Our colleague Elise Newman was an invited speaker at a workshop about Locality across the board in the pun-inviting locality of Nice. Her talk was entitled “The locality of subcategorization: a case for underspecified category”, and here is the abstract for it:
This talk is concerned with the selectional mechanism that underlies verb-argument pairs like (1).
-
- a. depend [PP on …]
b. say [CP that …]
Following Pesetsky (1982), I’ll refer to the relationship between the verb and its arguments in (1) as l-selection, where the verb requires a particular lexical item to head its argument. This distinguishes the relationship in (1) from other kinds of selection based on syntactic (c-selection) or semantic (s-selection) properties.
Such a distinction among selectional rules echoes earlier work, such as Chomsky (1965), which claimed that relationships like (1) were governed by strict subcategorization rules, in contrast with selection of a subject, for example, which was governed by selectional rules. Some differences between the two kinds of rules pertained to their locality conditions and the kinds of properties they were sensitive to: 1) strict subcategorization was limited to head-complement pairs, while selectional rules could create other kinds of branching structures, and 2) strict subcategorization rules only applied when there was no more general syntactic property to appeal to.
Puzzle: the modern view of selection (which only makes use of selectional rules) does not capture the original locality distinction between subcategorization and selection: l-selectional relationships like (1) seem to only arise in head-complement pairs. In other words, we do not find cases where a head l-selects for the head of its specifier.
This is a puzzle in current frameworks. Since Merge underlies both complementation and specifier-formation, it is not obvious what syntactic tools we have for enforcing only complementation in these cases.
I offer a proposal that captures the locality profile of strict subcategorization within a current feature-driven framework. Building on Newman (2024), the proposal makes use of an underspecified categorial feature X, which can be checked by any kind of element. The interaction between X-checking and the checking of other c- selectional features imposes restrictions on the order of operations: elements that are not c-selected can only check X, and therefore must merge first, or they will be bled by Merge of another element (which can check X in addition to whatever feature selected it). The requirement to merge first is what restricts l-selected elements to being complements.
While this may seem like just a solution to a technicality, the account makes predictions for the locality of A-movement as well, when we consider how l-selection interacts with the functional hierarchy more generally. I will argue that the functional hierarchy stems from a mixture of l-selectional and c-selectional requirements, where the interaction between the two can produce smuggling configurations (Collins 2005). When smuggling happens, arguments can obviate certain locality conditions on A- movement to derive phenomena such as symmetric passivization.