Provocative syntax (review)

The minimalist program (MP) is a cover term for ‘a family of theoretical approaches that share core assumptions and guiding intuitions’ (Boeckx 2010:105). Due to its highly (intentional) programmatic nature, multiple competing proposals of core theoretical assumptions are an expected norm rather than an unexpected and unwanted burden. In this monograph, Phil Branigan presents an alternative to syntactic displacement phenomena that differs from EPP-driven (extended projection principle) models of movement in other competing models of minimalist analysis. At the heart of B’s proposal is an operation called provocation, which is an operation similar in some respects to Probe-Goal relations (Agree). The relation between two items involved in a provocative relationship is as follows: ‘The second phrase marker heads a chain that also contains the goal in the other phrase marker. The new copy is then merged automatically with the original phrase marker in order to form a single structure, which can be interpreted at the LF and PF interfaces’ (7). The result of provocation is a binary structure like that in 1.

1. 1.

   β′

   (10, ex. 5)

The elements (β′, β) form a chain, with the end result being that β′ merges at the root or head of HP. Throughout this monograph, B takes on the daunting task of showing how his provocation model of syntactic displacement works in the face of traditional empirical puzzles that have posed significant challenges to theoretical models for decades (e.g. that-trace effects, V2-languages, multiple wh-movement, partial wh-movement, across-the-board (ATB) constructions). Rather than provide a simple exegesis of B’s proposals sketched out in this monograph, here I point to interesting and novel aspects of his analysis of syntactic displacement à la provocation. B does an excellent job of incorporating into his analyses data that have not always been connected with one another (and, if they have been, the purported connection was tangential at best). In the remainder of this review, I point to areas of the provocation model of syntactic movement that pose significant challenges to long-held mainstream assumptions about phrase structure, the role of functional features (especially φ-features), and the relationship between the computational system (i.e. syntax) and the external performance interfaces. Unfortunately, B’s model is beset with some fundamental problems that fail to distinguish the provocation model of syntactic movement from its competitors. Admittedly, there are numerous other areas of the provocation model that significantly differ from more commonly held views found in the majority of minimalist models; as I hope to demonstrate in this review, however, these three areas are those that are significantly different in the model developed and defended by B in this monograph.

First, turning to a discussion of phrase-structure and structure-building mechanisms, B’s model calls for both heads and phrases to be attracted by the same provocative feature (F⁺). Such a move in and of itself is not too inherently radical if we adopt an aggressive form of bare phrase structure (BPS) where the merger of elements X and Y, for example, {X,Y}, could be interpreted as either a Head-Complement, Spec-Head, or adjunction relationship. To ensure that equal competition does not ensue between ‘heads’ and ‘phrases’ in his model, B invokes a preference axiom for phrases to move rather than heads. What remains unclear in this model is the motivation of the adjoin operation, which also appears to be potentially motivated by φ-features (59). In reality, there are three options at play here. Assuming that T has a provocative feature (F⁺), it can in theory (i) enter into a provocative relation and attract a head (X), (ii) enter into a provocative relation and attract a phrase (XP), or (iii) allow an external element to (external) merge into the derivation. This scenario represents the well-known Merge-over-Move discussion common in derivational frameworks. In some respects, B’s model of phrase structure and structure building can be interpreted as a system that makes use of a strict implementation of BPS (although he...