Abstract
This paper looks at EPP and word order in Arabic in light of Chomsky’s Labeling Theory, proposed in POP and POP Extensions. In the current framework, EPP—the principle that SpecTP must be filled in—is eliminated. EPP-driven movement is reduced to labeling failure: if T fails to label the structure that arises after E-merge of the subject in Spec of vP [DP vP], then filling SpecTP becomes necessary in order to ‘strengthen’ (the labelability of) T. Chomsky postulates two types of T: Strong and weak. English-type languages, which show poor agreement inflection, have a weak T, and therefore impose the Fill-SpecTP requirement. On the other hand, NSLs, Chomsky claims, have a strong T which can label the TP structure, by virtue of having rich agreement inflection. This paper shows that Chomsky’s approach to EPP makes wrong predictions. Instead, a freezing effect account which also maintains a labeling system can explain the word order facts in Arabic. Crucially, the account proposed does not make resort to Chomsky’s parameter of strength or otherwise of T.
Highlights
Labeling AlgorithmThe aim of linguistic theory since the introduction of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1994) has always been to reduce the theory of language to its necessary ingredients. Chomsky (2015, p. 4) remarks: In the best case, [linguistic] phenomena would be explained by interaction of the simplest computational operation—Merge ...—interacting with general principles of minimal computation MC
This paper looks at EPP and word order in Arabic in light of Chomsky’s Labeling Theory, proposed in POP and POP Extensions
EPP-driven movement is reduced to labeling failure: if T fails to label the structure that arises after E-merge of the subject in Spec of vP [DP vP], filling SpecTP becomes necessary in order to ‘strengthen’ T
Summary
The aim of linguistic theory since the introduction of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1994) has always been to reduce the theory of language to its necessary ingredients. Chomsky (2015, p. 4) remarks: In the best case, [linguistic] phenomena would be explained by interaction of the simplest computational operation—Merge ...—interacting with general principles of minimal computation MC. It begins with a review of the different subject positions that subjects might occupy along the clausal spine. Some linguists claim that in the derivation of SVO structures in NSLs, EPP is satisfied by movement of the preverbal subject to SpecTP, see e.g., Fassi Fehri (1993), Benmomoun (2000), Soltan (2007), Aoun et al (2010), Saeed (2011), among others, on Arabic. To derive the SVO word order in Arabic, it can be argued that the subject moves to SpecTP to satisfy EPP (assuming that Agree might take place at a distance). The other aspect of EPP that has received critique is that if there is a principle like EPP, it might not be universal (e.g., Fassi Fehri, 2012; Haider, 2010, among others)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
