Syntax I

I observe that there is an inconsistency between what Adger says on p. 262 and what I said in the recent blog entry about how the interpretable φ-features of an N can be used twice (once to check the uninterpretable φ-features on a D, and again to check the uninterpretable φ-features on T).

Adger suggests that the φ-features of N value and check the [uφ: ] feature of D, and then that checked feature of D values the [uφ: ] feature of T.

Adger’s claim is a little bit non-standard in the broader world of minimalist syntax, which is why I didn’t initially follow it. But here’s why he said that, and upon reflection, why I think we need to adopt Adger’s view of this. (With respect to the trees you’ve drawn so far, even on this homework, it isn’t going to make them look any different.)

We have already implicitly adopted the view that a checked uninterpretable feature can value another unchecked uninterpretable feature. The place we did that is in the mechanism for subject agreement. The way subject agreement works is that T has a [uφ: ] feature, and when T is merged, it sees the φ-features of the subject and is valued and thereby checked. But the second step is that this now-valued-and-checked [uφ:3sg] (for example) feature of T then turns around and (along with the interpretable [tense] feature on T) values the next [uInfl: ] feature down. So, we already do have a case where an already-checked feature checks another feature.

Given that, Adger’s approach on p. 262 is the most consistent way to think about how the [uφ: ] feature of T is valued. The φ-features of the N are not in fact used twice, they are used once to value and check the [uφ: ] feature of D, and the checked [uφ:…] feature of D then values and checks the [uφ: ] feature of T.