1

Defective Interveners, Adjuncts, and

“Two-Peaked” Structure

SUZUKI Norio

1. Introduction

The concept of free simplest Merge embedded within the general

framework of labeling algorithm (LA) of Chomsky (2013, 2014),

combined for the purposes here with the notion of “two-peaked”

structure in the sense of Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely (EKS 2013,

2014), is shown to have an interesting, explanatory potential for

accounting for fine grammaticality distinctions observable in such

specific constructions as tough-constructions (TCs) and subject-to-

subject raising constructions (SSRs) involving a “defective”

intervener (DI; usually, as an experiencer PP) and an adjunct phrase

(Adj) in English and French. We will also see that some variation in

grammaticality resulting from the position of the relevant DI or Adj

in such constructions receives an interesting account based on the

discussion presented below (e.g., examples (15a-d) in section 3),

along with some discussion on the ‘exceptional,’ grammatical status

of English SSRs involving a DI or Adj, such as Ruprecht seems to his

subordinates/in meetings to be a masterful commander (Bruening

2014: 715 (23a, b)).

The goal of this paper is to provide some evidence supporting the

“free” status of free simplest Merge (encompassing both external and

internal Merge (EM & IM)) in the sense of Chomsky (2013, 2014)

and Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely (EKS 2012a,b, 2013, 2014). The

discussion is based on a new analysis of tough-constructions (TCs;

2

Suzuki 2014, 2015) and subject-to-subject raising constructions

(SSRs) involving a “defective” intervener (DI; usually, as an

experiencer PP) and an adjunct phrase (Adj) in English and French.

The concept of being free for present purposes can be understood

rather fully via the following observation from EKS (2014: 463-464):

(1) “… Merge,1 formulated in the simplest form, applies freely (i.e.,

without ‘teleological purpose’) as long as it conforms to

third-factor principles such as the no-tampering condition and

the condition of inclusiveness. Merge, by hypothesis, is no

longer operating in order to create a configuration that allows

interface-illegitimate features to be checked; it is not ‘purposeful’

in the sense of early Minimalism in that it is no longer driven by

convergence conditions (e.g., the valuation of φ-features or Case

features). Concepts such as ‘derivational economy’ no longer

determine ― internal to the narrow syntax (NS) ― when Merge

must apply and when it cannot. Rather, Merge is free; it

optionally applies (and so crashing happens; that is, the system

is not crash-proof) … since IM is arguably not driven by θ-

theory (…), and since IM and EM are two possible applications

of the single operation Merge, then EM cannot be driven by

θ-theory either. If so, there is nothing left for Merge to be driven

by (not for convergence and not for coherence). Consequently, it

is not ‘driven’ at all, which means that it is simply available to

apply, …” (emphasis ― NS)

1 As for Merge, I basically follow Chomsky (2007, 2008). But see

EKS (2012b: 265-266) for interesting discussion on the EPP and the

edge feature (EF) and their proposal to take the EPP (their ‘double’ EF)

to be a derived property via feature-inheritance.

3

I take the latter “free” property of free simplest Merge seriously, and

in the analysis of such relevant constructions from Bruening (2014)

as *Sugar was very hard on me/in such conditions to give up (English

TCs) and Ruprecht seems to his subordinates/in meetings to be a

masterful commander (English SSRs), the free simplest Merge

framework allows of unlabeled structures containing a DI or an Adj

(Chomsky’s 2013, 2014 Labeling Algorithm), such as “… XP … {α

{DI/Adj, {C, {TP … to … XP …}}}}”, where α is an unlabeled

syntactic object (SO) in the sense of Chomsky (2013, 2014). While

it may never be the case under any theta-theoretic or semantic

considerations that the embedded CP and the DI/Adj can form a

constituent, I take the unlabeled structure α to be the null-

hypothetically created (i.e., from the bottom-up, ‘extensional’),

intermediate derivational consequence of free simplest Merge as it

applies to the relevant English TCs and SSRs above. And to the

extent that my analysis reported here in terms of this free approach to

these constructions is successful (as opposed to the difficulty other

‘non-free’ approaches face in their analysis of these constructions), I

take the results in this paper to constitute some viable evidence in

support of “free” property at least in NS of free simplest Merge in the

sense of Chomsky (2013, 2014) and EKS (2012a,b, 2013, 2014).

2. Some Preliminary Remarks and Assumptions

For the purposes of discussion here, I follow Bruening (2014) in

assuming that the problem at hand isn’t necessarily concerned only

with the so-called “defective interveners” as they have been

discussed and analyzed in the past literature (i.e., usually,

‘experiencers’), but that it may be extended to the case involving

4

“adjuncts,” which situation I take to invite an explanation in terms of

the presence of a “two-peaked/double peak” structure in the sense of

EKS (2013, 2014). My analysis is based on the following three

assumptions:

(2) a. “Two-peaked/double peak” structure (EKS 2013, 2014).

b. “Copy-deletion (CD)”: “Delete all sisters of lower

occurrences (OCCs) of a mover” (EKS 2013; where,

following Chomsky 1995, ‘an occurrence of X is defined as

a category to which X is Merged, i.e., its derivational sister’;

CD following from a third factor principle of Minimal

Computation: Pronounce as little as possible).

c. Recoverability: “Interpret features at least once” (EKS

2013; one of the two very general laws, the other of which is

Minimal Computation forcing features to be interpreted at

most once; see (2b) above).

“Free” simplest Merge unifying external & internal Merge (EM &

IM; Chomsky 2013, 2014) allows of unlabeled structures containing

a DI or an adjunct (Chomsky’s 2013 Labeling Algorithm).

Moreover, DIs & adjuncts turn out to be in a “two-peaked/double

peak” structure. When the mover’s copy in “one set” of the “two-

peaked/double peak” structure is deleted by CD, a DI (or an adjunct)

in “the other set” must also be deleted. This is because the mover’s

copy & DI (or adjunct) share an OCC. Deletion of the DI or adjunct

ends up violating Recoverability at the sensorimotor (SM) interface

because it is the sole copy. This account based on “two-peaked/

double peak” structure is not applicable to English SSRs (John seems

to Mary/in meetings to be smart) due to lack of such a “two-peaked/

double peak” structure (involving to Mary/in meetings; see below).

5

The empirical domain of my analysis covers tough- (TCs) and

subject-to-subject raising constructions (SSRs) involving a

“defective” intervener (DI; usually, as an experiencer PP) and an

adjunct phrase (Adj) in English and French. As for the embedded

clause of the English TC, I take it to be a CP corresponding to the

A’-portion of the (improper) A-A’-A chain (Lasnik 2012; see also

Messick 2013, Obata and Epstein 2012, Suzuki 2014, 2015). I

further follow the standard assumption that the “ultimate” form of the

embedded clause of the English SSR is a TP. And as for the

embedded clauses of the French TC and SSR, I tentatively take them

to be CPs in view of the properties of null prepositional

complementizers of the French-type in the sense of Kayne (1983),

which derive largely from the property of French disallowing

preposition-stranding (see below; but as for TCs, see Suzuki 2014: 77

for some complicating observations based on Wurmbrand 2001 and

Chomsky 1982 that “… tough-construction counterparts in such

languages as German and Romance languages do not contain an

‘A’-portion,’ as opposed to English TCs …”). The paradigms to be

accounted for in the present article are exemplified by the following

examples, largely taken from Bruening (2014):

(3) a. *Cholesterol is important to Mary to avoid. (an English TC,

with a DI) (Cf. Linguists are difficult (for philosophers) to

please (= Hicks’ 2009: 540 (15a)), with the observation that

‘…tough-predicates also assign a Ө-role to an apparently

optional experiencer within a for-phrase.’; Hicks 2009: 550-

551: ‘… [aP difficult [AP for philosophers [A’ (difficult)

[CP]]]]’; & ‘(difficult)’ not being the sole copy (see below

for discussion and examples); See further Suzuki 2015 for a

somewhat detailed structural analysis of TCs such as Books

6

are important for Mary to read, as opposed to the

ungrammatical *Books are important for Mary for her

children to read (see also Chomsky 1977))

b. *Sugar was very hard in such conditions to give up.

(an English TC, with an Adj)

c. John seems to Mary to be smart.

(an English SSR, with a DI)

d. Ruprecht seems in meetings to be a masterful commander.

(an English SSR, with an Adj)

(4) a. *Cette couleur est difficile pour les chiens à voir. (a French

TC, with a DI; ‘This color is difficult for dogs to see’)

b. *Cette couleur est difficile au crépuscule à voir. (a French

TC, with an Adj; ‘This color is difficult at twilight to see’)

c. *Jean a semblé à Marie avoir du talent. (a French SSR,

with a DI; ‘Jean seemed to Marie to have talent’)

d. ??Jean a semblé au cours de la réunion avoir du talent.

(a French SSR, with an Adj; ‘Jean seemed during the

meeting to have talent’)

For the purposes of the examples in (3, 4) above, I take their

embedded complements to be uniformly CPs (to which I turn below)

with some different properties associated with the head C depending

on the examples in question. I generally do not go into any specific

details about the NS-derivational construction of these embedded

CPs (see Chomsky 2013, 2014 for the most recent minimalist

treatment of the strong phases CP and v*P in the general framework

of free simplest Merge). But some remarks may be in order on

further NS-derivation beyond the embedded CP. Take a look at

the relevant portion of example (3a): “to Mary to avoid.” Given the

7

embedded CP to avoid, there should basically be at least two NS-

structures for the experiencer PP to Mary above it: (i) ‘[[to Mary]

CP]’; and (ii) ‘[to [Mary CP]].’ While Mary Merges with CP and

then to with Mary + CP in (ii), to and Mary Merge to form a

constituent before they Merge with CP in (i). Noting that both (i)

and (ii) are possible NS configurations in the general framework of

free simplest Merge and that (ii) may ultimately be ruled out in some

way or other, I focus on (i) for present purposes with the experiencer

PPs and adjunct phrases dealt with as single constituents as well in

the other examples. Given the framework of free simplest Merge,

even many more ways of NS-derivational construction involving

much variation in constituency, order, and hierarchy might in

principle be available for the purposes of NS-derivation of the

examples in (3a-d, 4a-d). But given third-factor principles

involving Minimal Computation & Minimal Search, I assume that

perhaps the most plausible mode, if not the only mode, of their NS-

derivation should be a null-hypothetical one (i.e., from the bottom-

up, ‘extensional’) mentioned above.

3. Applying Chomsky’s 2013 Labeling Algorithm combined

with EKS’s 2013, 2014 “Two-Peaked” Structure

Chomsky (2013: 43) observes: “… there is a fixed labeling

algorithm LA that licenses SOs (syntactic objects ― NS) so that they

can be interpreted at the interfaces, operating at the phase level along

with other operations. The simplest assumption is that LA is just

minimal search, presumably appropriating a third factor principle …”

(emphasis ― NS; ‘label identification by minimal search’; see EKS

2014). Consider the SO in need of labeling: ‘{XP, YP}, neither a

head,’ with three ‘labeling’ possibilities as shown in (5) (Chomsky

8

2013: 43-46):

(5) a. … XP … {XP, YP}: SO, labeled based on YP; raising of XP

b. {XP[+F], YP[+F]}: SO, labeled based on [+F]; ‘feature-sharing’

c. *{XP, YP}: SO, unlabeled in the absence of (5a) or (5b)

Look at the structures in (6a, b), the former of which shows the

relevant, simplified portion of the NS-derivational structure for the

examples in (3a,b, 4a-d) above and the latter of which the relevant

NS-derivational structure for (3c,d). Notice that both contain an

unlabeled SO α:

(6) a. *… XP … {α {DI/Adj, {XP, {CF, {TP … to … XP …}}}}}

b. … XP … {α {DI/Adj, {CE, {TP … to … XP …}}}}

The SO α consists of a DI (usually, an experiencer-PP)/Adj (i.e.,

adjunct phrase) and the embedded CP. The C-head positions of the

infinitival embedded clauses in (6a, b) are occupied by CF and CE

respectively (notations CF & CE for expository purposes; with CF &

CE as null prepositional complementizers with French & English

properties, roughly in the sense of Kayne 1983 that there is

preposition-stranding in English but not in French). Recall the

differences in properties of prepositions between French and English,

based on Kayne (1983: chapter 5), as exemplified in such examples

as *Qui a-t-elle voté pour? (who has she voted for)/Who did she vote

for? The mover XP has to pass through the embedded SpecCP in

the CF case (6a), while it does not in the CE case (6b) (see Kayne

1983). English TCs are assumed to involve embedded CPs with CF

as its C-head (see also Hartman 2009 and Hicks 2009). In (6a), we

see a “two-peaked” structure consisting of two intersecting sets: (i)

9

{α{DI/Adj, {CF, TP}}}; and (ii) {XP, {CF, TP}}. Notice based on

EKS (2014) that “there may no longer be any need to appeal to the

standard notion of ‘phase’ defined in terms of LAs (lexical

arrays)/SAs (lexical subarrays) and ‘Merge over Move.’” Then at

the stage of NS-derivation for (6a) where CF has Merged, we

basically have two Merging options: EM of DI/Adj and IM of XP.

And recall that EM takes place before IM for efficiency reasons

(EKS 2013). CD of XP entails deletion of the DI/Adj due to their

shared OCC (‘{CF, TP}’), in violation of Recoverability at SM

because the ‘deleted’ DI/Adj is the sole copy (see (2a-c) above). In

(6b), there is no such “two-peaked/double peak” structure because

the DI/Adj & XP (lower copy) do not share an OCC. But in (6b) α

is still unlabeled as an instance of (5c) (to which I return below).

Let us see some important consequences obtained by concretely

applying Chomsky’s (2013) LA to some of the examples in (3-4)

above. Note that the analyses in (7-9) below include the “two-

peaked/double peak” structures for the ungrammatical examples in

(3a,b, 4c), as shown in (bi, ii) in each case. We then see the

grammatical example (10) (= (3c)):

(7) a. *Cholesterol is important to Mary to avoid.

(= (3a); an English TC, with a DI)

b. A “two-peaked” structure at the stage of NS-derivation of

the embedded CP:

(i) {α{to Mary}, {CF, {T (to), {PRO, {v, {avoid,

cholesterol}}}}}}

(ii) {cholesterol, {CF, {T (to), {PRO, {v, {avoid,

cholesterol}}}}}}

(8) a. *Sugar was very hard in such conditions to give up.

(= (3b); an English TC, with an Adj)

10

b. A “two-peaked” structure at the stage of NS-derivation of

the embedded CP:

(i) {α{in such conditions}, {CF, {T (to), {PRO, {v, {give up,

sugar}}}}}}

(ii) {sugar, {CF, {T (to), {PRO, {v, {give up, sugar}}}}}}

(9) a. *Jean a semblé à Marie avoir du talent. (= (4c); a French

SSR, with a DI; ‘Jean seemed to Marie to have talent’)

b. A “two-peaked” structure at the stage of NS-derivation of

the embedded CP:

(i) {α{à Marie}, {CF, { Jean, {T, {Jean, {v, {avoir, du

talent}}}}}}}

(ii) {Jean, {CF, {Jean, {T, {Jean, {v, {avoir, du talent}}}}}}}

(10) a. John seems to Mary to be smart.

(= (3c); an English SSR, with a DI)

b. No “two-peaked” structure at the stage of NS-derivation of

the embedded CP:

(i) {α{to Mary}, {CE, { John, {T (to), {v, {be, {John,

smart}}}}}}}

(ii) John …{α{to Mary}, {CE, { John, {T (to), {v, {be,

{John, smart}}}}}}}

Let us see the ungrammatical examples (7-9) one by one in terms of

EKS’s (2013, 2014) assumptions in (2a-c) above, focusing on the

“two-peaked/double peak” structure in each case, with the darkened

portions in (bi, ii) of (7-9) corresponding to the OCCs (i.e.,

occurrences) shared by the relevant elements in each case. In (7 =

(3a)), when CD (i.e., copy-deletion) deletes the copy in the embedded

[Spec, CF] of the moving element cholesterol in accordance with

Minimal Computation (see (7bii)), it also deletes the DI to Mary (see

(7bi)) because they are sisters of one of the lower OCCs (i.e., {CF,

11

TP}; see (7bi,ii)) of the mover cholesterol. And the deletion of the

DI to Mary ends up violating Recoverability at the sensorimotor

(SM) interface because it is the sole copy. In (8 = (3b)), when the

mover’s copy sugar in the embedded [Spec, CF] is deleted by CD

(see (8bii)), the Adj in such conditions must also be deleted (see

(8bi)). This is because the mover’s copy and Adj share an OCC (i.e.,

{CF, TP}; see (8bi,ii)). Deletion of the Adj ends up violating

Recoverability at the sensorimotor (SM) interface because it is the

sole copy. In (9 = (4c)), when the mover’s copy Jean in the

embedded [Spec, CF] is deleted by CD (see (9bii)), the DI à Marie

must also be deleted (see (9bi)). This is because the mover’s copy

and DI share an OCC (i.e., {CF, TP}; see (9bi,ii)). Deletion of the

DI ends up violating Recoverability at the sensorimotor (SM)

interface because it is the sole copy. In (10 = (3c)), there is no such

“two-peaked/double peak” structure because the DI to Mary and the

lower copies of John do not share an OCC. But the problem with

(10 = (3c)) is that α is still unlabeled as an instance of (5c).

Notice that the availability in English of preposition-stranding

allows us to obtain for (10 = (3c)): ‘{v, {seem + PP (to Mary) + CE,

{α {(PP (to Mary)), {(CE), {John, {T (to), …}}}}}}},’ where the PP

(to Mary) incorporates into seem to cause CE to be (ultimately)

adjacent to seem and CE incorporates into the complex head (also

Baker 1988, López 2012). This allows α to be labeled based on TP

(‘{John, {T (to), …}}’). I propose that the PP incorporate into

seem, vacating its position, so as to make CE adjacent to seem, and

that CE further incorporate into the complex head. This should be

understood along the lines of such English “preposition stranding”

cases as The book was talked about. This then leads α to be labeled

based on TP (i.e., ‘{John, {T (to), …}}’). This analysis of (10 =

(3c)) may apply to such ECM sentences as John was said to me to be

12

guilty/ Mary proved John to me to be a liar (Bruening 2014):

(11) a. John was said to me to be guilty.

b. No OCC shared by to me & any copy of John:

(i) {α{to me}, {CE, { John, {T (to), {v, {be, {John,

guilty}}}}}}}

(ii) John …{α{to me}, {CE, { John, {T (to), {v, {be, {John,

guilty}}}}}}}

(12) a. Mary proved John to me to be a liar.

b. No OCC shared by to me & any copy of John:

(i) {α{to me}, {CE, { John, {T (to), {v, {be, {John, a

liar}}}}}}}

(ii) … John …{α{to me}, {CE, { John, {T (to), {v, {be, {John,

a liar}}}}}}}

We see that in (11, 12) α is still unlabeled as an instance of (5c).

Notice that the availability in English of preposition-stranding allows

us to obtain for (11, 12): ‘{v, {said + PP (to me) + CE, {α {(PP (to

me)), {(CE), {John, {T (to), …}}}}}}}’ and ‘{v, {proved + PP (to

me) + CE, {α {(PP (to me)), {(CE), {John, {T (to), …}}}}}}}’ (with

the structures rather simplified) respectively, where the PP (to me)

incorporates into said/proved to cause CE (ultimately) adjacent to

said/proved and CE incorporates into the complex head (also Baker

1988, López 2012). This allows α to be labeled based on TP

(‘{John, {T (to), …}}’). If on track, this may derive the “TP-status”

of complements to English raising & ECM predicates. And,

moreover, if the analysis here is on track, it may provide some

additional evidence for the general framework of “free” simplest

Merge of Chomsky (2013). Then consider an interesting

consequence of this analysis:

13

(13) You’ll meet a man [αtomorrow *(who) you’ve seen before].

(= Bruening’s 2014 (25b))

English restrictive relatives are assumed to contain a CF in the

embedded C (the notation CF for expository purposes; see Suzuki

2012, 2015 along with other important works cited therein). Look

at the structures in (14), related to (13):

(14) a * … {v + meet, {a man, {(meet), {tomorrow, {a man, {CF,

{TP you’ve …}}}}}}} (for (13) without who: *You’ll meet

a man tomorrow you’ve seen before; with the darkened

OCC shared by tomorrow & a man (lower copy))

b. … {v + meet, {a man, {(meet), {tomorrow, {a man, {who,

{CF, {TP you’ve…}}}}}}}} (for (13) with who: You’ll

meet a man tomorrow who you’ve seen before; Kayne

1994: 95 for NS-derivation of who & man: i.e., ‘… a [man

[who man] [C … [who man]…]]’)

Note that I follow Kayne (1994: 118) in reanalyzing relative clause

extraposition as relative clause stranding. In (13/14a), tomorrow &

a man (lower copy) share an OCC, {CF, TP}, and deletion of

tomorrow along with CD of a man (lower copy) induces a violation

of Recoverability at the SM interface. In (13/14b), the OCCs of a

man (lower copy) & tomorrow are {who, {CF, TP}} and {CF, TP}

respectively, maintaining the grammatical status of the structure.

Some remarks may be in order here on the examples in (15a-d) below

basically from Bruening (2014) in terms of Chomsky’s (2013, 2014)

labeling algorithm (LA) strengthened by the three assumptions in

(2a-c) above in the sense of EKS (2013, 2014):

14

(15) a. It is important (to Mary) to avoid cholesterol.

(= Bruening’s 2014: (1a))

b. Cholesterol is important (*to Mary) to avoid.

(= Bruening’s 2014: (1b))

c. To Mary, cholesterol is important to avoid.

(= Bruening’s 2014: (1c))

d. Cholesterol is to Mary important to avoid.

(based on The president is to many people annoying to

listen to (= Bruening’s 2014: (5c))

I take (15c, d) to be derived by moving to Mary from its original

position found in ((15b) with to Mary in it; *Cholesterol is important

to Mary to avoid). To move to Mary from its original position in

((15b) with to Mary) may allow us to avoid violating Recoverability

at the SM interface in (15c, d) because the “deleted” copy of to Mary

along with CD of cholesterol in the embedded [Spec, CF] may not be

the sole copy.

4. Conclusion

We have seen some interesting results obtained by applying

Chomsky’s (2013) labeling algorithm (LA) to tough-constructions

(TCs) and subject-to-subject raising constructions (SSRs) involving a

“defective” intervener (DI; as an experiencer PP) and an adjunct

phrase (Adj) in English and French (largely taken from Bruening

2014). Moreover, Chomsky’s LA has been strengthened by the

three assumptions in (2a-c) above in the sense of EKS (2013, 2014).

Recall further one more very important assumption in section 2

above that I have made to the effect that third-factor principles

15

involving Minimal Computation and Minimal Search somehow

require perhaps the most ‘simplified’ mode of NS-derivation in

general, that is, the null-hypothetical (i.e., from the bottom-up,

‘extensional’) NS-derivational mode. We have discussed in section

2 above a possible way that the relevant portion “to Mary to avoid”

in the ungrammatical English TC with the DI in it *Cholesterol is

important to Mary to avoid (3a) may be dealt with (see some relevant

discussion above). But, given perhaps the optimal (as opposed to

the absolute) nature (which may be more or less generally relevant

across linguistic principles) of the null-hypothetical NS-derivational

mode, we might not be able to exclude in principle such a ‘non-

default-wise’-created (i.e., not “from-the-bottom-up +

extensional”; see above) NS-derivational construction as the

following: “[[X [to Mary]] …]]” (based on (3a) above), where the DI

to Mary is merged with the other materials in the matrix sentence (as

in His cooperation is important to me, which is completely

grammatical as it is). But in the case of (3a), we would further have

to merge the CP to avoid with Cholesterol is important to Mary, to

obtain the structure ‘[[Cholesterol is important to Mary] [to avoid]]’,

which might be an adjunction structure of some sort, irrespective of

its semantic interpretability. But the crucial problem with this

structure for (3a) is that the TC-subject cholesterol may not be

connected with the object position of the embedded verb avoid for

lack of (asymmetric) c-command of to avoid on the part of the

TC-subject. Moreover, (3a) with the structure ‘[[Cholesterol is

important to Mary] [to avoid]]’ may not be derivable, given the more

or less standard treatment of TCs (see Chomsky1977, 1982, Messick

2013, Lasnik 2012, Obata and Epstein 2012, Hicks 2009, Suzuki

2014, 2015). While it may not be possible for me to scrutinize for

their grammaticality all ‘non-default-wise’-created (i.e., not “from-

16

the-bottom-up + extensional”) NS-derivational sentences associated

with a given TC-construction, I here try a different but rather

‘plausible’ tack by taking seriously the “free” property of free

simplest Merge in the framework of Chomsky (2013, 2014) and EKS

(2012a,b, 2013, 2014) and keeping to the null-hypothetical (i.e.,

from the bottom-up, ‘extensional’) NS-derivational mode, which

should be perhaps the most ‘simplified’ mode of NS-derivation in

general and hence, which seems to be required by third-factor

principles involving Minimal Computation and Minimal Search (see

above for discussion). Insofar as this approach to the problem is on

the right track, we may be faring quite nicely in respect of the SMT

as well. Notice incidentally that the so-called CED (i.e., ‘Condition

on Extraction Domains’ in the sense of Huang 1982; e.g., subjects,

adjuncts) cases involve what Uriagereka (2002: chapter 3) called a

(separate, and hence, to be spelled-out) command unit (CU; which

‘emerges in a derivation through the continuous application of Merge’

(Uriagereka 2002: 46)) in his Multiple Spell-Out (MSO) framework.

What NS-derivations may be obtained in the null-hypothetical (i.e.,

from the bottom-up, ‘extensional’) NS-derivational mode discussed

above may correspond to Uriagereka’s (2002) command units.

While I note that possible problems arising from various interaction

between CUs may be dealt with in terms of Uriagereka’s (2002)

MSO, I defer until future research my own treatment of such CUs as

subjects and adjuncts and subsequent solution of problems with their

derivation in the context of labeling algorithm in the sense of

Chomsky (2013, 2014) combined with “Two-Peaked” Structure of

EKS (2012a,b, 2013, 2014).

* This paper is based on the poster presentation I made at the 8th

International Spring Forum 2015 of the English Linguistic Society of

17

Japan held at Seikei Universty, Tokyo, on 19 April 2015.

Works Cited

Baker, Mark C. (1988) Incorporation, Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Bruening, Benjamin (2014) “Defects of Defective Intervention,”

Linguistic Inquiry 45, 707-719.

Chomsky, Noam (1977) “On Wh-Movement,” Formal Syntax, ed. by

Peter W. Culicover, Thomas A. Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian,

71-132, New York: Academic Press.

Chomsky, Noam (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the

Theory of Government and Binding, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT

Press.

Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UG from Below,” Interfaces +

Recursion = Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View

from Syntax-Semantics, ed. by Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin

Gärtner, 1-29, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundational Issues in Linguistic

Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert

Freidin, Carlos Peregin Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta,

133-166, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.

Chomsky, Noam (2014) “Abstract: Problems of Projection: Extensions,”

Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T. Daniel Seely. (2012a)

“Exploring Phase Based Implications regarding Clausal

Architecture. A Case Study: Why Structural Case cannot Precede

18

Theta,” Phases: Developing the Framework, ed. by Ángel J.

Gallego, 103-123, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T. Daniel Seely. (2012b)

“Structure Building That Can’t Be,” Ways of Structure Building,

ed. by Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Vidal Valmala, 253-270,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T. Daniel Seely. (2013)

“Simplest Merge Generates Set Intersection: Implications for

Complementizer ‘Trace’ Explanation,” Proceedings of GLOW in

Asia IX 2012: The Main Session, ed. by Nobu Goto, Koichi Otaki,

Atsushi Sato, and Kensuke Takita, 77-92, Tsu, Mie: Center for

Multicultural Studies, Mie University.

Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T.Daniel Seely. (2014)

“Labeling by Minimal Search: Implications for Successive-Cyclic

A-Movement and the Conception of the Postulate “Phase,”

Linguistic Inquiry 45, 463-481.

Hartman, Jeremy (2009) “Intervention in Tough Constructions,”

Proceedings of NELS 39, ed. by Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin, and

Brian Smith, Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts,

Graduate Linguistic Student Association.

Hicks, Glyn (2009) “Tough-Constructions and their Derivation,”

Linguistic Inquiry 40, 535-566.

Huang, C.-T. James (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory

of Grammar, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Kayne, Richard S. (1983) Connectedness and Binary Branching,

Dordrecht: Foris.

Kayne, Richard S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge,

Mass.: MIT Press.

Lasnik, Howard (2012) “Single Cycle Syntax and a Constraint on

Quantifier Lowering,” Towards a Biolinguistic Understanding of

19

Grammar: Essays on Interfaces, ed. by Anna Maria Di Sciullo,

13-30, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

López, Luis (2012) Indefinite Objects: Scrambling, Choice functions,

and Differential Marking, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Messick, Troy, G. (2013) “Ellipsis and Reconstruction in Tough

Infinitives,” Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX 2012: The Main

Session, ed. by Nobu Goto, Koichi Otaki, Atsushi Sato, and

Kensuke Takita, 173-185, Tsu, Mie: Center for Multicultural

Studies, Mie University.

Obata, Miki and Samuel D. Epstein (2012) “Feature-Splitting Internal

Merge: The Case of Tough-Constructions,” Ways of Structure

Building, ed. by Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Vidal Valmala,

366-384, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Suzuki, Norio (2012) “Modification as Reprojection,” JELS 29, 325-

331.

Suzuki, Norio (2014) “How to Take the A-A’-A Property of Tough-

Constructions ― Some Basic Observations and Problems ―,”

Bulletin of Research Center for Higher Education 10, 77-87,

Research Center for Higher Education, Kobe Shinwa Women’s

University, Kobe, Japan.

Suzuki, Norio (2015) “A Third-Factor Approach to the Tough-

Construction: Efficient Computation in Interpretation,” Ms., Kobe

Shinwa Women’s University, Kobe, Japan.

Uriagereka, Juan (2002) Derivations: Exploring the Dynamics of Syntax,

London and New York: Routledge.

Wurmbrand, Susanne (2001) Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause

Structure, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.