Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part IComparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part IIComparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part IIIComparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- 19Agreement and Concord
- 20Head Dependencies
- 21A-dependencies
- 22Anaphoric Dependencies
- 23The Comparative Syntax of Nominal Quantifiers
- 24Ā-dependencies and Successive Cyclic Movement
- 25From Interrogatives to Relatives
- Part IVComparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
20 - Head Dependencies
from Part III - Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part IComparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part IIComparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part IIIComparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- 19Agreement and Concord
- 20Head Dependencies
- 21A-dependencies
- 22Anaphoric Dependencies
- 23The Comparative Syntax of Nominal Quantifiers
- 24Ā-dependencies and Successive Cyclic Movement
- 25From Interrogatives to Relatives
- Part IVComparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter I first present the original conception of head-movement, as developed in the 1980s by Travis (1984), Koopman (1984), and Baker (1988), along with some of the empirical domains where the operation was applied. I then present the critique of head-movement put forward in Chomsky (2001: 37-38), followed by a discussion of some of the alternatives developed subsequently. Next, I move to a consideration of how head-movement might be integrated with Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) Labeling Algorithm, suggesting that this approach is consistent with a variant of the proposals in Roberts (2010). Finally, I will attempt to develop a new proposal based on Moro and Roberts (2022).
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 650 - 678Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Arregi, K., and Pietraszko, A.. 2021. The ups and downs of head displacement. Linguistic Inquiry 52( 2): 241–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical-Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C., Johnson, K., and Roberts, I.. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–251.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. 2002. Movement to the higher V is remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 653–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentzen, C. 2007. Order and Structure in Embedded Clauses in Northern Norwegian. PhD dissertation, CASTL, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
den Besten, H., and Webelhuth, G. 1990. Stranding. In Grewendorf, G. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.), Scrambling and Barriers, 77–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C., and Stjepanović, S.. 2001. Heading towards PF. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, A. 2015. Irregular morphology and athematic verbs in Italo-Romance. Isogloss 17: 69–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, A., and Roberts, I.. In progress. The Structure of the French Verb. Ms., Universities of Cambridge and Connecticut.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., and Starke, M.. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carnie, A., Harley, H., and Dooley, S. (eds.). 2005. Verb First. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1994. Bare phrase structure. In MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Di Domenico, E., Hamann, C., and Matteini, S. (eds.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemens, L., and Coon, J.. 2018. Deriving verb-initial word order in Mayan. Language 94: 237–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donati, C. 2006. On Wh-head movement. In Cheng, L. and Corver, N. (eds.), Wh-Movement: Moving On, 21–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, D., and Noyer, R.. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harizanov, B., and Gribanova, V.. 2019. Whither head-movement? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37: 461–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, J. 2011. The semantic uniformity of traces: Evidence from ellipsis parallelism. Linguistic Inquiry 42(3): 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A., and Platzack, C.. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, D. 1997. Optional verb movement: Albanian imperatives. In Bruening, B. (ed.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 31, 225–235. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D., and Roberts, I.. 2023. Head Movement in Imperatives in Romance and Elsewhere: Some Theoretical Consequences. Talk given at the 50th Romance Linguistics Seminar, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2000. Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R., and Pollock, J.-Y.. 2001. New thoughts on stylistic inversion. In Hilk, A. and Pollock, J.-Y. (eds.), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, 107–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koizumi, M. 1993. Object agreement phrases and the split-VP hypothesis. In Bobaljik, J. and Phillips, C. (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers on Case and Agreement I. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 1984. The Syntax of Verb-Movement: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koopman, H., and Szabolcsi, A.. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1981. Restricting the theory of transformations. In Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D. (eds.), Explanation in Linguistics, 152–173. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1995. A note on pseudogapping. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27: Papers in Minimalist Syntax, 143–163. Reprinted with minor corrections in H. Lasnik 1999. Minimalist Analysis, 151–174. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lechner, W. 2005. Interpretive Effects of Head-Movement. Ms., University of Tübingen (lingBuzz/000178).Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1994. Proper names and the theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2008. Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters. In Klinge, A. and Müller, H. (eds.), Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management, 189–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, A. 2003. Syntax at Sunset 3: Head movement and syntactic theory. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 10.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger and the mapping to phonological structure. In Hammond, M. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, 253–270. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, D. 2000. VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean word order. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds.), The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages, 97–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, D. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 153–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, D., and Smallwood, C.. 1997. Essential features of predication in Niuean and English. In Kusumoto, K. (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 27, 236–272. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2011. Review of Roberts 2010. Journal of Linguistics 47: 538–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1996. The scope of verb-movement in Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14: 47–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2017. Ellipsis, polarity, and the cartography of verb-initial orders in Irish. In Aboh, E., Haeberli, E., Puskás, G., and Schönenberger, M. (eds.), Elements of Comparative Syntax: Theory and Description, 99–151. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meelen, M., and Roberts, I.. In progress. Spec-to-Head Reanalysis and Labelling in the History of Welsh. Ms., University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Moro, A., and Roberts, I.. 2022. Generalised Dynamic Antisymmetry. Ms., University of Cambridge and IUSS Pavia.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2004. Verb-second as vP-first. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7: 139–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. 1982. Parametrizing the notion “head”. Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 57–75.Google Scholar
Oda, H. 2021. A More Fine-Grained Distinction of NP/DP-Languages and Parameters in Minimalism. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Poletto, C., and Pollock, J.-Y.. 2004. On the left periphery of some Romance Wh-Questions. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, 251–296. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 2006. Subject clitics and complex inversion. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. IV, 601–659. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y., Poletto, C., and Munaro, N.. 2003. Eppur si muove! On comparing French, Portuguese and Bellunese Wh-movement. In Pica, P. (ed.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 147–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rackowski, A., and Travis, L.. 2000. V-initial languages: X or XP movement and adverbial placement. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds.), The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages, 117–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raposo, E. P. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 85–109.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads, 63–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2013. Locality. Lingua 130: 169–96. [Special issue, Syntax and Cognition: Core Ideas and Results in Syntax, ed. Luigi Rizzi.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2018. Intervention effects in grammar and language acquisition. Probus 30: 339–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L., and Roberts, I.. 1989. Complex inversion in French. Probus 1: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2000. Head movement. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Handbook of Syntactic Theory, 113–147. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2005. Principles and Parameters in a VSO Language: A Case Study in Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010. Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation and Verb-Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2019. Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schifano, N. 2018. Verb Movement in Romance: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 2004. Enclisis and proclisis. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2: The Structure of CP and IP, 329–354. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, L. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiklund, A.-L., Hrafnbjargarson, G. H., Bentzen, K., and Hróarsdóttir, T.. 2007. Rethinking Scandinavian verb movement. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10: 203–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.