Optionality of Movement in the Minimalist Program

at the interface levels of PF and LF or everywhere -DS and SS do not figure in the system-.

Also, the basic idea that permeates all operations in the entire program is that of economy, as has been previously indicated. Only the most economical derivation yields a grammatical sentence.

To sum up, two of the basic assumptions in the MP are: a) the proposal that parametric variation among languages should be reduced to morphological properties (abstract features) of lexical items; b) the proposal that movement in the overt syntax should not be legitimate unless necessary for convergence, optional movement being thus eliminated from overt syntax.³⁶

A numeration is an item or a sequence of items taken from the lexicon. It indicates the lexical choices available and the number of occurrences of these items so that select and move operations can apply and build a derivation.³⁸ As stated in previous sections, Spell-Out constitutes the point in which the derivation divides into two in order to create representations at the two minimalist levels (LF and PF). Spell-Out also establishes the division line between, on the one hand, overt movement that involves movement of categories and that takes place before Spell-Out, and, on the other hand, covert movement that is always adjunction of the formal features of a category F to a head H and takes place after Spell-Out.³⁹ While the effects of overt movement are visible at both PF and LF levels, the effects of covert movement are only represented at LF and affect the interpretative component. This means that after Spell-Out, overt syntax applies at PF and covert movement at LF.

38 Using Chomsky’s (1995) definition, “a numeration is a set of pairs (LI, i) where LI is an item of the lexicon and i is its index, understood to be the number of times the LI is selected” (225).

39 As we will see in the following section, this division of overt-covert movement before/after Spell- Out will change since Spell-Out is now seen as cyclic (Chomsky 1998, 1999).

lexical component numeration

overt movement Spell-Out

(covert movement)

covert syntax overt syntax

articulatory-perceptual component (PF representation)

interpretative component (LF representation)

select and merge

Diagram IV

The concept of movement is, therefore, tied to Spell-Out (Spell-Out in its turn being associated with Agreement). In the MP, Spell-Out applies at a single point in a derivation. This way of perceiving Spell-Out poses a problem for cases such as expletives, for example, as we will see later. Pre Spell-Out, the features of the item must be deleted when checked. There in expletive constructions is seen as a “deleted” feature, since it has no meaning and is, therefore, invisible at LF; yet there remains until Spell-Out and is accessible to the phonetic component. In view of these facts, Chomsky (1998) re-analyses Spell-Out. He defends that Spell-Out applies cyclically in the course of the derivation: the deleted features are literally erased, but only after they are sent to the phonetic component along with the rest of the structure. Hence, for instance, if the EPP is to be satisfied in English, an item in subject position is required in PF; in the case of expletives, there remains in PF to fulfill this function.

The single Spell-Out thesis of the MP retains the flavor of the extended standard theory model and the GB model, thereby distinguishing overt from covert operations (pre and post Spell-Out respectively). The MI approach defends that all operations (both overt and covert) are cyclic.

As pointed out by Olarrea (1996), optionality of syntactic movement poses several problems. In fact, one of the basic assumptions in the PP framework was that the application of alpha-move was optional; this rule constrained the output of its application by a set of representational constraints that applied at the relevant levels of representation. In the MP, on the other hand, syntactic movement is never optional, but legitimate only if necessary for convergence and forced by the presence of specific morphological features.

As a major consequence of all this for our analysis, we can say that the phenomenon of free subject inversion that characterizes null-subject languages like Spanish, and whose explanation has been traditionally based on the notion of optionality of movement, presents a problem for a minimalist account.⁴⁰ As we will see later, Olarrea (1996) proposes that the problem of optionality of movement specifically related to free subject inversion in pro-drop languages can be solved once we assume that sentences with preverbal subjects and sentences in which the subject appears in postverbal positions are the result of two different numerations.

As we will see in the following chapter, taking as a starting point the idea that postverbal subject position must always be filled, an SV derivation presents both an NP in preverbal subject position and a pro in postverbal subject position; both NP and pro share the same morphological features. A convergent SV derivation is the most economical output of a numeration that presents both a pro and a noun (and therefore an NP); this empty pronominal is absent in a numeration whose output will result in a VS ordering in which the postverbal subject is lexical.

The main idea is that since optionality of movement is no longer applicable under minimalist premises, word-order differences must be located in the different selection of the lexical items involved, that is, before movement operations apply.

40 As Olarrea (1996) states, there is another issue related to the problem of optionality of syntactic movement that must be mentioned. When dealing with the contrast between preverbal and postverbal subject positions in Spanish, i.e. on the basic differences between SV and VS orders, it is necessary to keep in mind that Spanish presents two different VS orders: VSO and VOS. We will deal with this issue in the next chapter.

1.2.2.4. Subject-verb Agreement as a Movement Operation in the Minimalist