Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-fnvtc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T12:38:36.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finding Something to Lean On

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Norvin Richards
Norvin Richards*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
*
Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, 77 Massachusetts Ave., 32-D868 MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, [norvin@mit.edu]
Get access

Abstract

Phrases in a number of syntactic contexts are required, in a variety of languages, to end in their heads. This article offers a unified theory of the relevant properties of these contexts and of why the phenomena in question, while widespread, are not completely universal. The theory makes use of proposals made independently in CONTIGUITY THEORY (Richards 2010, 2016): the relevant syntactic contexts are argued to involve a prosodically dependent element that must attach prosodically to the head of the phrase to its immediate left, and this attachment is often blocked if the phrase in question is not head-final.

Keywords

contiguity theoryhead-final filterAP-adjacencyfinal-over-final conditionFOFClinkersezafe

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 101 , Issue 1 , March 2025 , pp. 37 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © 2025 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I am deeply grateful to audiences at MIT, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and Goethe University Frankfurt, along with the referees and editors for this journal, for very helpful comments and questions on the proposals in this article. None of these people should be blamed for any of its shortcomings, which are entirely my own responsibility.

References

Aboh, Enoch. 2020. Apparent violations of the final-over-final constraint: The case of Gbe languages. Syntactic architecture and its consequences I: Syntax inside the grammar, ed. by Bárány, András, Biberauer, Theresa, Douglas, Jamie, and Vikner, Sten, 277–92. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3972852.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2012. A syntax of substance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexeyenko, Sascha, and Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2021. (Dis)obeying the head-final filter. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 37. 50–58. Online: https://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/37/abstract3514.html.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2012. Greek syntax 2012: State-of-the-art and perspectives. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulou, Antonia. 1995. The licensing of adjectival modification. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 14. 17–31.Google Scholar
Archibald, John, and Croteau, Nicole. 2021. Acquisition of L2 Japanese WH questions: Evidence of phonological contiguity and non-shallow structures. Second Language Research 37. 649–79. DOI: 10.1177/0267658319897786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Laura Rudall. 2013. The syntax of question particles. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle University dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10443/1915.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark, and Vinokurova, Nadya. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28. 593–642. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-010-9105-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belk, Zoë, and Neeleman, Ad. 2017. AP-adjacency as a precedence constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 48. 1–45. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders; and Roberts, Ian. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 169–225. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00153.10.1162/LING_a_00153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59. 1–45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00118.x.10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00118.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branan, Kenyon. 2018. Relationship preservation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/120671.Google Scholar
Branan, Kenyon. 2020. The left edge ban: A constraint restricting stress placement and possible word orders. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 50(1). 73–86.Google Scholar
Branan, Kenyon. 2022. Licensing with case: Evidence from Kikuyu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40. 1–41. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-021-09503-4.10.1007/s11049-021-09503-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 275–343. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177775.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous. Language 94. 1–42. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0000.10.1353/lan.2018.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001a. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001b. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20, 1–28. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The syntax of adjectives: A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2009. Verb-object-negative order in central Africa. Negation patterns in West African languages and beyond, ed. by Cyffer, Norbert, Ebermann, Erwin, and Ziegelmeyer, Georg, 307–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 1–25. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178706.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven, and King, Tracy Holloway. 2000. A handbook of Slavic clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780195135886.001.0001.10.1093/oso/9780195135886.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giurgea, Ion. 2009. Adjective placement and linearization. Alternatives to cartography, ed. by van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, 275–324. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110217124.275.10.1515/9783110217124.275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greeson, Daniel. 2024. Prepositions and case at the syntax-prosody interface. Paper presented at the 54th annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), MIT.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2000. Adverb placement—Convergence of structure and licensing. Theoretical Linguistics 26. 95–134. DOI: 10.1515/thli.2000.26.1-2.95.10.1515/thli.2000.26.1-2.95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2004. Pre- and postverbal adverbials in OV and VO. Lingua 114. 779–807. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00051-2.10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00051-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2022. The left-left constraint: A structural constraint on adjuncts. Headedness and/or grammatical anarchy?, ed. by Freywald, Ulrike, Simon, Horst, and Müller, Stefan, 199–232. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7142712.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Deriving OV order in Finnish. The derivation of VO and OV, ed. by Svenonius, Peter, 123–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2014. Revisiting the Persian ezafe construction: A roll-up movement analysis. Lingua 150. 1–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kotek, Hadas. 2014. Wh-fronting in a two-probe system. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32. 1105–54. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-014-9238-8.10.1007/s11049-014-9238-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 506–15. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506.10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Ted. 2015. Licensing without Case. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/101451.Google Scholar
Li, Charles, and Thompson, Sandra. 1984. Questions in Mandarin. Interrogativity, ed. by Chisholm, William, Milic, Louis, and Greppin, John, 47–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.4.04liCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanni, Deborah L. 1980. On the surface syntax of constructions with easy-type adjectives. Language 56. 568–81. DOI: 10.2307/414450.10.2307/414450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel, and Arregi, Karlos. 2005. Stress-by-structure in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 43–84. DOI: 10.1162/0024389052993637.10.1162/0024389052993637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philip, Joy. 2012. Subordinating and coordinating linkers. London: University College London dissertation. Online: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1349441.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262013765.001.0001.10.7551/mitpress/9780262013765.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2016. Contiguity theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2023. Detecting contiguity-prominence. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms. Online: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004785.Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward J. 1994. Modification: A syntactic analysis and its consequences. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward J. 1996. The transparent syntax and semantics of modifiers. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 15. 429–40.Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward J. 2003. Determining pair-Merge. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 660–68. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, Louisa, and Arnold, Douglas J.. 1994. Prenominal adjectives and the phrasal/lexical distinction. Journal of Linguistics 30. 187–226. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700016224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. A (phrasal) affix analysis of the Persian ezafe. Journal of Linguistics 43. 605–45. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226707004781.10.1017/S0022226707004781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul, and Otanes, Fe. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520321205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scontras, Gregory, Bar-Sever, Galia, Kachakeche, Zeinab, Rosales, Cesar Manuel Jr. and Samonte, Suttera. 2020. Incremental semantic restriction and subjectivity-based adjective ordering. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 24(2). 253–70. DOI: 10.18148/sub/2020.v24i2.896.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. Papers in optimality theory (University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18), ed. by Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 439–69. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2013. Some implications of a copy theory of labeling. Syntax 16. 362–96. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12010.10.1111/synt.12010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle, Biberauer, Theresa, Roberts, Ian; and Holmberg, Anders. 2017. The final-over-final condition: A syntactic universal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/8687.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna, and Uhliřová, Ludmila, 1997. An overview of word order in Slavic languages. Constituent order in the languages of Europe, ed. by Siewierska, Anna, 105–50. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110812206.105.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur, and Moussaoui, Ali Al. 2020. When a wh-word refuses to stay in situ. Linguistic Inquiry 51. 410–23. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suomi, Kari, and Ylitalo, Riikka. 2004. On durational correlates of word stress in Finnish. Journal of Phonetics 32. 35–63. DOI: 10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00005-6.10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00005-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2004. On the edge. Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects, ed. by Adger, David, de Cat, Cécile, and Tsoulas, George, 259–87. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-1910-6_11.Google Scholar
Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila. 2005. Possessives, theta roles, and the internal structure of Bulgarian DPs. Proceedings of FASL 12: The Ottawa meeting, ed. by Arnaudova, Olga, Browne, Wayles, Rivero, Maria Luisa, and Stojanović, Danijela, 251–69. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Toosarvandani, Maziar, and van Urk, Coppe. 2014. The syntax of nominal concord: What ezafe in Zazaki shows us. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 43(2). 209–20.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1998. Head movement and adjacency. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16. 633–78. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006075919357.10.1023/A:1006075919357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Urk, Coppe. 2020. Object licensing in Fijian and the role of adjacency. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38. 313–64. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-019-09442-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Urk, Coppe, and Richards, Norvin. 2015. Two components of long-distance extraction: Successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46. 113–55. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00177.10.1162/LING_a_00177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werle, Adam. 2009. Word, phrase, and clitic prosody in Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation. DOI: 10.7275/5648756.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 183–93. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178931.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1982. Another argument that passive is transformational. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 160–63. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178269.Google Scholar
Yamada, Akitaka. 2019. Contiguity theory and crystallization: Wh-phrases and concord adverbs in Japanese. Phonological externalization, vol. 4, ed. by Tokizaki, Hisao, 1–22. Sapporo: Sapporo University.Google Scholar