Syntactic Theory: Functional Categories and Features in a Chomskian Framework Elly van Gelderen Arizona State University World

Congress on Mulla Sadra, Tehran, 23-27 May !!! "ellyvangelderen#asu$edu%

0 Outline &n this 'a'er, & 'rovide so(e )a*+ground to Cho(s+ian ,inguisti*s and es'e*ially to the notion o- Universal Gra((ar "UG%$ & also .ui*+ly outline the histori*al develo'(ent o- 'hrase stru*ture rules and trans-or(ations and sho/ ho/ the latest theory, Mini(alis(, -its /ith earlier /or+$ &n dis*ussing Mini(alis(, & -o*us on the -eatures, so(e o- /hi*h trigger overt (ove(ent$ &n the last se*tion, & argue that there is *ross-linguisti* variation )oth /ith res'e*t to -eatures and /ith res'e*t to -un*tional *ategories$

1 Philosophical background Cho(s+y0s /or+ *an )e seen in ter(s o- t/o 'ro)le(s he e1a(ines in e$g$ Knowledge of Language2 "a% ho/ do /e +no/ so (u*h on the )asis o- so little eviden*e, and ")% ho/ do /e +no/ so little give that /e have so (u*h eviden*e3 These are re-erred to as 4lato0s 4ro)le( and 5r/ell0s 4ro)le( res'e*tively$ The -irst 'ro)le( *on*erns /hat /e +no/ a)out language and ho/ /e a*.uire this +no/ledge$ &t /ill )e dealt /ith in so(e detail in $ $ The se*ond 'ro)le( *on*erns the use o- language and the (e*hanis( o- indo*trination$ &t /ill 6ust )e (entioned in $2, not dis*ussed$ 1.1 Plato's problem 4lato0s 'ro)le( is that o- the 7'overty o- the sti(ulus0$ As s'ea+ers o- a language /e +no/ so (any rules /ithout ever having )een e1'li*itly taught these$ We *an 'rodu*e senten*es that /e have never heard )e-ore$ The reason /e +no/ this (u*h is )e*ause /e have a*.uired a Gra((ar not on the )asis o- i(itation )ut )y using an innate Universal Gra((ar to a*.uire a gra((ar$ This Universal Gra((ar "hen*e UG% hel's to inter'ret the language /e hear around us and to )uild u' our uni.ue gra((ar$ This 'ro*ess is s*he(atized so(e/hat si('listi*ally in " %2 $ , 8 UG 9 G --: ,2

A *hild hears a language ", in " %%, and 'rin*i'les and rules o- UG ena)le hi( or her to )uild u' a gra((ar "G in " %%$ The out'ut o- this gra((ar is a language ",2% not ne*essarily the sa(e as , $ &n 'rin*i'le, ea*h s'ea+er *an have a slightly di--erent gra((ar -ro( other 'eo'le s'ea+ing the 7sa(e0 language$ An e1a('le o- a rule that is o-ten given in this *onte1t is that o- 7stru*ture 'reservation0, i$e$ languages have rules that ta+e into a**ount the "hierar*hi*al% stru*ture$ ;or instan*e, the rule -or (a+ing a <es=>o .uestion is to shi-t the au1iliary and the su)6e*t, as )et/een "2% and "3%$ S'ea+ers /ill not ta+e 6ust any au1iliary )ut /ill ta+e the stru*ture into a**ount$ Thus, they /ill 'rodu*e "3% )ut not "?%2 2$ The 'ainting /hi*h /as assu(ed to )e )y @er(eer /as sold to The Getty$ 3$ Was the 'ainting /hi*h /as assu(ed to )e )y @er(eer sold to The Getty3 ?$ AWas the 'ainting /hi*h assu(ed to )e )y @er(eer /as sold to The Getty3 Belo/ are so(e other e1a('les$ Senten*es "C%, "7%, and "!% are /ell--or(ed in EnglishD "E%, "F%, and " G% are not2 C$ The student o- English -ro( the -or(er Soviet Union is a ni*e 'erson$ E$ AThe student -ro( &*eland o- English is a ni*e 'erson$ 7$ The student -ro( &*eland is 'oor$ The one -ro( Greenland is ri*h$ F$ The student o- English is 'oor$ AThe one o- *he(istry is ri*h$ !$ The student o- English and o- Hussian is *alled 4eter$ G$ AThe student o- English and -ro( >e/ <or+ /ill )e leaving soon$ Io/ does an English s'ea+er a*.uire +no/ledge a)out the order o- the t/o 4re'ositional 4hrases in "C% and "E% or a)out /hen to use one as in "7% and "F%3 Su''ose UG 'rovides *ertain +inds o- )uilding )lo*+s, 'hrases su*h as >oun 4hrases and *ategories su*h as >ouns, as /ell as s(aller units inside 'hrases na(ely inter(ediate 'hrase, here re-erred to as >0s$ This /ould (ean that the stru*ture -or the >4 in "C% /ould )e as in " % "*-$ Ba+er !7F and Iornstein J ,ight-oot !F %$ By having these *ategories, a learner *ould hy'othesize the -ollo/ing rule2 >4s are 'rono(inalized )y 'ronouns su*h as he, she or itD and >0 is 'rono(inalized )y one$ This /ould a**ount -or "7% and "F%2 $ >4 Ket >0 the >0 44 > 44 -ro( Hussia

student o- English An >4 has only one head >, )ut (ay have (ore than one >0$ The *o('le(ent of English is a sister to the head, and the (odi-ier or ad6un*t from Russia is the sister to the >0$ This a**ounts -or the -a*ts in "C% and "E%$ Sin*e *oordination is o- 7li+e0ele(ents su*h as ad6un*ts or *o('le(ents ")ut not an ad6un*t and a *o('le(ent%, the stru*ture in " % 'redi*ts "!% and " G%$ The @4 *onsists o- the sa(e 7)uilding )lo*+s0, na(ely @, @0 and @4, as in " 2%$ This stru*ture a**ounts -or the data in " 3% to " E% sin*e *o('le(ents are sisters to @ and do so re'la*es a @0 as in " C% )ut not a @ as in " E%2 2$ @4 $ @0 @0 44 @ >4 in Hussia study English 3$ & study English in Hussia$ ?$ AA& study in Hussia English$ C$ Ie did so in Hussia$ E$ AIe did so English$ Thus, assu(ing that UG (a+es availa)le *ertain *ategories and 'ro6e*tions ena)les a learner to a*.uire a gra((ar /ith stru*tures su*h as " % and " 2%$ These stru*tures generate the gra((ati*al senten*es )ut not the ungra((ati*al ones$ 1.2 Orwell's Problem 5r/ell0s 'ro)le( is *entral to Cho(s+y0s 'oliti*al /or+, i$e$ ho/ do /e +no/ so little give that /e have so (u*h eviden*e$ Io/ is it that /e do not .uestion *ertain i((oral a*ts )y our govern(ents3 The ans/er is that in a 7de(o*rati*0 so*iety, *onsent has to )e 7(anu-a*tured0$ Cho(s+y o)viously thin+s it is 'ossi)le to resist this (anu-a*ture and indo*trination$ The reason -or this is 'resu(a)ly that /e are not *o('letely deter(ined )y our e1'erien*e, /e are not 7)lan+ slates0$ 5ur tas+ is Lto understand the (e*hanis(s and 'ra*ti*es o- indo*trinationL " !FEa2 2FE%$ 5r/ell0s 'ro)le( is relevant to linguisti*s, es'e*ially /here linguisti* relativity is *on*erned )ut this dis*ussion lies )eyond the s*o'e o- this arti*le$ Iaving given one e1a('le o- /hat linguisti* +no/ledge *onstitutes "stru*tures su*h as " % and " 2%% and ho/ it is a*.uired "through UG%, & no/ turn to a s+et*h o- the *urrent synta*i* theory$

inimalism: PF! "F and #eatures

Be-ore outlining Cho(s+y " !!C%, i$e$ Mini(alis(, & )rie-ly revie/ older -ra(e/or+s, so as to sho/ that Mini(alis( is a natural develo'(ent in generative theory$ 2.1 De elopment of the !ransformational "enerati e #ramewor$ &n the !CGs and !EGs, stru*tures /ere 'rodu*ed through very language s'e*i-i* 4hrase Stru*ture Hules su*h as " 7%, ada'ted -ro( Cho(s+y " !EC2 GE-7%, and trans-or(ations su*h as " F%2

7$ S --: >4 4redi*ate 4hrase 4redi*ate 4hrase --: AUM @4 AUM --: Tense "M% "As'e*t% >4 --: "Ket% > "S0% @4 --: @ >4A "44% F$ Su)6e*t-AUM &nversion M >4 - ha e - M be 23 99: 2 3 "5'tional%

Using " 7% and " F%, an English senten*e su*h as " !% *an )e -or(ed2 !$ Will those 'eo'le read that )oo+3 Hules su*h as " 7% and " F% are a/+/ard and s'e*i-i* to English$ Ien*e, (u*h o- the e--ort in (a+ing the -or(alis( less language-s'e*i-i* and (ore universal /as ai(ed at generalizing 4S-rules "through M0-theory in the !7Gs and !FGs% and redu*ing trans-or(ations to one "(ove-al'ha in the !7Gs and !FGs%$ Trees -or " !% *a(e to loo+ li+e "2G%$ As *an )e seen, the C"o('le(entizer% and &"n-le*tion% are treated 6ust li+e the >4 or @4$ All languages /ould have stru*tures su*h as "2G% )ut the headedness *ould vary$ Thus, ;arsi, Urdu and Na'anese /ould )e head--inal and loo+ li+e "2 %$ >e1t, (ove(ent /as si('li-ied to 7(ove anything any/here0$ Hather

than s'e*i-i* stru*tures su*h as " F%, there /ere universal *onstraints on not (oving 7too -ar02 2G$ C4 S'e* C0 C &4 /ill >4 &0 they & @4 t S'e* @0 @ >4 read det > that )oo+ 2 $ &4 S'e* &0 @4 & S'e* @0 >4 @ Thus, LO-Pro( the origins o- generative gra((ar, the -unda(ental o'erations /ere ta+en to )e -or(ation o- the le1i*on and re*ursive o'erations o- t/o +inds that (a+e use o- le1i*al ite(s2 'hrase stru*ture and trans-or(ational rulesL "Cho(s+y !!F)2 23%$ The Mini(alist -ra(e/or+ *ontinues that$ 4hrase stru*ture rules )e*o(e 7)are0, i$e$ no inter(ediate levels a''ear, and trees are )uilt -ro( 7)otto(-to-to'0$ ,e1i*al ite(s are *o()ined )y 7(erge0 and (oved i- re.uired$ &t also ta*+les the -unda(ental .uestion o- /hy ele(ents (ove$ 2.2 %inimalism So(e o- the distinguishing *hara*teristi*s o- the Mini(alis( o- the !!Gs are "a% *he*+ing and -eatures, ")% the role o- the t/o inter-a*e levels, and "*% the (e*hanis( o- deriving a stru*ture$ & dis*uss ea*h o- these$ Hegarding "a%, in Cho(s+y " !!2D !!C%, le1i*al ite(s are sele*ted -ro( the le1i*on -ully in-le*ted$ The head o- a ;un*tional Category su*h as & or C *ontains *ategorial and Case -eatures and the >4 and @ 7*he*+0 these -eatures$ &- the *ategorial K-eatures are strong, the >4 (oves "or is attra*ted% into the S'e*i-ier 'osition o- the ;un*tional 4ro6e*tion and the ver) ad6oins to the Iead 'osition$ &- the -eatures are

/ea+, (ove(ent o**urs at ,;$ The -eatures *ausing (ove(ent are a)stra*t2 strong does not (ean that the ele(ent is overtly (ar+ed (or'hologi*ally$ Thus, (ove(ent o**urs )e*ause o- having to 7'i*+0 u' -eatures$ &- only strong -eatures trigger overt (ove(ent, there is a 'ossi)ility that >on-&nter'reta)le -eatures are not *he*+ed )y ,;$ Io/ever, in Cho(s+y " !!Fa)%, this is no longer a 'ossi)ility and -eatures *an )e attra*ted even i- the le1i*al ele(ent does not itsel- (ove, through -eature attra*tion$ ;eature-attra*tion is (ore e*ono(i*al and involves only head-(ove(ent o- the -eatures "Cho(s+y !!C2 27 % and is -or(ulated to Lhave the -ollo/ing 'ro'erty2 an uninter'reta)le -or(al -eature U;; in the e1tended le1i*al ite( E,& see+s the *losest (at*hing -eature ; in its *-*o((and do(ain and atta*hes it to E,&, U;; then erasing i- the (at*h is su**ess-ulL " !!F)2 2?%$ Thus, the (odi-i*ation -ro( Cho(s+y0s " !!C% analysis is that it is not only strong -eatures that (ust )e *he*+ed )e-ore ,; is rea*hed, )ut all >on-&nter'reta)le -eatures sin*e only &nter'reta)le -eatures are visi)le at ,;$ Ien*e, the strong=/ea+ distin*tion *an )e eli(inated$ The eviden*e -or this is "22%$ &n "22%, the e1'letive there does not *he*+ the Case -eatures, sin*e other/ise the Case -eatures o- the 'ostver)al fi e &a elinas /ould not )e attra*ted$ As a result, the >on-&nter'reta)le Case -eatures o- the >4 /ould re(ain un*he*+ed and the senten*e /ould not )e /ell--or(ed2 22$ There are -ive 6avelinas in our )a*+yard$ As Cho(s+y " !!C% notes, i- the e1'letive /ere 'resent to *he*+ the 'hi--eatures, the &nter'reta)le 'lural 'hi--eatures o- the noun /ould not )e attra*ted to &"n-le*tion% and again, "22% /ould not *onverge$ Sin*e "22% is gra((ati*al, there is only inserted to *he*+ the >on-&nter'reta)le *ategorial -eatures$ The 'ro)le( no/ is to e1'lain /hy the su)6e*t 'osition in "22% (ust )e le1i*ally -illed and /hy attra*ted K--eatures do not su--i*e in "23%$ So(e sti'ulation -or K--eatures (ust )e (ade2 23$ AQQ are -ive 6avelinas in our )a*+yard$ Hegarding ")%, -or ea*h linguisti* e1'ression, a gra((ar (a+es availa)le t/o +inds o- in-or(ation, 'honeti* and se(anti*, or a 4honeti* ;or( "4;% and an ,;, using older ter(inology$ The 4; re'resentation gives in-or(ation to the Arti*ulatory4er*e'tual syste( and the ,; one to the Con*e'tual-&ntentional syste($ 7,egi)ility0 (ust )e ensured at these 7inter-a*e0 levels "Cho(s+y !!F)2 !%$ ;eatures are there-ore divided as to /hether they are 'honeti*, i$e$ not allo/ed at ,;, or se(anti*, i$e$ not allo/ed at 4;$ Thus, a derivation s'lits in t/o 'arts$ There are, ho/ever, -eatures in language that are neither 'honeti* nor se(anti*, there)y violating legi)ility$ These -eatures are 7>on-&nter'reta)le0 and do not Lenter into inter'retation at ,;L "Cho(s+y !!C2 277%$ The reason >on-&nter'reta)le -eatures e1ist is Lto -or*e (ove(ent, so(eti(es overtlyL "'$ 27F% to a higher ;un*tional Category$ &n the generative -ra(e/or+, (ove(ent has al/ays )een seen as 'ro)le(ati*$ As Cho(s+y " !!Fa2 ?2% 'uts it, LO/Phy language should have this O(ove(entP 'ro'erty is an interesting .uestion, /hi*h has )een dis*ussed -or al(ost ?G years /ithout resolutionL$ @er)al agree(ent and Case are other 'ro)le(s sin*e they are not relevant to the inter'retation in Modern English$ Cho(s+y " !!Fa2 ?2-F% 'ro'oses to *onne*t )oth2 the 7o--ending0 >on-&nter'reta)le Case and agree(ent are eli(inated through (ove(ent$

Thus, >on-&nter'reta)le -eatures trigger (ove(ent )ut &nter'reta)le ones do not$ &nter'reta)le -eatures are relevant at ,; and do not erase or delete )ut *an )e 7used over0$ >on-&nter'reta)le -eatures ta+e *are o- several 'heno(ena earlier treated as se'arate, -or instan*e, "a% an >4 has one and only one >on-&nter'reta)le Case -eature, as "2?% sho/s, and ")% they 6usti-y the in*lusion o- -un*tional *ategories in the nu(eration and the ensuing (ove(ent into the heads and s'e*i-iers o- these 'ro6e*tions$ &n "2?%, 'o(a *annot *he*+ the Case in )oth su)6e*t 'ositions2 2?$ ARoya see(ed t /as annoyed /ith A(ir$ A**ording to Cho(s+y " !!C2 2F3%, the 'erson and nu()er, i$e$ 'hi-, -eatures o>ouns are &nter'reta)le )e*ause they *an )e reused$ The e1a('le given )y Cho(s+y is "2C% /here )ohn (oves to su)6e*t o- the &4 to *he*+ its Case, *he*+ing 'hi--eatures along the /ay$ AGH is a -un*tional 'ro6e*tion in /hi*h *he*+ing ta+es 'la*e2 2C$ Nohn is Ot AGH Ot intelligentPP$ Hegarding "*%, & 'rovide a sa('le derivation here$ As (entioned a)ove, trees su*h as "2G% are no longer assu(ed in Cho(s+y " !!C%$ ,e1i*al ite(s are ta+en out o- the le1i*on and (erged as in "2E%$ Through (erge and (ove, the &"n-le*tion% /ould )e added as in "27% and )e*ause o- the >on-&nter'reta)le Case -eatures o- &, the >4 /ould (ove, as indi*ated in "27% as /ell2 2E$ @4 >@ Rora le-t

27$ &4 > &0 & @4 t@ le-t Se*tion 2 s+et*hes so(e o- the 'ro'erties o- the generative -ra(e/or+, )oth 'reMini(alist and Mini(alist$ & no/ address so(e *ontroversies$

$ %& and cross'linguistic (ariation: some contro(ersies

Iaving outlined so(e )asi* as'e*ts o- Mini(alis(, & no/ turn to the .uestion o- ho/ languages di--er$ &n 3$ , & argue that the inter'reta)ility o- -eatures varies a*ross languages "*-$ van Gelderen !!!% and that, as a result, the o**urren*e o- ;un*tional Categories "hen*e ;C% also varies "*-$ van Gelderen !!3%$ The latter is sho/n in 3$2$ *.1 +ariation in the ,nterpretablit( of #eatures As (entioned, a**ording to Cho(s+y " !!C2 2F3%, the 'hi--eatures o- >ouns are &nter'reta)le )e*ause they *an )e reused$ The e1a('le given )y Cho(s+y is "2C% a)ove, re'eated here as "2F%, /here )ohn (oves to su)6e*t o- the &4 to *he*+ its Case, *he*+ing 'hi--eatures along the /ay2 2F$ Nohn is Ot AGH Ot intelligentPP$ &n "2F%, there is no agree(ent )et/een intelligent and )ohn, and hen*e AGH (ay not have )een a*tivated$ Alternatively, the (ove(ent to S'e* AGH4 (ay have to do /ith K--eatures in AGH that (ust )e *he*+ed$ There is no e('iri*al eviden*e that the 'hi--eatures are &nter'reta)le$ &n languages other than English, there is su*h eviden*e sin*e the nu()er and gender -eatures a''ear t/i*e, )oth on the ver) and on the ad6e*tive or 'ast 'arti*i'le$ An instan*e is ;ren*h /here the nu()er -eatures in "2!% a''ear on )oth -inite ver) sont 7are-340 and 'ast 'arti*i'le parties 7le-t-;40$ The 'erson -eatures are only (ar+ed on the -inite ver) and the gender -eatures only on the 'ast 'arti*i'le$ Ien*e, 'erson and nu()er (ay )e >on-&nter'reta)le2 2!$ ,es -e((es sont parties The /o(en are-34 le-t-;4 7The /o(en have le-t0$ &t is interesting that in languages that have "2!%, it is al/ays nu()er and gender, never 'erson, that a''ear on the 'ast 'arti*i'le$ &n addition to "2!%, in S'anish, the 'assive 'arti*i'le as in "3G%, in-le*ts -or nu()er and gender, )ut not 'ersonD and in S/edish, nu()er is (ar+ed on the 'ast 'arti*i'le in "3 % "there is no gender in S/edish and -inite ver)s sho/ no in-le*tion%$ The data in "2!% to "3 % (ight indi*ate that 'erson is not &nter'reta)le and *annot )e *he*+ed t/i*e2 3G$ ,as *asas son vendidas the houses are-34 sold-;4 3 $ Tre )ilder )lev m)lade three 'i*tures /ere 'ainted-4 With o)6e*t agree(ent, as in "32% -ro( Tohono 50odha(, 'erson -eatures do o**ur on the 'arti*i'le$ Iere, 'erson a''ears as /ell as nu()er, and so, there is nothing against 'erson (ar+ing on 'arti*i'les$ &t 6ust does not see( to )e the *ase that 'erson is 7re-used0, i$e$ &nter'reta)le2

32$ Ceo6 0o 0aSi2 *-*eggia, )oy is=/as (e S--ighting 7The )oy is=/as -ighting (e0$ "Re'eda !F3% & there-ore argue, *ontra Cho(s+y " !!C%, that 'erson -eatures in a nu()er olanguages "in*luding Modern English% are >on-&nter'reta)le and are *he*+ed only on*e$ >u()er and gender *an )e 7re-used0 as in "2!% to "3 % a)ove$ There is so(e diale*tal eviden*e that the -eatures o- 'ronouns are *he*+ed di--erently -ro( those o- -ull >4s, na(ely -ro( Bel-ast English$ Ienry " !!C2 E% des*ri)es Ii)erno English *onstru*tions as in "33% and "3?% /here the nu()er -eatures o- the -ull noun in "33% are not *he*+ed )ut the ones o- the 'ronoun in "3?% are2 33$ The eggs are=is *ra*+ed 3?$ AThey is *ra*+ed$ &n standard English, the 'hi--eatures o- )oth 'ronouns and -ull nouns (ust )e *he*+ed )e-ore ,;, again an indi*ation that 'erson (ight )e >on-&nter'reta)le$ &n 2$2, the Case dis*ussed is gra((ati*al or stru*tural Case, de'endent on the no(inal0s 'osition in the senten*e$ There is another +ind o- Case, na(ely inherent Case, de'endent on the the(ati* stru*ture$ &n Cho(s+y " !FEa2 !3%, this is de-ined as2 LO/Pe distinguish the 7stru*tural Cases0 o)6e*tive and no(inative, assigned in ter(s o- S-stru*ture 'osition, -ro( the 7inherent Cases0 assigned at K-stru*ture$ $$$ &nherent Case is asso*iated /ith OthetaP-(ar+ing, /hile stru*tural Case is notL$ &nherent Case is relevant at ,;$ ;or stru*tural Case, there is a one-to-one relationshi' )et/een Cases and no(inal ele(ents "i$e$ its >on-&nter'reta)le status%$ Belletti " !FF% and Maha6an " !!G% assu(e that inherent Case is o'tionally assigned=*he*+ed$ The no(inal, /hen it does not have inherent Case, (ay *he*+ its stru*tural Case i- this is availa)le$ Thus, in (any languages, no(inals have either stru*tural Case or inherent Case$ The stru*tural Case -eatures are >on-&nter'reta)le )ut the inherent ones are not$ The -or(er (a+e it ne*essary -or a le1i*al ele(ent to (ove to a ;CD the latter do not$ &n 5ld English, there is eviden*e -or (ore inherent Case than there is in Modern English "*-$ van Gelderen !!E%$ This /ould (ean Case -eatures are &nter'reta)le and relevant at ,;$ The eviden*e is that Case "genitive, dative, or a**usative% de'ends on the the(ati* stru*ture o- the ver), and that Case (ar+ed >4s do not o**ur in stru*turally Case (ar+ed 'ositions$ Thus, 5ld English did not have a 'assive as in Modern English /here the 7su)6e*t0 re*eived no(inative Case, )ut had *onstru*tions su*h as "3C% /ith inherent him rather than he2 3C$ Beo/ul- 2E! TUr hi( aglU*a UtgrU'e /earV

7here he /as gra))ed )y the (onster0$ There is an interesting 'erson s'lit2 -irst and se*ond 'erson 'ronouns lost the inherent Case )e-ore third 'erson 'ronouns$ This is o)vious -ro( the (or'hology )ut also -ro( 'erson s'lits in the 'assive and ergative2 *onstru*tions /here the third 'erson 'ronoun has inherent Case, su*h as him in "3E%, outnu()er those /here a -irst or se*ond 'erson does2 -or instan*e, in the -irst EGGG lines o- ,aya(on "a thirteenth-*entury te1t%, there are 37 instan*es o- i('ersonal him, as in "3E% out o- a total o- C3? o**urren*es o- him "92EW%, /hereas there are 2E instan*es oi('ersonal me out o- a total o- !? "9 3$?W%2 3E$ Caligula ? sel Tar hi( Tuhte "sa(e in 5tho% s'lendid there he thought 7S'lendid it see(ed to hi(0$ The third 'erson -eatures, ho/ever, /ere >on-&nter'reta)le )e-ore -irst and se*ond 'erson "*-$ van Gelderen !!!%$ &n *on*lusion to 3$ , & assu(e that linguisti* e1'ressions have a 'honeti* and a se(anti* *o('onent$ &n the 7ideal *ase0, all -eatures /ould )e either relevant at ,; or 4;$ This is, ho/ever, not true sin*e there are -eatures that -or*e (ove(ent that are neither se(anti* not 'honeti*$ These are the >on-&nter'reta)le Case and agree(ent -eatures$ They -or*e (ove(ent )ut are not relevant to the inter'retation$ A)ove, & argue that languages and stages di--er as to /hi*h -eatures are &nter'reta)le$ &n Modern English, Case -eatures and the 'erson and nu()er -eatures o- ver)s are >on-&nter'reta)le )ut, & argue, there is no dire*t eviden*e "*-$ "2F% versus "2!%% that all no(inal 'hi--eatures are &nter'reta)le$ &n other languages, nu()er and gender -eatures on no(inals are &nter'reta)le, )ut not 'erson$ Stru*tural Case -eatures are >on-&nter'reta)le in Modern English )ut are not in 5ld English, as & turn to in 3$2$ Thus, the status o- -eatures ulti(ately a**ounts -or di--eren*es in /ord order, Case and agree(ent a*ross languages, and -or /hether a language is syntheti* or analyti*$ *.2 +ariation in #un-tional .ategories &-, as & argue in 3$ , -eatures vary as to &nter'reta)lity, it (ay )e the *ase that the ;Cs "/here the *he*+ing o- >on-&nter'reta)le -eatures also o**urs% that are a*tivated in a 'arti*ular language vary also$ &n van Gelderen " !!3%, it is argued that in older English the &4 node need not )e a*tivated sin*e (odals are (ain ver)s and in-initival to is 'art o- the @4$ &n 7older0 languages, as'e*t is (ore i('ortant than tense and as'e*t is ty'i*ally 'art o- the @4 "*-$ $$$% as o''osed to tense /hi*h is 'art o- the &4$ Thus, in 5ld English, to /as 'art o- the @4 )ut, due to the in*rease in other au1iliaries su*h as shall, ma( and do, the in-initival (ar+er is reanalyzed ")y the language learner% as )eing in &$ The 5ld English tree is given in "37% and the late Middle English one is in "3F%2

37$ C4 S'e* C0 C @4 $ @0 @ >4

3F$ C4 S'e* C0 C &4 S'e* &0 & @4 $ @0 @ >4 Eviden*e -or "3F% is the o**urren*e, at the end o- the ?th *entury, o- s'lit in-initives as in "3!% and "?G%, 'ro-in-initives as in "? %, AC& and 7du((y0 do as in "?2%2 3!$ Wy*li-, %atthew C, 3? < say to 3ou, to nat swere on al (anere, 7& say to you to not *urse in all /ays0$ ?G$ /polog( for the Lollards C7 4oul seiT, Tu Tat 're*hist to not steyl, stelist, 74aul says, you that 'rea*h to not steal steals0$ ? $ 0andl(ng 1(nne FG23-? But /yle 3e alle -oure do A Tyng Tat y 'reye 3o/ to, 7But /ill all -our o- you do a thing that & as+ you to0$ ?2$ Chau*er, !he %on$'s !ale ?? -2

Iis yonge sone, that three yeer /as o- age Un-to hi( seyde, -ader, /hy do ye /e'e3 5n*e & is introdu*ed, there is eviden*e that the ver) (oves to it to *he*+ its -eatures, /hereas it did this in C in 5ld English$ &n short, in se*tion 3, & argue that variation a(ong languages o**urs in the &nter'reta)ility o- -eatures and the a*tivation o- ;un*tional Categories$

+ Conclusion A-ter giving so(e )a*+ground to UG and Mini(alis(, & argue that )oth ;un*tional Categories and ;eatures vary *ross-linguisti*ally$ &n 5ld English, not all ;un*tional Categories are a*tivated and a(ny -eatures are &nter'reta)le$ TIis *hanges$ &n Modern English, there are (ore ;un*tional Categories and (any -eatures are >on&nter'reta)le$

,e#erences Ba+er, C$,$ !7F$ ,ntrodu-tion to "enerati e2!ransformational 1(nt3 $ 4renti*e Iall$ Belletti, Adriana !FF$ LThe Case o- Una**usativesL$ Linguisti- ,n4uir( !$ 2 -3?$ Cho(s+y, >oa( !EC$ /spe-ts of the !heor( of 1(nta3$ Ca()ridge2 M&T 4ress O !7E, th 'rintingP - !FEa$ Knowledge of Language$ >e/ <or+2 4raeger$ - !FE)$ 5arriers$ Ca()ridge2 M&T 4ress$ - !!2$ LA Mini(alist 4rogra( -or ,inguisti* TheoryL$ %,! O--asional Papers in Linguisti-s 1$ also a''ear as *ha'ter 3 in Cho(s+y " !!C%$ - !!C$ LCategories and Trans-or(ationsL, *ha'ter ? in !he %inimalist Program, Ca()ridge2 M&T 4ress$ - !!Fa$ 6uestro .ono-imiento del Lengua&e 0umano , Edi*ion )ilingue$ Santiago de Chile2 &('resos Universitaria$

- !!F)$ LSo(e 5)servations on E*ono(y in Generative Gra((arL$ ,s the 5est "ood Enough7 ed$ )y 4ilar Bar)osa, Kanny ;o1 et al, C27$ Ca()ridge2 M&T 4ress$ Gelderen, Elly van !!3$ !he Rise of #un-tional .ategories$ A(sterda(2 Nohn Ben6a(ins$ - !!E$ LCase to the 5)6e*t in the Iistory o- EnglishL, Linguisti/nal(sis 2E2 7- 33$ - !!!$ / 0istor( of Refle3i e Pronouns8 where .ase meets /greement and Pro $ MS$ Ienry, Alison !!C$ 5elfast English and 1tandard English$ 51-ord2 5U4$ Iornstein, >or)ert J Kavid ,ight-oot !F $ L&ntrodu*tionL, in E3planation in Linguisti-s, edited )y >or)ert Iornstein J Kavid ,ight-oot$ ,ong(an$ Maha6an, Anoo' !!G$ !he /9/ 5ar Distin-tion and %o ement !heor($ M&T 4hK$ Re'eda, 5-elia !F3$ / Papago "rammar, Tu*son2 University o- Arizona 4ress$