Spelling Out the Noun Phrase: Interpretation, Word Order, and the Problem of ‘Meaningless Movement’ David Hall Doctoral Dissertation Queen Mary, University of London September 2015 Abstract This thesis is an investigation of the nature of the syntax-semantics and syntax- phonology interfaces, focusing on the noun phrase. It is argued that, under the assumption that the mapping between syntax and semantics is homomorphic, employing movement operations which do not have semantic effects as an explanatory tool for understanding word-order variation cross- linguistically is undesirable. I argue for the non-existence of head movement as a narrow syntactic operation, on the grounds that it does not produce semantic effects, and I explain apparent head movement effects in terms of the nature of the spell-out operation which maps syntactic structure to phonology. A Direct Linearization theory is proposed in which word-order effects pur- ported to be the result of movement can be derived without appeal to any narrow syntactic operations; the explanatory burden shifts onto the mapping from syntax to phonology, which allows more than one head in a continuous complement line to be spelled out as a single morphological unit; morphologi- cal words can spell out at different positions along the extended projection of a root, giving rise to word order variation. I support these claims with two empirical case studies: Queen Mary’s OPAL #35 Occasional Papers Advancing Linguistics Statement of originality I, David Hall, confirm that the research included within this thesis is my own work or that where it has been carried out in collaboration with, or supported by others, that this is duly acknowledged below and my contribution indicated. Previously published material is also acknowledged below. IattestthatIhaveexercisedreasonablecaretoensurethattheworkisoriginal, and does not to the best of my knowledge break any UK law, infringe any third party’s copyright or other Intellectual Property Right, or contain any confidential material. I accept that the College has the right to use plagiarism detection software to check the electronic version of the thesis. Iconfirmthatthisthesishasnotbeenpreviouslysubmittedfortheawardof adegreebythisoranyotheruniversity. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. Signature: Date: 11/09/2015 1 Acknowledgements Firstly I thank David Adger, who has been a truly spectacular supervisor and mentor to me since I wandered into the world of Linguistics four years ago. Without his enthusiasm and support I would never have even started this PhD, and it is certainly in no small way due to his efforts that I have been able to finish it. There has never been a time when he has not had something interesting or challenging to say about my work (or anything else for that matter), and I cannot thank him enough for that. IthankmysecondsupervisorHagitBorerforhersupportandfeedback, and for her absolutely inspiring syntax lectures. Hagit has the ability to force you to look at what you considered to be basic concepts in an entirely new light, and from different angles that you would never have thought of. Her teaching has completely changed the way that I think about our field, and Iconsidermyselfincrediblyluckytohavebeentaughtbysuchaninspiring linguist. I would also like to thank Paul Elbourne, Daniel Harbour, Luisa Martí and Linnaea Stockall for their teaching, knowledge, insight, intelligence and wit. Being surrounded by such a brilliant group of linguists has been incredibly stimulating and fun, and the variety of approaches to the study of language that each of them has has forced me to constantly question my assumptions and methods, and to try to tackle problems from a variety of different angles. Ifinditcompletelyfascinatingthattherecouldexistagroupofindividuals who manage to almost completely agree with each other while simultaneously violently disagreeing with each other. Somehow, they manage to pull it off. To (in no particular order) Fryni, Tom, Annette, Catherine, Fangfang, Christina, Orm, Panpan, Abigael, Danniella, Chen, Anne, Zoe, Melisa, Shiv- onne, Dimitra, Reem and past LingLab members Eva, Philippa, Agnieszka, John, Rachelle, Barb, Sarah, Ricardo and Paula: thank you all for being a great team! It has been an absolute pleasure meeting and getting to know you all, and it really has helped having a bunch of wonderful intelligent people 3 around me every day. Special thanks go to Annette Zhao, Christina Liu, Fang- fang Niu and Panpan Yao for putting up with my endless judgement tasks, and to Cherry Lam, Sara Leung and Joanna Wat for help with Cantonese judge- ments. Very special thanks to Fryni and Tom, my PhD soulmates: you’ve made my time at Queen Mary so much more fun than it likely would have been. Finally, thanks to my friends and family. To my mum for being such an excellent parent and human being; everything I am and everything I have achieved is thanks to your hard work, strength and love. To my brother Patrick for being a great friend (with great hair), and to Dan, John, and Yok for being abunchoftopbr’ers.Last,buttheoppositeofleast,thankyoutoSonokofor being a very supportive and generally wonderful person. I love you all. 4 Contents Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 3 1Theinterfacesandtheproblemof‘meaninglessmovement’ 8 1.1 Minimalism and syntax-semantics mapping . 8 1.1.1 A homomorphic mapping from syntax to semantics . 10 1.1.2 Minimalism and the simplification of UG . 13 1.1.3 Word order and interpretation in the DP . 17 1.2 ‘Meaningless movement’ . 19 1.2.1 Phrasal word-order movement . 20 1.2.2 Head movement . 25 1.2.3 Thewayforward ...................... 30 1.3 Summary . 32 2Spell-out:ExtendedProjections,Spans,andLinearization 34 2.1 Mirror Theory: Morphology mirrors syntax . 35 2.1.1 Telescoped representations and Mirror . 35 2.1.2 Advantages of Mirror Theory . 39 2.1.3 Extending Mirror Theory: Brody and Szabolcsi . 41 2.1.4 Summary of Mirror Theory . 46 2.2 Ways of making ‘words’ and ‘phrases’ . 49 2.2.1 Mirror and Wiggle . 49 2.2.2 Bye and Svenonius 2012 . 52 2.2.3 Adger 2013 . 58 2.2.4 A many-to-one mapping: Spans . 59 2.3 Roots and extended projections . 63 2.3.1 Merge,ProjectandBundle. 64 2.3.2 Merge all the way down . 67 2.3.3 Interim summary . 76 5 2.4 Adopting a system . 76 2.4.1 The functional sequence and extended projections . 77 2.4.2 Wiggle, and Spear, but no Chop . 80 2.4.3 Position of spell-out and linearization . 83 2.5 Conclusion.............................. 84 2.A Appendix: The Head-Final Filter . 87 3AgainstSemanticallyActiveHeadMovement 93 3.1 Introduction . 93 3.2 Roberts: Head movement and NPI licensing . 94 3.2.1 Roberts’s theory of clitic incorporation and head movement 97 3.2.2 Problems with the account . 102 3.3 Benedicto: Verb movement and DP interpretation . 106 3.3.1 Problems with the analysis . 111 3.3.2 Further problems . 115 3.4 Lechner on split scope and modal movement . 117 3.4.1 Background assumptions . 118 3.4.2 Analysis . 123 3.4.3 Discussion . 124 3.5 Hartman 2011: Traces of head movement as semantic variables . 134 3.5.1 Ellipsis Parallelism and trace binding . 135 3.5.2 Head movement leaves a trace . 137 3.5.3 Messick and Thoms 2014: An alternative . 140 3.5.4 Discussion . 143 3.5.5 Summary . 144 3.6 Conclusion.............................. 144 4NounphraseinterpretationinMandarinChineseandCan- tonese 146 4.1 Introduction . 146 4.2 Noun phrase interpretation . 147 4.2.1 Mandarin Chinese - A ‘Type A’ classifier language . 149 4.2.2 Cantonese – a ‘Type B’ classifier language . 152 4.2.3 Classifiers and number . 153 4.2.4 Summary . 159 4.3 The syntax and semantics of the extended nominal projection . 160 4.3.1 Licensing definiteness . 162 4.3.2 Projectingtheclassifier. 164 6 4.3.3 Structures . 170 4.3.4 Summary . 175 4.4 Modifier position and interpretation . 175 4.4.1 Two classes of modifier . 175 4.4.2 Canonical and non-canonical modifier positioning . 182 4.4.3 Properties previously discussed in the literature . 185 4.4.4 Scope interactions . 188 4.4.5 Uniqueness/inclusiveness presupposition . 190 4.4.6 Restrictions on modifier class in HMNs . 191 4.4.7 The structure of HMNs . 193 4.4.8 Demonstratives and high modifiers . 195 4.4.9 Summary . 200 4.5 Alternatives . 200 4.5.1 A head movement account and its limitations . 201 4.5.2 A ‘Cartographic’ account and its limitations . 205 4.5.3 Summary . 213 4.6 Conclusion.............................. 214 5Classifierlanguages,interpretation,andwordordervariation: Cross-linguistic considerations 216 5.1 Introduction . 216 5.2 Two classifier structures . 217 5.3 Numerals block definite classifiers: Empirical evidence . 221 5.3.1 Wenzhou Wu . 222 5.3.2 Weining Ahmao . 224 5.3.3 Accounting for the facts . 227 5.4 Word order in classifier languages . 233 5.4.1 Gaps in the typology . 233 5.4.2 Generating variation . 238 5.4.3 An XP-movement alternative . 244 5.4.4 Summary . 250 5.5 Moving beyond classifier languages: Definiteness in Icelandic . 251 5.5.1 On the clitic status of the definite ‘suffix’ . 261 5.5.2 Summary . 264 5.5.3 English............................ 264 5.6 Conclusion.............................. 268 6Conclusion 270 7 Chapter 1 The interfaces and the problem of ‘meaningless movement’ 1.1 Minimalism and syntax-semantics mapping The operation Merge (in its External and Internal instantiations) gives rise to hierarchically structured syntactic objects. Merge takes two syntactic objects as inputs, and outputs an unordered set, itself a syntactic object, containing both of the input. I take a standard definition of Merge to be the following (for the time being putting aside labelling): (1) Merge(X,Y) = Z, where Z = X,Y , and where X, Y and Z are syntactic { } objects.