The Final-Over-Final Condition: A Syntactic Universal by Michelle Sheehan et al (review)

The book under review puts forward a syntactic constraint called the final-over-final condition (FOFC), which is presented as a reflection of the asymmetry of the syntax of natural language. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the constraint. Chapter 2 provides empirical evidence for the constraint. Chapter 3 demonstrates the pervasiveness of the constraint across categories. Chapter 4 discusses the FOFC in relation to structure and linear order. Chapter 5 explores the hypothesis that the FOFC is a constraint on speech processing. Chapter 6 extends FOFC to adjuncts. Chapter 7 explores the idea that William’s Head-Final Filter (1982) might be subsumed under the FOFC. Chapter 8 is an exploration of the FOFC in the nominal domain. Chapter 9 tackles apparent counter-examples to the FOFC. Chapter 10 discusses the FOFC in free word order languages. Chapter 11 discusses the FOFC in morphology.

What the FOFC is

The FOFC is, according to Sheehan, Biberauer, Roberts and Holmberg (2017), a condition which describes an asymmetry in natural language. Consider the syntactic configurations in (1):

(1)

a. A head-initial phrase (a phrase where the head precedes its complement) immediately dominates a head-initial phrase in the same extended projection (an abundant harmonic configuration, p. 12)

b. A head-final phrase (a phrase where the head follows its complement) immediately dominates a head-final phrase in the same extended projection (an abundant harmonic configuration, p. 12)

c. A head-initial phrase immediately dominates a head-final phrase in the same extended projection (an attested, though much less common, disharmonic configuration, p. 12)

d. A head-final phrase immediately dominates a head-initial phrase in the same extended projection (a very uncommon – or non-existent – configuration, p. 12)

The hypothesis put forward by the authors is that the syntax of natural language is biased in that it allows a head-final phrase to immediately dominate a head-final phrase (configuration b in (1) above), but disallows it from immediately dominating a head-initial phrase (configuration d in (1) above). This is the FOFC.

Crucial to the theory proposed by the authors is the notion of extended projection (Grimshaw 1991, 2000). Thus, a head-final VP that immediately dominates a head-initial DP does not count as an FOFC violation, as V and D belong to distinct extended projections. Thus, (2) below is not a FOFC violation.

(2) [[D NP _DP]V _VP]

The FOFC: A syntactic universal or a processing effect?

The authors propose that the FOFC is a syntactic universal. However, they do not seem to be strongly committed to that view, as they seem to be willing to allow for the possibility that the condition might ultimately find its explanation in a processing-based account; that is, a third factor account, in the sense of Chomsky (2005: 7) (see, for example, p. 93 for such a statement).

Shehan’s Model of the FOFC

A word about Shehan’s model (2011, 2013a,b, cited in chapter 5 of Sheehan, Biberauer, Roberts and Holmberg 2017) needs to be said here. Certainly, this model explains FOFC violations elegantly. However, one should notice that this model still invokes the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) as one of the last resort mechanisms which steps in when everything else fails. This means that this model does not fare better than other models (specifically Biberauer, Holmberg and Roberts 2014, as cited in Sheehan, Biberauer, Roberts and Holmberg 2017) where the LCA is crucial to the explanation of FOFC violations. Second, in addition to the LCA and the directionality feature lexically marked on heads, this model requires another relation to explain the facts, namely transitivity (i.e., if X is lexically marked to precede Y and Z is lexically marked to follow Y, then X precedes Z by transitivity). The question here is the following: what is the formal status of transitivity in this model?

Further empirical evidence in support of...