A single probe or a composite probe?
Mayumi Hosono
February 2025
 

This paper compares the traditional single probe (cf. Chomsky 1995, Rizzi 1997, Cinque 1999) with a composite probe (cf. van Urk 2015). Assuming a composite probe, we predict i) that the functional features located in a functional head can probe different items independently of each other; and ii) that since those features are located in the same functional head, they produce an interpretation for the items they probe by interacting with each other, i.e., the items probed and raised by them are interpreted in pairs. Our predictions are borne out by the Japanese data, in which a scrambled nominal and the following subject that are adjacent to each other are interpreted as double contrastive. On the assumption of a composite probe, we propose i) that T(e)ns(e), the primary feature of T, firstly probes and raises a DP to the position closest to T, and then C(on)tr(astive), an additional feature of T, probes and raises another DP to the position next to the DP raised by Tns, and ii) that two raised items compose a unit and located in [Spec,TP] together (cf. sideward movement, Nunes 2004). We also point out that the derivation on the assumption of the single probe contains many problems. Finally, we discuss how to account for operations such as sideward movement within Chomsky’s (2021) latest framework of workspaces, which restricts Merge to external and internal merge only. We propose that among the conditions that restrict Merge, Minimal Yield and Minimal Search, the latter is slightly modified.
Format: [ pdf ]
Reference: lingbuzz/008787
(please use that when you cite this article)
Published in: To appear in the Proceedings of WECOL 2024
keywords: composite/single probe, double contrastive, sideward movement, workspaces, minimal yield, minimal search, syntax
Downloaded:76 times

 

[ edit this article | back to article list ]