF.4 In Chapter 3, Moro identifies three types of configurations given in (3), and considers spe- cific constructions corresponding to them: 2 For the discussion on how the LCA derives other properties of the X-bar theory, see Kayne (1994) and Cinque (1996). 3 The term "dynamic antisymmetry," which is the title of the book under review, comes from the approach that links the antisymmetry hypothesis with the theory of movement. 4 For the non-visibility of traces, see Kayne (1994: 133, n. 3) and Chomsky (1995b: 337). ANTISYMMETRY, LINEARIZATION AND MOVEMENT 277 (3) a. b. C. According to Moro, (3a) is an instance of small clauses, (3b) multiple- spec constructions, and (3c) clitic complementation. Given the weak version of the LCA, the structures in (3) are toler- ated before linearization is required. A question is whether these structures can indeed be generated. The answer to this question has to do with the properties of a syntactic operation, Merge. Merge is a basic syntactic operation that takes two distinct constituents α and β as input and yields a larger constituent K as output. What is the label for K ? According to Chomsky (1995b: 241-249), there are only two op- tions, which can be represented as (4): (4) ∀ α, β, Merge yields K: a. K={α, {α, β}} b. K={<α, α>, {α, β}} The elements contained in the braces are the constituents of the phrase, and the rest is the label of the phrase itself. According to (4), the label of the resulting constituent can be either simple as in (4a) (either α or β, a case of substitution) or complex as in (4b) (the ordered pair of the projecting element <α, α>, a case of adjunction). As it can be seen from the labeling, the essential property of Merge is that the label of the resulting constituent is formed by adding no new information with respect to the features of α and β.5 Let us now con- sider whether Merge can generate the structures given in (3). Merge can generate (3b) and (3c) without any problems: in both (3b) and (3c), either α or β is projected. In contrast, (3a) appears to be prob- lematic, since two maximal projections are merged to yield a new max- imal projection that is neither YP nor ZP. Specifically, (3a) (in this case, the label XP) does not correspond to any of the choices in (4). However, Moro argues that there is a third option to be added for the 5 Another defining property of Merge is that there are no "mixed" labels com- posed by the hybrid information of the two items merged. 278 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 20, NO. 1 (2003) label of K, which is given below:6 (4) c. K={<0> {α, β}} (4c) illustrates the case where the newly formed constituent is under- specified with respect to the features of α and β. Notice that this oP- tion does not run against the property of Merge, since neither α nor β projects. Moro argues that the small clauses to be discussed below in- stantiate the third option given in (4c). On intuitive grounds, small clauses form syntactic units (Williams (1975)), but may not have the same distribution of either of their subparts. Thus, small clauses can be regarded as a result of merging α and β when neither of them pro- sects. Moro takes up a variety of constructions corresponding to one of the abstract structures in (3), which are heterogeneous in nature. In this article, I would like to concentrate on the instances of (3a) and (3b) and their analyses, which I think are related to each other and are the central focus of the book. In particular, I will discuss the analyses and problems of English copular sentences, split wh-movement, subject- object asymmetry in root wh-questions with respect to Subject-Aux In- version, and Italian copular sentences. 3. Bare Small Clauses 3.1. Copular Sentences Let us consider a pair of sentences like (5), in which we find two DPs around a copular verb.