PERSPECTIVE published: 04 September 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02152 Constructions in Minimalism: A Functional Perspective on Cyclicity Andreas Trotzke 1,2* 1 Department of Linguistics, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany, 2 Center for Theoretical Linguistics, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain This article presents a perspective on syntactic cyclicity in minimalism that is compatible with fundamental ideas in construction–grammar approaches. In particular, I outline the minimalist approach to syntactic structure building and highlight that units of potentially any phrasal size can be atomic items in the syntactic derivation, showing that the opposition between simplex linguistic items (“words”) and more complex ones (“phrases”) in minimalism is in principle as artificial as in many construction–grammar approaches. Based on this perspective on structure building, I focus on the empirical domain of subextraction patterns out of complex subjects, adjuncts, and complements, and I demonstrate that the acceptability patterns in this domain can be explained by a functional approach to syntactic cyclicity: Unacceptable patterns are ruled out Edited by: not for configurational (and hence syntactic) reasons, but rather they systematically Mike Putnam, follow from infelicitous interpretations at the syntax–discourse interface. This raises the Pennsylvania State University (PSU), United States question of whether syntactic cyclicity is (at least in part) motivated by performance Reviewed by: (read: “language-in-use”) constraints, which I consider another area for fruitful interaction Cristiano Chesi, between construction–grammar and usage-based accounts on the one hand and University Institute of Higher Studies minimalism on the other hand. in Pavia, Italy Volker Struckmeier, Keywords: construction, cyclicity, derivation, discourse, minimalism, opacity, phases, syntax Ruhr University Bochum, Germany *Correspondence: Andreas Trotzke INTRODUCTION andreas.trotzke@uni-konstanz.de Generative syntax and construction–grammar approaches share not only their history (Harris, Specialty section: 1993), but also many of their conceptual foundations (see, e.g., Goldberg, 2006, p. 4). I This article was submitted to always viewed generative syntax and construction grammar as complementing each other. Language Sciences, In this article, I show that “constructions” (read: “indivisible associations between form and a section of the journal meaning,” Fried, 2015, p. 974) are already parts of basic structure building in minimalism. Frontiers in Psychology I will illustrate that the set of atomic or “indivisible” items in a derivation not only Received: 23 April 2020 can consist of words and idiomatic expressions, but also potentially any phrasal unit can Accepted: 31 July 2020 become such an atomic item. That is, the opposition between (non-complex, simplex) Published: 04 September 2020 words and complex phrases is artificial in minimalist structure building too, just like in Citation: construction–grammar approaches. To be sure, complex items are generated in generative Trotzke A (2020) Constructions in Minimalism: A Functional syntax, whereas they are partially or completely stored in construction grammars. However, Perspective on Cyclicity. “narrow syntax” in minimalism (i.e., the operation “Merge;” Trotzke and Zwart, 2014) in Front. Psychol. 11:2152. many cases deals with words and complex phrases alike (and relies on “labeling”/a “labeling doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02152 algorithm” to do that; Chomsky, 2013; Rizzi, 2015). In other words, both words and phrases Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 September 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 2152 Trotzke Constructions in Minimalism can be treated as equally atomic for syntactic purposes after syntax feeds two interface components dealing with sound and they have been merged (cf. also Chomsky’s, 2005 No-Tampering meaning, associating the phrase kick the bucket with the concept Condition in this context), and I would like to point out in this DIE cannot be derived from how the phrase is put together in the contribution that this illustrates how the notion of construction syntax. This already indicates that syntax might be connected to could be incorporated in the minimalist framework. the interfaces not only at the end of a syntactic derivation, but also The article is structured as follows. The section on The dynamically interacts with them throughout the whole derivation Numeration and Derivation Layering first introduces the account (see Figure 1, from Trotzke, 2015, p. 93). In what follows, I will of syntactic structure building summarized in Trotzke and Zwart use the term “derivation layering” for those interactions – a term (2014). In the following section on “Syntactic Cyclicity and the that has been introduced by Zwart (2009, et seq.). Syntax–Discourse Interface,” I focus on subextraction patterns Crucially, a dynamic system where derivations can be layered because this empirical domain is one of the key phenomena and interact with each other via the interfaces is in accordance where members of a separate derivational layer are invisible with minimalist approaches, which assume a cyclic organization to syntactic operations in the next layer and can thus count of grammar (Nunes and Uriagereka, 2000; Stroik and Putnam, as atomic/indivisible items. I provide a functional account for 2013; Trotzke and Zwart, 2014). In particular, in minimalism, this chunking operation and argue that derivation layering in “Merge always applies at the simplest possible form: at the subextraction patterns is in many cases determined by discourse root” (Chomsky, 1995, p. 248), and this “Extension Condition” rather than by syntactic categories. The section Conclusion and determines that syntax often has to deal with more than one root Outlook concludes the article and suggests further conceptual syntactic object. Let us look at the following derivation of The overlaps with construction–grammar and usage-based accounts. man left (Trotzke and Zwart, 2014, p. 144–146), where we see that the Extension Condition prevents a derivation where man in (1d) first merges with left because in this case the would have to be CONSTRUCTIONS IN MINIMALISM AND merged with man in a non-cyclic manner, violating the Extension THEIR FUNCTIONAL MOTIVATION Condition. As a consequence, the has to be merged with man in a separate derivation layer to form the complex subject [the While a lot of generative work has been published on how to man] (1e)1 . best formulate the basic combinatorial operation Merge (see Fukui, 2011; Tanaka et al., 2019 for recent empirical work), (1) a. N = {the1 , man1 , left1 } there is less research on the question of where the elements b. N’ = {the1 , man1 , left0 } to be merged actually come from (or, more accurately, the K = left existing research on Merge and its domains has other ways to c. N” = {the1 , man0 , left0 } frame the question; see section “The Numeration and Derivation K = left Layering”). Because clauses and complex phrases contain words, the simplest suggestion would be that the domain of Merge L = man is the Lexicon. I will demonstrate that the domain of Merge d. N”’ = {the0 , man0 , left0 } must actually be a set of elements that is much more diverse K = left than just a set of words: The set of elements can also contain L = man phrasal constructions in the sense that these items might be M = the internally complex, but are nevertheless dealt with as indivisible e. K = left atomic items in the course of a derivation. In section “Syntactic N = [the man] Cyclicity and the Syntax–Discourse Interface,” I ask whether “we” f. Verb phrase = [[the man] left] can identify a functional motivation of (at least some of) the cases where phrasal units are indivisible items in the derivation, and I will illustrate such a functional account for the empirical domain of subextraction patterns by showing that those patterns 1 N is the “numeration” with which a derivation starts. The index number says can be explained in pragmatic terms rather than in terms of how often an item occurs in the numeration; the number is zero once the item syntactic categories. has been merged; K, L, and M refer to projected or unprojected lexical items (Chomsky, 1993). Note that postulating a numeration is not currently standard in all generative approaches. I will nevertheless use the notion of a numeration here The Numeration and Derivation Layering in order to link the presentation to my previous work on this topic (cited above). In minimalism, the set of items syntactic derivations draw from is called “numeration” (Chomsky, 1993), to distinguish it from the simplistic concept of a lexicon. One obvious case showing that the domain of Merge can include not only words but also more complex items are idioms such as kick the bucket, which refers to an atomic concept (DIE), but nevertheless features regular verb-phrase syntax. There are many ways to deal with idioms in minimalism (see Nediger, 2017 for a recent overview). However, FIGURE 1 | The architecture of derivation layering. assuming the standard generative model of grammar, where Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 September 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 2152 Trotzke Constructions in Minimalism Arguably, the layered derivation architecture shares basic subextraction out of subjects (3b) and adjuncts (4b) is illicit, assumptions with alternative frameworks where “combinatorial whereas it is licit in complement cases (5b): interface rules” can combine constituents of any size – “whether the constituent C is an utterance, a phrase, or a word” (Jackendoff (3) a. [A picture of Mary] pleased John. and Wittenberg, 2014, p. 70); for more discussion, see Trotzke b. ∗ Whoi did [a picture of ti ] please John. (2015, Chapter 5). In (1), this constituent is the complex subject (4) a. Mary saw John [after meeting Eva]. [the man], and the crucial point is that it has to be merged b. ∗ Whoi did Mary see John [after meeting ti ]. into the derivation as an atom, just like single words (e.g., left) (5) a. You saw [a picture of Mary]. enter the derivation. As far as Merge is concerned, there is thus no categorial distinction between words and phrases because b. Whoi did you see [a picture of ti ]. complex phrases can serve as atomic “syntactic objects” as well, once they have been derived separately and interpreted at the However, many examples indicate that syntactic distinctions interfaces. The main idea in standard minimalist derivations like (like specifiers vs. complements) cannot be the whole story the one in (1) is that Merge is blind to the categorial status for explaining subextraction patterns at the clausal level. For and the internal structure of the items it combines and that instance, Stepanov (2007) has argued that subjects become there is thus no opposition between simplex syntactic objects opaque domains as a result of being moved. Accordingly, when (also known as “words”) and phrases in syntax proper. Given subjects stay in situ, extraction out of subjects is allowed: this perspective, constructions are an integral part of minimalist (6) Whoi is there [a picture of ti ] on the wall? syntax too, as outputs of separate derivation layers – and I (Stepanov, 2007, p. 92) hasten to add that we find this core assumption in many more generative approaches, such as nanosyntax (Caha, 2009; Also, we observe acceptable extractions out of adjuncts (7a) Starke, 2010), distributed morphology (Harley and Noyer, 1999; and unacceptable extractions out of complements (8): Halle and Marantz, 2004), and related derivational approaches (Marantz, 1997). (7) a. Whati did John drive Mary crazy [whistling ti ]? The crucial question now is how this derivation layering is b.∗ Whati did John work [whistling ti ]? motivated on general grounds. Given minimalist methodology (Truswell, 2007, p. 16) (Hornstein et al., 2005), we certainly do not want anything (8) ∗ Howi do you regret [that you behaved ti ]? like an “intelligent” spell-out mechanism that would count as (Erteschik-Shir, 1997, p. 213) a separate module of the grammar. Rather, the numeration, as it is conceptualized in minimalism, is exhaustively determined Crucially, we cannot account for (6)–(8) by only referring before the derivation; i.e., it contains all the lexical items and to configurational criteria and the syntactic status of the even “subnumerations,” determining opaque domains/“phases” extraction domain (i.e., complex left-branch elements such as (Chomsky, 2000). There are many questions as to how subjects or adjuncts, or complex complements). Instead, I argue numerations are put together themselves (cf., e.g., Collins, 1997; that the subextraction patterns are actually a consequence of Chomsky, 2000). However, this question need not concern us discourse constraints. here: In what follows, I will point out how derivations (that only Let us first turn to extraction out of subjects. I will illustrate start out from numerations) create domains that are treated as my argument based on German data because German is rich opaque, and that these domains may not have to be defined in discourse-related syntactic operations (certain scrambling by formal syntactic means, but follow from more functional options) that can provide a more fine-grained view on explaining (pragmatic and discourse-oriented) factors2 . subextraction. The following data are experimentally confirmed by Jurka (2010, 2013): Extraction out of subjects that appear to the right of a German discourse particle such as denn (9a) is indeed Syntactic Cyclicity and the more acceptable than out of subjects that appear to the left of such Syntax–Discourse Interface a particle (9b); was-für split is considered a reliable diagnostic for Let us now turn to the key phenomenon of subextraction identifying extraction domains in German: patterns, which have also been investigated in construction– grammar frameworks (Goldberg, 2013). For reasons of space, (9) a. ?? Was hat denn für eine Ameise den I leave it to future research to explore whether the discourse- what has PART for an ant the oriented approach presented here can be extended to related Beamten gebissen? accounts (see Bianchi and Chesi, 2014; Szabolcsi and Lohndal, clerk bitten 2017; Kush et al., 2018, 2019). “What kind of ant bit the clerk?” The data in (3)–(5) have been used over and over in b. ∗ Was hat für eine Ameise denn den the generative literature to motivate a syntactic account of what has for an ant PART the subextraction (e.g., Huang, 1982; Uriagereka, 1999). We see that Beamten gebissen? clerk bitten 2 Further research may show that (sub-)numerations are ultimately responsible for Note that the different placement of the indefinite subject in the specific structure so created, but this question is not addressed in this article. (9a) vs. (9b) has a discourse effect: As soon as the indefinite Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 September 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 2152 Trotzke Constructions in Minimalism subject appears to the left of the particle (9b), it receives a above, it has long been noted that not all adjuncts constitute topical interpretation (Bayer and Obenauer, 2011; Bayer and syntactic islands (see Chomsky, 1982, p. 72): Trotzke, 2015). My point is that the pattern in (9) could be taken (12) a. [The man]i that I went to England [without to show that it is illicit to extract from a topical constituent. speaking to ti ]. Witness also that Müller (2010) has shown that was-für splits ∗ b. [The man]i that I went to England [after I out of external subjects improve when the object scrambles spoke to ti ]. across the subject (10b). In this example, scrambling the object (den Fritz) results in a syntactic configuration that is preferred The facts we see in (12) can be explained by the distinction in cases where the subject (was für Bücher) is interpreted between untensed adjuncts and tensed adjuncts (Cinque, 1990). as focal; this is due to a complex interplay between syntax, However, and interestingly, Truswell (2007, et seq.). reported the prosody, and pragmatic interpretation (see Struckmeier, 2017 on following patterns of extractability from untensed adjuncts (“Bare this point): Present Participial Adjuncts”): (10) a. ?? Was haben denn für Bücher den (13) a. ∗ Whati does John work [whistling ti ]? what have PART for books the b. Whati did John drive Mary crazy [whistling ti ]? Fritz beeindruckt? (Truswell, 2007, p. 16) Fritz impressed Because an explanation in terms of “tensed vs. untensed “What kind of books impressed Fritz?” adjuncts” will not do the job for those differences, b. Was haben [den Fritz]i denn für Bücher ti Truswell (2007, p. 150) formulated the “Single Event beeindruckt? (Müller, 2010, p. 68) Condition,” essentially stating that extracting out of an adjunct clause is possible when only a single event is Accordingly, one could also explain subextraction patterns asserted. Accordingly, in both (12b) and (13a), there out of subjects along the lines of recent construction–grammar is a clash at the syntax–discourse interface because approaches (Ambridge and Goldberg, 2008; Goldberg, 2013): the speaker places discourse prominence on a part in illicit subject extraction patterns such as the ones listed of the utterance (referred to and highlighted by the above, the speaker is treating an element as backgrounded pronoun what) that is not part of the “macroevent” and focal at the same time. This automatically follows if we [e.g., working in (13a)], but rather a component of a assume that constituents conveying new information allow separate “microevent” (e.g., whistling). This microevent is extraction the most easily, and elements occurring later in the certainly pragmatically backgrounded in the assertion of the string (usually the object) are canonically more likely to be macroevent, and so the same discourse conflict as in the interpreted as foci, whereas earlier constituents (usually the cases of subextractions out of subjects and complements subject) are canonically interpreted as topics (see Goldberg, arises (see above). 2006, Ch. 7). To sum up, in the context of subject, adjunct, and It is now easy to see that such a discourse-oriented complement opacity, the chunking of the derivation into approach in terms of backgrounded and focal information could opaque domains is determined by properties of the syntax– also explain what we observe in the domain of extraction discourse interface: A single derivation layer cannot contain out of complements. Again, observe the following illicit two syntactic objects whose interpretations clash at the subextraction patterns: syntax–discourse interface (pointing to something as discourse prominent and backgrounded at the same time). In contrast (11) a. You regret [that you behaved inappropriately]. to common minimalist approaches to syntactic cyclicity (e.g., b. ∗ Howi do you regret [that you behaved ti ]? phase theory), I thus suggest that the opacity of a syntactic domain is not necessarily determined by that domain’s syntactic From a discourse-perspective, (11b) is odd because of the category, but rather in many cases the result of the discourse semantics of regret (and its factivity presupposition); there is a status of that domain. conflict at the syntax–discourse interface between treating an element as at once backgrounded and discourse-prominent. The manner component expressed by inappropriately and CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK how, respectively, is part of the backgrounded information (the presupposition) and can thus not be highlighted as The section on “Constructions in Minimalism discourse-prominent in a wh-question like (11b). This and Their Functional Motivation” has indicated illustrates that the conflict cannot be explained by syntactic that the opposition between words and phrases in notions such as specifier, adjunct, and complement, but minimalism is artificial in the sense that elements rather the patterns seem to be the result of conflicts that are of any size can serve as the building blocks of pragmatic in nature. Merge. This is an assumption of current generative Last but not least, let us now see whether a discourse-based models of grammar. Crucially, this concept opens explanation can be used for explaining subextraction out of a path of defining constructions in minimalism: adjuncts as well. In the context of adjunct opacity such as (4) They are outputs of separate derivation layers. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 September 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 2152 Trotzke Constructions in Minimalism Moreover, the perspective articulated here has suggested that DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT certain domains of syntactic cyclicity should not be defined in syntactic terms (e.g., in terms of categorial status). Rather, I All datasets presented in this study are included in the have illustrated that some (or perhaps many) of those domains article/supplementary material. can actually be characterized in functional terms such as their status in a discourse. In other words, the impact of how language is used in a context on syntax might not only be AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS seen in marked word order, dislocations, etc. Rather, it also affects the cyclic organization of grammar itself and the domains AT confirms being the sole contributor of this article, and he has Merge can operate on. approved it for publication. Last but not least, I would like to highlight in this context that not only “language-in-use” factors such as discourse and pragmatics seem to play a crucial role in minimalism, but FUNDING also processing-based considerations. Specifically, minimalism often refers to derivations as “actual computations,” and AT gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Beatriu the notion of a “phase” basically (re)introduces the concept de Pinós program (Generalitat de Catalunya/Secretariat for that derivations proceed in incremental chunks – and there Universities and Research of the Ministry of Economy and are, in fact, some recent approaches trying to reconcile Knowledge; Grant No. 2017-BP00031). processing considerations with phase-based derivations (e.g., Chesi, 2015; Chesi and Canal, 2019). At a more conceptual level, Trotzke et al. (2013) have discussed cases where the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS nature of syntactic constraints suggests a direct link between grammar and performance systems (like memory constraints). I thank Jan-Wouter Zwart, Markus Bader, and Lyn Frazier for Without having to claim that all of grammar is “usage- extremely fruitful collaborations. I also thank two reviewers for based,” minimalists could therefore take seriously the role of their extremely helpful comments and suggestions, as well as the “performance interface,” which might dovetail nicely with the editors of this article collection for their invitation. Usual minimalist third-factor explanations. disclaimers apply. REFERENCES Collins, C. (1997). Local Economy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge Ambridge, B., and Goldberg, A. E. (2008). The island status of clausal University Press. complements: evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cogn. Fried, M. (2015). “Construction grammar,” in Syntax: Theory and Analysis, Ling. 19, 357–389. Vol. 2, eds T. Kiss and A. Alexiadou (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), Bayer, J., and Obenauer, H.-G. (2011). Discourse particles, clause structure, and 974–1003. question types. Linguist. Rev. 28, 449–491. Fukui, N. (2011). “Merge and bare phrase structure,” in The Oxford Handbook Bayer, J., and Trotzke, A. (2015). “The derivation and interpretation of left of Linguistic Minimalism, ed. C. Boeckx (Oxford: Oxford University Press), peripheral discourse particles,” in Discourse-Oriented Syntax, eds J. Bayer, R. 73–95. Hinterho??lzl, and A. Trotzke (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 13–40. doi: 10. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in 1075/la.226.02bay Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bianchi, V., and Chesi, C. (2014). Subject islands, reconstruction, and the flow of Goldberg, A. E. (2013). “Backgrounded constituents cannot be ‘extracted’,” the computation. Linguist. Inq. 45, 525–569. doi: 10.1162/ling_a_00166 in Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, eds J. Sprouse and N. Caha, P. (2009). The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tromsø, Hornstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 221–238. Tromso. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139035309.012 Chesi, C. (2015). On directionality of phrase structure building. J. Psycholinguist. Halle, M., and Marantz, A. (2004). Distributed morphology and the pieces of Res. 44, 65–89. doi: 10.1007/s10936-014-9330-6 inflection. Morphology 1, 381–440. Chesi, C., and Canal, P. (2019). Person features and lexical restrictions in Italian Harley, H., and Noyer, R. (1999). Distributed morphology. Glot Int. 4, 3–9. clefts. Front. Psychol. 10:2105. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02105 Harris, R. A. (1993). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., and Grohmann, K. K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism. and Binding. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (1993). “A minimalist program for linguistic theory,” in The View Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds K. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Hale and S. J. Keyser (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press), 1–52. Jackendoff, R., and Wittenberg, E. (2014). “What you can say without syntax: a Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. hierarchy of grammatical complexity,” in Measuring Grammatical Complexity, Chomsky, N. (2000). “Minimalist inquiries,” in Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist eds F. J. Newmeyer and L. B. Preston (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 65–82. Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, eds R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.003.0004 Uriagereka (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press), 89–155. Jurka, J. (2010). The Importance of Being a Complement: CED Effects Revisited. Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguist. Inq. 36, 1–22. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. doi: 10.1162/0024389052993655 Jurka, J. (2013). “Subject islands in German revisited,” in Experimental Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 33–49. doi: 10.1016/j. Syntax and Island Effects, eds J. Sprouse and N. Hornstein (Cambridge: lingua.2012.12.003 Cambridge University Press), 265–285. doi: 10.1017/cbo97811390353 Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A‘-Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 09.014 Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 September 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 2152 Trotzke Constructions in Minimalism Kush, D., Lohndal, T., and Sprouse, J. (2018). Investigating variation in island Tanaka, K., Nakamura, I., Ohta, S., Fukui, N., Zushi, M., Narita, H., et al. (2019). effects: a case study of Norwegian wh-extraction. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory Merge-generability as the key concept of human language: evidence from 36, 743–779. doi: 10.1007/s11049-017-9390-z neuroscience. Front. Psychol. 10:2673. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02673 Kush, D., Lohndal, T., and Sprouse, J. (2019). On the island sensitivity of Trotzke, A. (2015). Rethinking Syntactocentrism: Architectural Issues and Case topicalization in Norwegian: an experimental investigation. Language 95, 393– Studies at the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 420. doi: 10.1353/lan.2019.0051 Trotzke, A., Bader, M., and Frazier, L. (2013). Third factors and the performance Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the interface in language design. Biolinguistics 7, 1–34. privacy of your own lexicon. Univ. Pennsylvania Work. Pap. Linguist. 4:14. Trotzke, A., and Zwart, J.-W. (2014). “The complexity of narrow syntax: Müller, G. (2010). On deriving the CED effects from the PIC. Linguist. Inq. 41, minimalism, representational economy, and simplest Merge,” in Measuring 35–82. doi: 10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35 Grammatical Complexity, eds F. J. Newmeyer and L. B. Preston (Oxford: Nediger, W. A. (2017). Unifying Structure-Building in Human Language: The Oxford University Press), 128–147. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301. Minimalist Syntax of Idioms. Ph.D, dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann 003.0007 Arbor, MI. Truswell, R. (2007). Locality of Wh-movement and the Individuation of Events. Nunes, J., and Uriagereka, J. (2000). Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3, Ph.D. dissertation, UCL, London. 20–43. doi: 10.1111/1467-9612.00023 Uriagereka, J. (1999). “Multiple spell-out,” in Working Minimalism, eds S. D. Rizzi, L. (2015). Cartography, criteria, and labeling. Beyond Funct. Sequence 10, Epstein and N. Hornstein (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press), 251–282. 314–338. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210588.003.0017 Zwart, J.-W. (2009). Prospects for top-down derivation. Catalan J. Linguist. 8, Starke, M. (2010). Nanosyntax: a short primer to a new approach to language. 161–187. Nordlyd 36, 1–6. Stepanov, A. (2007). The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax Conflict of Interest: The author declares that the research was conducted in the 10, 80–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00094.x absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a Stroik, T. S., and Putnam, M. T. (2013). The Structural Design of Language. potential conflict of interest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Struckmeier, V. (2017). Against information structure heads: a relational analysis Copyright © 2020 Trotzke. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of German scrambling. Glossa J. Gen. Linguist. 2, 1.1–29. of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or Szabolcsi, A., and Lohndal, T. (2017). “Strong vs. weak islands,” in The Wiley reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd Edn, eds M. Everaert and H. C. copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal Van Riemsdijk (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), 1–51. doi: 10.1002/9781118358733. is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or wbsyncom008 reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 September 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 2152