Labeling Theory

7 - Labeling Theory

from Part II - Issues of Labeling

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2026

Andreas Blümel

Edited by

Kleanthes K. Grohmann and

Evelina Leivada

Show author details

Kleanthes K. Grohmann: Affiliation:
University of Cyprus
Evelina Leivada: Affiliation:
Arctic University of Norway

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter rehashes some of the history of generative grammar with a special focus on the notion of headedness. In doing so, it shows how two components have been outsourced from the component of the grammar which builds hierarchical structure, i.e., Merge: linearization and projection. It describes the development of this outsourcing until Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) formulation of a labeling algorithm and some of its theoretical implications and empirical applications, drawn from the literature. The latter include EPP and ECP in English, and their absence in Italian, split topicalization in German, verb second, Japanese case markers, and the amalgamation of heads. Some outstanding issues are addressed and discussed.

Keywords

labeling/projection Simplest Merge EPP ECP V2

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program , pp. 127 - 155

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108864152 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2026

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998). Parametrizing Agr: Word order, verb-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491–539.10.1023/A:1006090432389CrossRef Google Scholar

Barbosa, P. (1995). Null subjects. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar

Blümel, A. (2012). Successive cyclic movement as recursive symmetry-breaking. In Arnett, N. & Bennett, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 87–97). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Blümel, A. (2014). Propagating symmetry: Case studies in exocentric syntax. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Frankfurt].Google Scholar

Blümel, A. (2017a). Exocentric root declaratives: Evidence from V2. In Bauke, L. & Blümel, A. (eds.), Labels and Roots (pp. 263–289). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501502118-011CrossRef Google Scholar

Blümel, A. (2017b). Symmetry, Shared Labels and Movement in Syntax. De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110522518CrossRef Google Scholar

Blümel, A., & Goto, N. (2020). Head hiding. In Asatryan, M., Song, Y., & Whitmal, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (vol. 1, pp. 49–58). GLSA (Graduate Linguistics Student Association of the University of Massachusetts Amherst).Google Scholar

Blümel, A., & Pitsch, H. (2019). Adverbial clauses: Internally rich, externally null. Glossa, 4(1), 1–29.Google Scholar

Bode, S. (2019). Casting a Minimalist Eye on Adjuncts. Routledge.10.4324/9780367822613CrossRef Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2003). Islands and Chains: Resumption as Stranding. John Benjamins.10.1075/la.63CrossRef Google Scholar

Borer, H. (2005a). Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borer, H. (2005b). Structuring Sense, Vol. 2: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Bosković, Ž. (2007). On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 589–644.10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2015). From the complex NP constraint to everything: On deep extractions across categories. Linguistic Review, 32, 603–669.10.1515/tlr-2015-0006CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2016a). Introduction. Linguistic Review, 33, 1–16.10.1515/tlr-2015-0012CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2016b). On the timing of labeling: Deducing comp-trace effects, the subject condition, the adjunct condition, and tucking in from labeling. Linguistic Review, 33, 17–66.10.1515/tlr-2015-0013CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2018). On movement out of moved elements, labels, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 247–282.10.1162/LING_a_00273CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2020). On the coordinate structure constraint, across-the-board-movement, phases, and labeling. In van Craenenbroeck, J., Pots, C., & Temmerman, T. (eds.), Recent Developments in Phase Theory (pp. 133–182). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501510199-006CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2021). On smuggling, the freezing ban, labels, and tough-constructions. In Belletti, A. & Collins, C. (eds.), Smuggling in Syntax (pp. 53–95). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780197509869.003.0004CrossRef Google Scholar

Bruening, B. (2009). Selectional asymmetries between CP and DP suggest that the DP hypothesis is wrong. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 15(1), article 5 (pp. 26–35).Google Scholar

Cable, S. (2010). Against the existence of pied-piping: Evidence from Tlingit. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 563–594.10.1162/LING_a_00013CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (pp. 184–221). Ginn & Co.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond (pp. 104–131). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0004CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22.10.1162/0024389052993655CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, U. & Gärtner, H. M. (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics (pp. 1–29). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C., & Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 89–155). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2015). Problems of projection: Extensions. In Domenico, E. D., Hamann, C., & Matteini, S. (eds.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti (pp. 3–16). John Benjamins.10.1075/la.223.01choCrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2019). The UCLA lectures. Ms. University of Arizona.Google Scholar

Citko, B. (2008). Missing labels. Lingua, 118, 907–944.10.1016/j.lingua.2008.01.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Collins, C. (2002). Eliminating labels. In Epstein, S. D. & Seely, T. D. (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (pp. 42–64). Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755662.ch3CrossRef Google Scholar

Dayal, V. (1994). Scope marking as indirect wh-dependency. Natural Language Semantics, 2, 137–170.10.1007/BF01250401CrossRef Google Scholar

Donati, C. (2006). On wh-head-movement. In Cheng, L. L.-S. & Corver, N. (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving On (pp. 21–46). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Epstein, S. D., Kitahara, H., & Seely, T. D. (2012). Exploring phase based implications regarding clausal architecture: A case study – Why structural case cannot precede theta. In Gallego, Á (ed.), Phases (pp. 103–124). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110264104.103CrossRef Google Scholar

Epstein, S. D., Kitahara, H., & Seely, T. D. (2014). Labeling by minimal search: Implications for successive-cyclic A-movement and the conception of the postulate “phase.” Linguistic Inquiry, 45, 222–239.10.1162/LING_a_00163CrossRef Google Scholar

Epstein, S. D., Kitahara, H., & Seely, T. D. (2016). Phase-cancellation by external pair-merge of heads. Linguistic Review, 33(1), 87–102.10.1515/tlr-2015-0015CrossRef Google Scholar

Epstein, S. D., Kitahara, H., & Seely, T. D. (2018). Can “determinacy + PIC” explain descriptions of remnant movement asymmetries? Linguistic Society of Japan, 157, 264–269.Google Scholar

Epstein, S. D., Kitahara, H., & Seely, T. D. (2019). Unifying labeling under minimal search in “single-” and “multiple-specifier” configurations. In Epstein, S. D., Kitahara, H., & Seely, T. D. (eds.), A Minimalist Theory of Simplest Merge (pp. 140–148). Routledge.Google Scholar

Frampton, J., & Gutmann, S. (2002). Crash-proof syntax. In Epstein, S. D. & Seely, D. S. (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (pp. 90–105). Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755662.ch5CrossRef Google Scholar

Fujiwara, Y. (2021). Wh-scope marking in Japanese: Evidence for the indirect-dependency approach. Linguistic Inquiry, 52, 627–639.10.1162/ling_a_00379CrossRef Google Scholar

Goto, N. (2013). Labeling and scrambling in Japanese. In Editorial Staff of Tohoku, (eds.), Tohoku: Essays and Studies in English Language and Literature (vol. 46, pp. 39–73). Tohoku Gakuin University.Google Scholar

Goto, N. (2017a). Eliminating the strong/weak parameter on T. In Erlewine, M. Y. (ed.), Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI (vol. 2, pp. 57–71). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Goto, N. (2017b). How to label there-constructions. Studies in English Literature: Regional Branches Combined Issue, 9, 33–43.Google Scholar

Haider, H. (2010). German Syntax. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511845314CrossRef Google Scholar

Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of grammatical relations. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 53–110). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hayashi, N. (2020). Labeling without weak heads. Syntax, 23(3), 275–294.10.1111/synt.12196CrossRef Google Scholar

Hiraiwa, K. (2010). Scrambling to the edge. Syntax, 13(2), 133–164.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00135.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Iatridou, S., Agagnostopoulos, E., & Izvorksi, R. (2001). Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Kenstovicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 189–238). MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0009CrossRef Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar-syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Ke, A. (2019). The syntax, semantics and processing of agreement and binding grammatical illusions. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan].Google Scholar

Kruger, W. (2017). (Anti-)that-trace: Free Merge, delayed Agree, and phase-cancellation. In Lamont, A. & Tetzloff, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 47th Meeting of the Northeast Linguistics Society (vol. 2, pp. 191–200). GLSA (Graduate Linguistics Student Association of the University of Massachusetts Amherst).Google Scholar

Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lacerda, R. (2020). Middle-field syntax and information structure in Brazilian Portuguese. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut].Google Scholar

Lenerz, J. (2001). Scrambling and reference in German. In Abraham, W. & Zwart, J. W. (eds.), Issues in Formal Germanic Typology (pp. 179–192). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(3), 201–225.Google Scholar

Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic Antisymmetry. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Moro, A. (2007). Some notes on unstable structures. Ms. Universitá Vita-Salute San Raffaele and Harvard University.Google Scholar

Narita, H. (2014). Endocentric Structuring of Projection-Free Syntax. John Benjamins.10.1075/la.218CrossRef Google Scholar

Nomura, M. (2017). Pair-merge and feature-valuation via minimal search: Evidence from Icelandic. In Kaplan, A., Kaplan, A., McCarvel, M. K., & Rubin, E. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 395–403). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Obata, M. (2016). Unlabeled syntactic objects and their interpretation at the interfaces. [Poster presentation, October 16–18, at North East Linguistics Society 46, Concordia].Google Scholar

Obata, M. (2017). Is transfer strong enough to affect labels? In Bauke, L. & Blümel, A. (eds.), Labels and Roots (pp. 117–126). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501502118-006CrossRef Google Scholar

Obata, M. (2018). Eliminating C-deletion in the syntax: Structure-building by Merge. Koganei Journal of Humanities, 14, 21–34.Google Scholar

Oishi, M. (2015). The hunt for a label. In Egashira, H., Kitahara, H., Nakazawa, K., Nomura, T., Oishi, M., Saizen, A., & Suzuki, M. (eds.), Untiring Pursuit of Better Alternatives (pp. 322–334). Kaitakusha.Google Scholar

Ott, D. (2011). A note of free relative clauses in the theory of phases. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 183–192.10.1162/LING_a_00036CrossRef Google Scholar

Ott, D. (2012). Local Instability: Split Topicalization and Quantifier Float in German. De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110290950CrossRef Google Scholar

Ott, D. (2015). Symmetric Merge and local instability: Evidence from split topics. Syntax, 18(2), 157–200.10.1111/synt.12027CrossRef Google Scholar

Pires, A., & Taylor, H. L. (2007). The syntax of wh-in-situ and common ground. In Elliott, M., Kirby, J., Sawada, O., Staraki, E., & Yoon, S. (eds.), Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 43 (vol. 2, pp. 201–215). Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Postal, P. (1974). On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Reis, M. (1997). Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Dürscheid, C., Ramers, K., & Schwarz, M. (eds.), Sprache im Fokus (pp. 121–144). Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (2016). Labeling, maximality and the head – phrase distinction. Linguistic Review, 33, 103–127.10.1515/tlr-2015-0016CrossRef Google Scholar

Saito, M. (2016). (A) case for labeling: Labeling in languages without ɸ-feature agreement. Linguistic Review, 33, 129–175.10.1515/tlr-2015-0017CrossRef Google Scholar

Saito, M. (2017). Japanese wh-phrases as operators with unspecified quantificational force. Language and Linguistics, 18(1), 1–25.Google Scholar

Seely, D. (2006). Merge, derivational c-command and subcategorisation in a label-free syntax. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), Minimalist Essays (pp. 182–217). John Benjamins.10.1075/la.91.13seeCrossRef Google Scholar

Struckmeier, V. (2016). Scrambling in German is driven by prosody and semantics. In Kim, K., Umbal, P., Block, T., Chan, Q., Cheng, T., Finney, K., Katz, M., Nickel-Thompson, S., & Shorten, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 381–389). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Sugimoto, Y. (2016). De-phased by external pair-merge of C to T and its consequences. In Bellamy, K., Karvovskaya, E., & Saad, G. (eds.), ConSOLE XXIV: Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (pp. 237–253). Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.Google Scholar

Sugimoto, Y. (2021). Labeling defective T. Studia Linguistica, 75(1), 150–164.10.1111/stul.12154CrossRef Google Scholar

Takita, K., Goto, N., & Shibata, Y. (2016). Labeling through Spell-Out. Linguistic Review, 32(4), 177–198.Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, S. (2006). Licensing case. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 18(3), 175–236.10.1017/S1470542706000079CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

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 is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

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.

Index navigation
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

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

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.

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.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.