10.15160/1826-803X/108
In questo lavoro mi soffermo su due aspetti del processo di  linearizzazione delle strutture sintattiche, ovvero la linearizzazione  degli specificatori e le lingue disarmoniche (quelle in cui l'ordine fra  testa e complemento non è uniforme nelle diverse proiezioni massimali).  Propongo di estendere al caso delle lingue disarmoniche una soluzione  originariamente proposta per spiegare la località del movimento a  destra. Ne emerge una bozza di teoria 'debole' della linearizzazione,  cioè una teoria che prevede che delle opzioni per default possano essere  sospese in determinate condizioni.
application/pdf
1826-803X
108
it
Carlo Cecchetto
Sezione di Lettere
<i>Some preliminary remarks on a "weak" theory of linearization</i>
Text.Serial.Journal
https://annali.unife.it/lettere
Linguistica
2012-10-10
2012-10-10
2016-10-20
1-13
AOLF
Carlo Cecchetto
2007
10.15160/1826-803X/108
1
1826-803X
it
13
<i>Some preliminary remarks on a "weak" theory of linearization</i>
https://annali.unife.it/lettere/article/download/108/63
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere
Vol. 1 (2007) 1/13

                                                 CARLO CECCHETTO


                     Some preliminary remarks on a ‘weak’ theory of linearization


        1. Introduction

        One traditional research topic in syntax is the question of linearization of hierarchical
structures. Extensive research stemming from the seminal work by Noam Chomsky in the fifties has
shown that natural languages have a hierarchical organization, but, since utterances take place in
time and not instantaneously, hierarchical structures must be mapped in a linear sequence of words.
Linearization can be seen as a process in which a bi-dimensional structure (as illustrated by the
traditional branching trees) is conflated in a mono-dimensional one (a linear sequence). Clearly, this
process is rule-governed. It is not the case that anything goes, probably because the linearized
structure is the input for language acquisition, namely a child has to infer some properties of his/her
own language based on a linear input. Generative grammar has systematically dealt with the
question of linearization at least from the seventies, when what would get the name of X-bar theory
was first elaborated. X-bar theory claims that the each phrase adheres to a universal format
according to which the Head (a lexical item) can be attached to a Complement (itself a phrase). To
the unit formed by Head and Complement, a further phrase, called Specifier, is attached (adjuncts
can further complete the structure).
        According to a more or less standard version of X-bar theory, the only significant point of
systematic cross-linguistic variation in phrase structure is the linear order between Head and
Complement, namely languages would come in two big varieties: the [Spec [Head-Compl] ] type,
illustrated by Italian and English, and the [Spec [Compl-Head] ], illustrated by Japanese and
Turkish. According to this view, linear order is directly encoded in syntax and a child acquiring a
language must set the value of the Head parameter for his/her target language. As for Specifiers, the
question was less extensively investigated, but at least prototypical Specifiers created by a
movement operation (say, Spec,CP or Spec,IP) seemed to be universally left branching, so no Spec
Parameter, akin to the Head Parameter, was part of the standard syntactic toolbox 1 .
        The picture that I have roughly summarized, which was a point of contact between generative
theory and the typological tradition stemming from Greenberg’s work (cf. Greenberg [1966]),

1
 However, X-bar theory assumes that the basic X-bar skeleton can be enriched by the presence of other phrases that
have the role of adjuncts, which can be attached more or less freely either to the left or to the right. So, some instances
of rightward movement and some rightward branching structures were allowed, but, crucially, not so for canonical cases
of movement (wh-movement and A movement).
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                                                  C. Cecchetto
Vol. 1 (2007) 2/13

prevailed until the early nineties when Richard Kayne proposed a revised theory of linearization.
Kayne’s theory (cf. Kayne [1994]) is based on Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), a condition
that, roughly summarized, states that asymmetric c-command is mapped into linear precedence. The
theory based on LCA allows a radical simplification of X-bar theory, so it has been adopted as a
guideline by many researchers. However, it also met opposition in the field, partly because the way
LCA is formulated does not leave a space for the Head Parameter, since all languages are predicted
to be Head initial (prior to re-arrangement that can lead to the superficial Complement-Head order).
LCA also blocks rightward movement of any type.
        Chomsky, in minimalist work (cf. Chomsky [1995] and following work), proposes that the
basic structure building operation (Merge), which creates a set by merging two syntactic objects, is
insensitive to linear order and that linearization is decided only at the PF interface, i.e. in
phonology. So, strictly speaking, in core syntax it does not make sense to ask whether a Head
precedes or follows its Complement. Therefore a theory of linearization would not sit in the core of
the system but in a more peripheral position (at the PF interface).
        In this squib, I will approach the question of linearization by reflecting on some cases that
seem recalcitrant to a systematic treatment, namely the fact that recent work on sign languages has
shown that specifiers can be linearized on the right and the existence of disharmonic languages in
which the order of Head and Complement is not stable across categories. I will propose that starting
from these “exceptions” can indeed be very useful because discovering why “exceptions” are
tolerated might allow us to identify the “rules” that govern linearization in general. As is usual
practice in other disciplines, you start from “pathology” in order to discover regularities.

        2. The Linearization of Specifiers

        Although a syntactic category can either be base generated in or moved to a Specifier
position 2 , in the latter case it is easier to detect the linear position of (the material in) the Specifier.
The reason is that in most cases the material that is base generated in a Spec position moves to a
higher functional position (i.e. the external argument of a transitive verb that moves to Spec,IP) or
the material surrounding it does, so the initial linear order configuration is often obscured 3 .
        If one focuses on Specifier positions created by a movement operation, the common wisdom,
as I already said, is that Specifiers are linearized on the left. This is particularly clear for cases of wh
movement, since in the overwhelming majority of the languages that have been studied up to recent

2
  In this section, I use the term Specifier as a rather informal label to refer to the position that is identified as such in X’-
bar theory. Assuming Bare Phrase Structure theory, the notion of Specifiers is not a primitive.
3
  Of course, if linearization is a PF phenomenon, it does not even make sense asking how the material that will move is
linearized in its base position.
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                                              C. Cecchetto
Vol. 1 (2007) 3/13

years, wh phrases are found either in situ (namely, they don’t move) or at the left edge of the
sentence. Cases of languages in which wh phrases systematically occur at the right edge of the
sentence are extremely rare (cf. Haider [1997]; Petronio – Lillo Martin [1997] for discussion on
this). However this picture, which might have been adequate until a decade ago, is seriously
challenged by recent syntactic investigation of sign languages. In fact, in sign languages wh
elements can and in some cases must systematically move to the right edge of the sentence. I refer
to Cecchetto – Geraci – Zucchi (2007) for data presentation. They focus on Italian Sign Language
(LIS) but also mention other sign languages (American Sign Language, Indo-Pakistani Sign
Language, Israeli Sign Language, Sign Language of the Netherlands a.o.) and some typological
work that shows that phrases naturally sit in the right periphery (Zeshan [2004]).
        In order to explain why wh elements can move to the right edge of the sentence in sign
languages, Cecchetto − Geraci − Zucchi (2007) elaborate on an idea by Ackema − Neeleman
(2002).
        Ackema and Neeleman propose that rightward movement is more limited than leftward
movement because of processing difficulties that arise with the former. Here is a brief summary of
their account. In sentence processing, the parser must build a syntactic representation on the basis of
a linear (left-to-right) input (the incoming sentence). In order to reduce the pressure on short-term
memory during the analysis of an input string, the parser closes off certain units of already parsed
structure and removes them from the short-term memory by treating them as atoms with no
discernible internal syntactic structure. As for processing of antecedent-trace dependencies, it is
standard to asuume that the parser starts searching for a position to insert a gap only when an item is
identified as a moved element 4 .
        Given what we said, if the trace follows its antecedent (as in leftward movement), in principle
it can be inserted in any phrase following the antecedent, since for any such phrase the insertion of
the trace may occur while the parser is building up the phrase. However, a trace can precede its
antecedent (as in rightward movement) only if trace and antecedent are in the same unit; otherwise,
in order to insert a gap, a “closed” (fully analyzed) unit would have to be reopened for inspection
when the parser hits the antecedent, something which is either not possible or very costly. In a
nutshell, the basic intuition underlying Ackema and Neeleman’s approach is that rightward
movement requires backward localization of a trace and backward localization is possible only if



4
   Ackema and Neeleman motivate this assumption by observing that in a sentence like (i) there is nothing which
suggests that it contains a gap. Thus, positing a trace in the string “you think Mary fixed the bike” in (ii) depends on the
presence of the fronted interrogative element how.
(i) You think Mary fixed the bike
(ii) How do you think Mary fixed the bike?
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                                             C. Cecchetto
Vol. 1 (2007) 4/13

trace and antecedent are close enough to belong to the same unit 5 . This approach can derive Ross’s
(1967) Right Roof Constraint, according to which rightward movement (and only rightward
movement) is clause-bound.
        In order to extend to LIS (and other sign languages) this type of approach, Cecchetto − Geraci
− Zucchi (2007) stress some important features of the grammar of sign languages. In LIS multiple
levels of subordination are rarer than in spoken languages: for example, a sentence of a spoken
language that presents multiple subordinate clauses is commonly translated in LIS by using a
multisentential discourse. Furthermore, when subordinate clauses occur in LIS, they are never
center-embedded, but occur in peripheral position in the sentence (cf. Cecchetto − Geraci − Zucchi
[2006]). Cecchetto − Geraci − Zucchi (2007) suggested that these properties are related to a
fundamental difference between signs and words with respect to short-term memory: the span,
namely the number of items that a subject can repeat in the exact order they were presented to her,
is significantly lower for signs than it is for words. Indeed, this difference between signs and words
is confirmed for LIS and Italian by an experimental study reported by Geraci − Gozzi − Papagno −
Cecchetto (2007), where it is shown that, other things being equal, short-term memory for LIS signs
is significantly more limited than short-term memory for Italian words. This suggests that avoidance
of multiple levels of embedding and of center-embedded structures are due to short term memory
limitations: the grammatical options chosen by the grammar of LIS are those that put a light burden
on short term memory. The same need may also explain why many functions words of spoken
languages (articles, auxiliaries, prepositions, etc.) are not expressed in LIS, and in other sign
languages, by manual signs, but by face expressions, spatial orientations and body postures. Even
some content words like adverbs are not expressed in LIS by manual signs, but by modifications of



5
  The Right Roof Constraint can be illustrated by Heavy NP Shift in English and by Right Dislocation in Italian. That
Heavy NP Shift is clause bound is shown by the contrast between (i) and (ii) (cf. ROCHEMONT − CULICOVER [1990]). (i)
is acceptable since the backward localization of the trace is very local, given that the rightward moved NP the entire
book of Revelation does not escape the embedded clause (carefully modifies the verb study). In (ii) the backward
localization of the trace is not local, given that the entire book of Revelation escapes the embedded clause (carefully
modifies the verb want).
(i) John wanted to [study t carefully [the entire book of Revelation]]
(ii) *[John wanted to study t dearly [the entire book of Revelation]]
A similar pattern emerges by looking at right dislocation in Italian (cf. CECCHETTO [1999]). In (iii) a Gianni is right
dislocated to the edge of the matrix clause. The backward localization of the trace should take place at long distance
(the matrix clause mi sembra strano occurs between a Gianni and its trace) and this results in ungrammaticality. (iii)
forms a minimal pair with (iv), which is acceptable even if leftward movement takes place long distance (a Gianni is
dislocated to the periphery of the matrix clause). (iii) is acceptable since the antecedent a Gianni precedes its trace and
no backward localization is necessary.
(iii) A Gianni, mi sembra strano che abbia prestato un libro t
To Gianni (it) to-me seems strange that (he) has borrowed a book
(iv) *Che abbia prestato un libro t, mi sembra strano, a Gianni
That (he) has borrowed a book (it) to-me seems strange to Gianni
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                             C. Cecchetto
Vol. 1 (2007) 5/13

the sign of the verb. These features of sign languages may help to cope with the fact that, for visuo-
spatial languages, a reduced number of items can be kept in the active buffer.
        Whether or not this hypothesis is correct, these features, that LIS shares with many other sign
languages, induce Cecchetto − Geraci − Zucchi (2007) to propose an explanation for why rightward
movement of wh phrase is permissible in LIS. Due to the reduced level of embeddings, to the total
lack of center embedding and to the fact that a LIS sentence is typically short (it contains a limited
number of signs), backward localization of a trace in LIS is bound to be a local phenomenon: the
syntactic parser has no need to reopen already closed units when it tries to insert a trace after the
moved element has been identified. So, rightward wh movement is allowed, more or less as Heavy
NP shift is allowed.
        Cecchetto − Geraci − Zucchi’s (2007) approach predicts that, while in spoken languages the
fact that Spec,CP is linearized to the left allows extraction of wh-phrases out of subordinate clauses
since this does not involve backward localization of the trace, in LIS, where Spec,CP is to the right,
extraction of a wh-phrase out of a subordinate clause should be barred, because, when the parser
reaches the right peripheral wh-phrase, the unit that contains its trace has already been closed off
and the dependency should not be processed. This prediction seems to be correct for LIS, as they
discuss.
        In this section, we have seen that, if one assumes that the leftward placement of specifiers is a
strategy to minimize the burden for the parser, there is a natural explanation for “exceptions”,
namely cases in which movement creates a configuration in which the moved category is linearized
to the right. The existence of these “exceptions” suggests that rules of linearization are a relatively
peripheral phenomenon and are not encoded as such in core syntax, in accordance with Chomsky’s
proposal that linearization is a PF phenomenon.

        3. The linearization of Head and Complement

        The Head Parameter is intended to account for harmonic languages in which the linear order
between a head and its complement is consistent through the various categories. However, ‘mixed’
or ‘disharmonic’ word-order systems seem to be widespread, so, especially since Kayne’s (1994)
work which rejects the existence of the Head Parameter, the doubt has emerged that by assuming
the Head Parameter one can explain the special cases (the harmonic systems) but neglects
explaining the most common ones (disharmonic systems).
        For this reason, I begin this section by briefly going over the typological results summarized
in Dryer’s (1992), which are directly relevant for the issue of the distribution of
harmonic/disharmonic structures. Dryer, based on a large sample of 625 languages, tries to identify
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                           C. Cecchetto
Vol. 1 (2007) 6/13

those pairs of grammatical elements whose order correlates with the order of verb and object. More
specifically, he proposes the following definition:

        (1) If a pair of elements X and Y is such that X tends to precede Y significantly more often in
VO languages than in OV languages, then <X,Y> is a Correlation Pair and X is a Verb Patterner
and Y is an Object Patterner with respect to this pair.

        In most cases, Dryer’s investigation identifies Correlation Pairs that had already been
recognized as such in the Greenbergian tradition (cf. Greenberg [1966]). For example, the following
elements form Correlation Pairs (the list is not complete): adpositions and NPs (to + John), noun
and genitive (father + of John), verb and (subcategorized) adpositional phrases (slept + on the
floor), copula and predicate (be+ a teacher), tense/aspect auxiliary verb and VP (has + eaten
dinner), complementizer (or adverbial subordinator) and embedded clause (that + John is sick or
because + John has left). Interestingly, in all these cases it is plausible (or at least conceivable) to
imagine that the Object Patterner in the Correlation Pair is a complement of the Verb Patterner. In at
least two other cases a Correlation Pair is not obviously formed by head and complement, namely
the pairs formed by noun and relative clause (the man + who I saw) and by adjective and standard
(taller + than John) in comparative constructions. Probably the most substantial difference between
Dryer’s results and the former typological literature is introduced by the fact that Dryer can show
that noun and adjective do not form a Correlation Pair.
        It seems fair to summarize Dryer’s research by saying that it confirms the existence of a
systematic correlation between the order of verb and object and the order of other pairs of elements.
In this sense, the original motivation for the Head Parameter seems to persist. I take this to be a
drawback of LCA-based theories. Still, disharmonic languages (or disharmonic configurations
within harmonic languages) do exist and their existence cannot be simply neglected. An interesting
perspective on disharmonic structures is investigating how disharmonic they can be, in order to see
if there is some inner regularity in what seems a completely free word order system. For example,
Holmberg (2000) by looking at some representative disharmonic languages observes that, although
many alternative word orders are possible, it is not the case that any word order is allowed. In
particular, there is a specific configuration that is not acceptable. This configuration is excluded by
Final-over-Final Constraint in (2):

        (2) Final-over-Final Constraint
If α is a head-initial phrase and β is a phrase immediately dominating α, then β must be head initial.
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                           C. Cecchetto
Vol. 1 (2007) 7/13

If α is a head-final phrase, and β is a phrase immediately dominating α then β can be head initial or
head-final (from Holmberg [2000]; cf. also Julien [2000]).

        The Final-over-Final Constraint is schematized in (3). Out of the four logically possible
arrangements, only three are attested. The illicit arrangement is (3a), in which YP is the head-initial
complement of the head-final projection XP (specifiers are omitted for simplicity):

(3)       a. * [XP [YP Y ZP ] X ]
          b. √ [XP [YP ZP Y] X ]
          c. √ [XP X [YP Y ZP ] ]
          d. √ [XP X [YP ZP Y] ]

        Biberauer − Holmberg − Roberts (2007) mention, among other facts, the following evidence
for Final-over-Final Constraint:
        i) Old and modern Germanic varieties exhibit a mix of head-initial and head-final orders in
VP and IP, with all permutations of Aux, V and Object attested except one (Den Besten −
Edmondson [1983]; Hroarsdottir [2000]). The unattested order is the one that violates Final-over-
Final Constraint.
        ii) Sentence-final complementizers are not found in VO languages (Hawkins [1990]). This is
so since both [CP [IP [VP V Obj ] INFL ] COMP ] and [CP [IP INFL [VP V Obj ]] COMP ] violate
Final-over-Final Constraint.
        iii) In the nominal domain, Finnish has mixed projections too: it has both pre- and
postpositions and N-Complement as well as Complement-N order. All permutations are found
except [PP [NP N-Complement ] P], the Final-over-Final Constraint violating order.
Biberauer − Holmberg − Roberts (2007) also mention some cases that do not conform to the Final-
over-Final Constraint. These cases belong to the type illustrated by the German sentences in (4) and
(5).

        (4) Johann hat [VP [DP den Mann] gesehen ]
        Johann has the man seen
        (5) Johann ist [VP [PP nach Berlin] gefahren]
        Johann is to Berlin driven

        Sentences in (4) and (5) violate Final-over-Final Constraint, since a head-final phrase (the
VP) immediately dominates a head-initial phrase (the DP in 4 and the PP in 5). Biberauer −
Holmberg − Roberts (2007) argue that (4) and (5) are representative of the known cases that do not
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                                    C. Cecchetto
Vol. 1 (2007) 8/13

obey the Final-over-Final Constraint, since in all the Final-over-Final Constraint violations there is
a categorical distinction between the head-final phrase β and the head-initial phrase α that is
immediately dominated by β, with one of the two being part of the extended projection of the verb
and the other being part of the extended projection of the noun (in the sense of Grimshaw [1991]).
Biberauer − Holmberg − Roberts (2007) offer an explanation for the both the cases explained by
Final-over-Final Constraint and the ‘exceptions’ like (4) and (5), but I will not try to summarize
their accoun, since it assumes LCA, which is inherently incompatible with the Head Parameter.
However, I will assume that their description is basically correct, including the observation that
cases like (4) and (5) are different because α and β belong to different extended projections.
        In the next section I will argue that one might make sense of Final-over-Final Constraint
effects by extending to these cases the perspective that I have assumed in section 2 for the
linearization of specifiers.

        4. Final-over-Final Constraint Reduced to a Condition on Backward Localization

        The gist of Ackema − Neeleman’s (2002) explanation for why rightward movement is more
constrained than leftward movement is that the parser has a preference for structures that do not
require backward localization of a trace. Therefore, the linearization algorithm, which plausibly
applies at the PF interface, favours leftward linearization of Specifiers. However, if this reasoning is
correct, the condition on linearization is flexible enough, since cases of rightward movement are
allowed under certain conditions, namely when rightward movement is local enough (clause
bound).
        Suppose that something like the Head Parameter exists and applies at the PF interface, when
linearization of hierarchical structure takes place. A way to express a weak version of the Head
Parameter might be saying that the linearization algorithm has a bias to favour a consistent linear
order across categories. Of course, an important question is why the linearization algorithm should
have such a bias. However, I cannot really deal with this question here 6 . What seems clear is that
this bias can also be overcome, since disharmonic languages exist.
        Crucially, the only configuration that does not seem to be attested is structurally similar to a
case of backward localization, which we know to be problematic from the rightward movement
case. Let me elaborate on this point. The Final-over-Final Constraint applies within the boundary of
the clausal domain (the skeleton of which is the C-INFL-V heads) and within the boundary of the


6
 NESPOR − GUASTI − CHRISTOPHE (1996) claim that the Head Parameter is fixed based on phonological clues. It might
be that the child develops a bias for harmonic structures due to the need to maintain a parallelism between the
phonological structures and the syntactic one.
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                                           C. Cecchetto
Vol. 1 (2007) 9/13

nominal domain 7 . It seems reasonable to assume that the heads inside these two domains stay in a
special relation, with the c-commanding head selecting the c-commanded one. So, COMPL stays in
a special relation with an inflectional node (it is standardly assumed that the tense/untensed
character of the clause is reflected at the COMP level, for example languages have different
complementizer for finite and non finite clauses) and INFL stays in special relation with the verb.
Similarly, a preposition necessarily selects for an NP (or DP). The special character of the
relationship between COMP, INFL and V is confirmed by the fact that in many languages these
heads can be linked by the occurrence of head movement. Defining the exact character of this
special relationship is another important issue that I cannot go into in this squib.
        Be that as it may, the proposal that I would like to advance is that the parser might use this
special relationship as a clue when the incoming sentence is processed. Then, suppose that the
presence of COMP alerts the parsing of the occurrence of the INFL node in the immediate structure
and the presence of the INFL node alerts the parsing of the occurrence of the verb (similarly in the
nominal domain). This, together with the assumption that the parser closes off certain units of
already parsed structure and removes them from the short-term memory, might be the basis to
explain Final-over-Final Constraint effects. Let me explain this by making a representative
example. Imagine that the parser has to link INFL to the Head that selects it (say COMP). If COMP
precedes INFL, the parser “knows” that the incoming string will contain INFL. So, the link between
the two Heads can apply at a longer distance. However, the situation is different if the Head that is
selected (INFL) precedes the selecting Head (COMP). This configuration, which is the one
excluded by Final-over-Final Constraint, is schematically illustrated in (6):

        (6) * [CP [IP INFL VP] COMP ]

        I conjecture that what is wrong with (6) is that by the time the selecting Head COMP is met
the portion of the structure containing INFL might have already been closed off. This is not unlikely
if one considers that in principle the VP might contain a rich internal structure. In all the licit cases,
either the VP does not intervene between COMP and INFL, as in (7) and (8), or the VP intervenes
but COMP comes first, as in (9), so the parser is pre-alerted that INFL will arrive.

        (7) √ [CP [IP VP INFL] COMP ]
        (8) √ [CP COMP [IP INFL VP ] ]
        (9) √ [CP COMP [IP VP INFL] ]

7
  For simplicity, I will assume a simplified clausal structures with only three heads, V, INFL and COMP. A more
careful examination should consider a finer structure in which these heads are decomposed in the vP shell, in the IP area
(cf. CINQUE [1999]) and in the CP area (cf. RIZZI [1997]). I will leave this examination as a future work.
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                            C. Cecchetto
Vol. 1 (2007) 10/13

        Note that, for this explanation to work, it must be the case that there is an asymmetry between
COMP and INFL, namely the occurrence of COMP guarantees that an INFL node will be present
somewhere in the incoming sentence, while the presence of INFL does not warrant the presence of
COMP (in absence of this asymmetry, the configurations in 6 and 9 should have the same status,
since VP intervenes between COMP and INFL in both of them). This hypothesis seems to be
plausible, given the existence of clausal structures that lack the CP area (one obvious case is
Exceptional Case Marking configurations like I believe John to be smart).
        In the lowest section of the clause, a similar asymmetry should hold between the INFL node
and the verb, with the former guaranteeing the presence of the latter, but not vice versa. Cases of
VP not selected by INFL seem to exist as well. Candidate structures include absolute small clauses
like (10) and reduced relative clauses like (11) in languages like Italian:

        (10) Mangiata la mela, Gianni morì
        Eaten the apple, Gianni died
        “Having eaten apple, Gianni died”
        (11) La mela mangiata da Gianni era avvelenata
        The apple eaten by Gianni was poisoned

        So, I would like to propose that the parser postpones closing off a structure only if it is sure
that the structure is incomplete. The structural analogy with the rightward movement case should be
apparent by now. In both configurations there is an asymmetric dependency in which one link of the
dependency can alert the parser of the presence of the other link of the dependency. The
configuration in which the “alerting link” comes first is not problematic. However, if the “alerting
link” comes after, the configuration is acceptable only if the dependency is very local, because,
otherwise, the relevant portion of the structure might have been closed-off to early for the
dependency to be processed.
        Note that ‘exceptions’ to Final-over-Final Constraint like sentences in (4) and (5) do not
really come as a surprise adopting this perspective. It seems reasonable to assume that the
relationship between COMP and INFL and between INFL and V is different from the relationship
between V and its arguments. For example, there are verbs that do not take an internal argument,
but there is no COMPL which does not select for INFL and no INFL that does not select for a verb.
Furthermore, it seems intuitive that in (4) and (5) the V head selects for the entire category DP or
PP and does so for semantic reasons, instead of entering into a special relationship with the head D
or P. This is consistent with the fact that crosslinguistically there is no systematic head movement
of P (or D) to V.
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                          C. Cecchetto
Vol. 1 (2007) 11/13

        In this section I have proposed that the parser does not like structures that require backward
localization of one link of the relevant dependency (the link that must be backward localized is the
trace in case of a movement dependency and the selected Head in the cases just considered).
Backward localization is allowed only if it a local process. This is the basis to explain both the
restricted occurrence of rightward movement and the existence of Final-over-Final Constraint
effects.

        5. Conclusion

        Although the issue of linearization of syntactic structures has been extensively investigated,
we are still far from a comprehensive account. In this squib I have tentatively proposed that two
limitations on word order (the restrictiveness of rightward movement and the Final-over-Final
Constraint) can both have the same source, namely the fact that the parser tolerates configurations
that require backward localization of a certain element only if the process of backward localization
does not need to re-open fully analyzed categories which can count as atoms as far as on line
syntactic processing is concerned.


Carlo Cecchetto
Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
Dipartimento di Psicologia
Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo
I – 20126 Milano
carlo.cecchetto@unimib.it
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                        C. Cecchetto
Vol. 1 (2007) 12/13

References


Ackema, P., Neeleman, A. (2002) Effects of Short-Term Storage in Processing Rightward
Movement. In Nooteboom, S. et al. (eds.) Storage and Computation in the Language Faculty.
Dordrecht. Kluwer. 219-56.


Den Besten, H., Edmondson, J. (1983) The Verbal Complex in Continental West Germanic. In
Abraham, W. (ed.) On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam. Benjamins. 155-216.


Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. (2007) Structure and linearization in disharmonic word
orders. Talk given at WCCFL 26.


Cecchetto, C. (1999) A Comparative Analysis of Left and Right Dislocation in Romance. In Studia
Linguistica. 53/1. 40-67.


Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., Zucchi, S. (2006) Strategies of Relativization in Italian Sign Language.
In Natural Language and Linguist Theory. 24. 945-75.


Cecchetto C., Geraci, C., Zucchi, S. (2007) Another way to mark syntactic dependencies. The case
for right peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Manuscript. University of Milan and University of
Milan-Bicocca.


Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.


Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. New York-
Oxford. Oxford University Press.


Dryer, M. (1992) The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations. In Language. 68. 81-138.


Geraci, C., Gozzi, M., Papagno, C., Cecchetto, C. (2007) How grammar can cope with limited
short-term memory. In Cognition. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.014.


Greenberg, J.H. (ed.) (1966) Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.
Annali Online di Ferrara - Lettere                                                          C. Cecchetto
Vol. 1 (2007) 13/13

Grimshaw, J. (1991) Extended projection. Unpublished paper. Brandeis, University.


Haider, H. (1997) Typological Implications of a Directionality Constraint on Projections. In
Alexiadou, A., Hall, T.A. (eds.) Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation.
Amsterdam. Benjamins. 17-33 (= Linguistics Today. 13).


Hawkins, J. (1990) A parsing theory of word-order universals. In Linguistic Inquiry. 21. 223-61.


Holmberg, A. (2000) Deriving OV order in Finnish. In Svenonius, P. (ed.) The derivation of VO
and OV. Amsterdam. Benjamins. 123-52.


Hroarsdottir, Th. (2000) Word order change in Icelandic: from OV to VO. Amsterdam. Benjamins.


Julien, M. (2000) Syntactic heads and word formation: a study of verbal inflection. Oxford. OUP.


Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of the Syntax. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.


Nespor, M., Guasti, M.-T., Christophe, A. (1996) Selecting word order: the Rhythmic Activation
Principle. In Kleinhenz, U. (ed.) Interfaces in Phonology. Berlin. Akademie Verlag. 1-26.


Petronio, K., Lillo-Martin, D. (1997) Wh-Movement and the Position of Spec-CP: Evidence from
American Sign Language. In Language. 73/1. 18-57.


Rizzi, L. (1997) The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.) Elements of
Grammar. Dordrecht. Kluwer. 281-337.


Rochemont, M., Culicover, P. (1990). English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar.
Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.


Ross, J.R. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax. MIT. Ph. Doctoral dissertation.


Zeshan, U. (2004) Interrogative Constructions in Sign Languages – Cross-linguistic perspectives. In
Language. 80/1. 7-39.
