Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistic Variation: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

On the nature of FormSet

ORCiD logo with link | University of Arizona
 | Tohoku Gakuin University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Arizona.

Published online: 13 May 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.24032.fon
Abstract
FormSet, proposed by 2021. Minimalism: Where Are We Now, and Where Can We Hope to Go. Gengo Kenkyu, 1601:1–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, is one of two primitive set formation operations on Workspace items in the theory of I-Language, the other primitive is Merge. In this paper, we investigate the particular properties of FormSet, distinct from Merge, across phenomena in the noun phrase and verb phrase domains. In particular, Workspace items input to FormSet must be a coherent collection of items that obey natural conditions on parallelism. We define what parallelism means, both in terms of pre-conditions for FormSet, and as conditions on subsequent operations such as Merge applying to a set built by FormSet. In doing so, we obtain new, yet simple analyses for classic data in accordance with the Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.FormSet (FS)
  • 3.FormSet and the formation of θ-configurations
  • 4.Featural properties of FS sets
  • 5.Resultatives and depictives
  • 6.A scope puzzle
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (14)
References
Chomsky, N. A. 2024. The Miracle Creed and SMT. In Greco, M. & Mocci, D. (Eds.), A Cartesian dream: A geometrical account of syntax: In honor of Andrea Moro. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa/Research in Generative Grammar.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2021. Minimalism: Where Are We Now, and Where Can We Hope to Go. Gengo Kenkyu, 1601:1–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36:1, pp. 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step-by-step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, pp. 89–115. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. Knowledge of Language. Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Citko, B. & M. Gračanin-Yuksek. 2013. Towards a new typology of coordinated wh-questions, Journal of Linguistics 49.11, pp. 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inada, S. 2007. Toward a syntax of two types of relative clauses, Linguistic Research 231, 1–41, The University of Tokyo English Linguistics Association, Tokyo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, I. 2016. DP-internal semantic agreement: A configurational analysis. NLLT. 231: 975–1020. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D thesis, MIT.
Rothstein, S. 1983. The Syntactic Forms of Predication, Ph.D thesis, MIT.
Sag, Ivan. 1997. English Relative Clause Constructions, Journal of Linguistics 33.21, pp. 431–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, J. 1983. Resultatives. In Levin, L., M. Rappaport & A. Zaenen (Eds.) Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 143–58. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1978. Across-the-Board Application. Linguistic Inquiry, 9:1, pp. 31–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue