This paper aims to examine the free Merge-based labeling analysis by Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (EKS, 2014, 2015) and Rizzi s (2015, 2016, 2017) Criterial Freezing (CF) and Maximality-based analysis to figure out which approach is more viable in handling the CF phenomenon. We argue that unlike the claim by EKS, both approaches are not in direct conflict with each other, and that although EKS’s free Merge-based analysis strengthens the theoretical ground of Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) strong minimalism, Rizzi s approach is superior to EKS’s in that it is a consequence of Chomsky’s minimal search constraining free Merge and can successfully account for subextraction. Rizzi (2015) proposes Maximality to capture what he calls ’obligatory halting,’ but acknowledging that extraction is not completely impossible from criterial positions, Rizzi (2017) weakens CF to accommodate subextraction cases in English and Italian. We further demonstrate that although there are cases that appear to run counter to CF effects due to apparent stepwise movements out of a criterial position, his revised CF combined with Maximality can handle those data. In particular, we provide cross-linguistic data from Korean, Japanese, and Indonesian to show how a single wh-phrase with multiple criterial features ends up satisfying the CF principle in the relevant criterial position.
1. Introduction
2. Free Merge and Labeling Algorithm
3. Two Approaches to Criterial Freezing
4. Apparent Counterexamples to Criterial Freezing and Maximality
5. LD Scrambling: Another Case of Apparent Movement of a Wh-phrase with Multiple Criterial Features
6. Conclusion
References
(0)
(0)