Merge, Move, and Contextuality of Syntax

14 - Merge, Move, and Contextuality of Syntax

The Role of Labeling, Successive Cyclicity, and EPP Effects

from Part III - The Realm of Merge

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2026

Željko Bošković

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 discusses two basic mechanisms that characterize the minimalist approach to language, operation Merge and the locality domain, with emphasis on the interaction between them, which occurs with movement. Labeling plays a crucial role in how the two interact in that unlabeled elements cannot undergo movement, cannot function as interveners, and cannot be targeted by movement. Labeling also provides motivation for movement (given the proposal that the presence of an uninterpretable feature blocks labeling) and deduces the ban on feature-checking movement feeding feature-checking movement. The discussion leads to a contextual approach to the EPP, where satisfaction of the EPP is not tied to a particular position. This in turn is put into a broader perspective involving a move toward contextuality in the grammar in general: the contextuality of syntax is shown to manifest in the locality of movement/islandhood (there are no islands as this notion has been traditionally understood – there are no phrases that by their nature, independently of their syntactic context, disallow extraction), the motivation for movement, structure-building, labeling, and the new conception of the EPP.

Keywords

Merge Move labels locality EPP phases contextuality

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program , pp. 232 - 259
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

Abels, K. (2003). Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut].Google Scholar

Barbiers, S. (2002). Remnant stranding and the theory of movement. In Alexidou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Barbiers, S., & Gartner, H. M. (eds.), Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants (pp. 47–67). John Benjamins.10.1075/la.48.04barCrossRef Google Scholar

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

Bobaljik, J. D., & Wurmbrand, S. (2005). The domain of agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 809–865.10.1007/s11049-004-3792-4CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (1994). D-structure, theta-criterion, and movement into theta-positions. Linguistic Analysis, 24, 247–286.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (1997). The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2002). A-movement and the EPP. Syntax, 5, 167–218.10.1111/1467-9612.00051CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2005). On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica, 59, 1–45.10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00118.xCrossRef 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. (2008a). On successive cyclic movement and the freezing effect of feature checking. In Hartmann, J. M., Hegedüs, V., & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology (pp. 195–233). Elsevier.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2008b). On the operator freezing effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 26, 249–287.10.1007/s11049-008-9037-1CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2011a). On unvalued uninterpretable features. In Lima, S., Mullin, K., & Smith, B. (eds.), Proceedings of 39th Conference of the North East Linguistics Society (pp. 109–120). GLSA (Graduate Linguistics Student Association of the University of Massachusetts Amherst).Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2011b). Last resort with Move and Agree in derivations and representations. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism (pp. 327–353). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2012). On NPs and clauses. In Grewendorf, G. & Zimmermann, T. E. (eds.), Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories (pp. 179–242). De Gruyter.10.1515/9781614511601.179CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2013). Phases beyond clauses. In Schürcks, L., Giannakidou, A., & Etxeberria, U. (eds.), The Nominal Structure in Slavic and Beyond (pp. 75–128). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614512790.75CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2014). Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 45, 27–89.10.1162/LING_a_00148CrossRef 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). Getting really edgy: On the edge of the edge. Linguistic Inquiry, 47, 1–33.10.1162/LING_a_00203CrossRef 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. (2020a). 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. (2020b). On smuggling, the freezing ban, labels, and tough-constructions. In Belletti, A. & Collins, C. (eds.), Smuggling in Syntax (pp. 53–95). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2021). Generalized asymmetry. In Kosta, P. & Schlund, K. (eds.), Keynotes from the International Conference on Explanation and Prediction in Linguistics: Formalist and Functionalist Approaches (pp. 15–77). Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2024). On wh and subject positions, the EPP, and contextuality of syntax. Linguistic Review, 41, 7–58.10.1515/tlr-2024-2002CrossRef Google Scholar

Branigan, P. (1992). Subjects and complementizers. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar

Castillo, J.C., Drury, J., & Grohmann, K. K. (1999). Merge over Move and the extended projection principle. In Aoshima, S., Drury, J., & Neuvonen, T. (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics (vol. 8, pp. 63–103). University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Chametzky, R. (2000). Phrase Structure: From GB to Minimalism. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). Holt, Rinehart & Winston; reprinted 1977: Elsevier North-Holland.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.), 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. (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 Di Domenico, E., Hamann, C., & Matteini, S. (eds.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond (pp. 3–16). John Benjamins.10.1075/la.223.01choCrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2019a). Some puzzling foundational issues: The Reading program. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, Special issue, 263–285.10.5565/rev/catjl.287CrossRef Google Scholar

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

Collins, C. (2005). A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax, 8, 81–120.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Dadan, M. (2019). Head labeling preference and language change. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut].Google Scholar

Den Dikken, M. (2007). Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 1–41.10.1515/TL.2007.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Despić, M. (2011). Syntax in the absence of determiner phrase. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut].Google Scholar

Despić, M. (2013). Binding and the structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian. Linguistic Inquiry, 44, 239–270.10.1162/LING_a_00126CrossRef 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. (1992). Derivational constraints on Ā-chain formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 235–259.Google Scholar

Epstein, S., & Seely, T. D. (1999). SPEC-ifying the GF “subject”: Eliminating A-chains and the EPP within a derivational model. Ms. University of Michigan and East Michigan University.Google Scholar

Erlewine, M. Y. (2016). Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel agent focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 429–479.10.1007/s11049-015-9310-zCrossRef Google Scholar

Gallego, Á. , & Uriagereka, J. (2007). A critique of phase extension, with a comparison to phase sliding. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 65–74.10.1515/TL.2007.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Grohmann, K. K. (2003). Prolific Domains: On the Anti-locality of Movement Dependencies. John Benjamins.10.1075/la.66CrossRef Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. (1996). Verb second, the split CP and null subjects in early Dutch finite clauses. Geneva Generative Papers (GenGenP), 4, 133–175.Google Scholar

Hornstein, N., & Nunes, J. (2008). Adjunction, labeling, and bare phrase structure. Biolinguistics, 2, 57–86.10.5964/bioling.8621CrossRef Google Scholar

Hunter, T. (2010). Relating movement and adjunction in syntax and semantics. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland].Google Scholar

Jenkins, R. (in press). Scrambling, specificity effects, and phasal variation in Turkish and Uyghur. Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar

Johnson, K. (1991). Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 577–636.10.1007/BF00134751CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaisse, E. (1983). The syntax of auxiliary reduction in English. Language, 59, 93–122.10.2307/414062CrossRef Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (1999). Minimalist Analysis. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lee, S. K. (2022). On agreement-drop in Singlish: Topics never agree. Glossa, 7, 1–27.Google Scholar

Lobeck, A. (1990). Functional heads as proper governors. In Carter, J., Dechaine, R. M., Philip, W., & Sherer, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th North East Linguistic Society (pp. 348–362). GLSA (Graduate Linguistics Student Association of the University of Massachusetts Amherst).Google Scholar

Martin, R. (2001). Null case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 141–166.10.1162/002438901554612CrossRef Google Scholar

McCloskey, J. (2000). Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 57–84.10.1162/002438900554299CrossRef Google Scholar

Messick, T. (2020). The derivation of highest subject questions and the nature of the EPP. Glossa, 5, 1–12.Google Scholar

Richards, N. (2001). Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198241171.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (2004). Locality and the left periphery. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (vol. 3, pp. 223–251). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0008CrossRef Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. (2006). On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Cheng, L. L.-S. & Corver, N. (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving On (pp. 97–134). MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Roberts, I. (2004). The C-system in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2, and the EPP. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP (pp. 297–328). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0010CrossRef Google Scholar

Saito, M., & Murasugi, K. (1990). N’-deletion in Japanese: A preliminary study. In Hoji, H. (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics (pp. 285–301). Stanford Linguistic Association.Google Scholar

Schneider-Zioga, P. (1995). Specifier/head agreement in Kinande. Cahiers linguistiques d’Ottawa, 23, 67–93.Google Scholar

Schwartz, B. D., & Vikner, S. (1996). The verb always leaves IP in V2 clauses. In Beletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax (pp. 11–62). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195087932.003.0002CrossRef Google Scholar

Starke, M. (2001). Move dissolves into Merge: A theory of locality. [Doctoral dissertation, Université de Genève].Google Scholar

Takahashi, M. (2011). Some consequences of case-marking in Japanese. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut].Google Scholar

Takita, K. (2019). Labeling for linearization. Linguistic Review, 37, 75–116.10.1515/tlr-2019-2035CrossRef Google Scholar

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

Travis, L. M. (1991). Parameters of phrase structure and V2 phenomena. In Freidin, R. (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar (pp. 339–364). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, J. (1999). Minimal restrictions on Basque movements. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 403–444.10.1023/A:1006146705483CrossRef Google Scholar

Webelhuth, G. (1992). Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195070415.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilder, C., & Gärtner, H. M. (1996). Introduction. In Wilder, C., Gärtner, H. M., & Bierwisch, M. (eds.), The Role of Economy Principles in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1–35). Akademie.10.1515/9783050072173CrossRef Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, S. (2014). The Merge condition: A syntactic approach to selection. In Kosta, P., Franks, S., Radev-Bork, T., & Schürcks, L. (eds.), Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces (pp. 130–166). John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.11.06wurCrossRef Google Scholar

Yoo, Y. S. (2015). Labeling algorithm and its consequences on movement. [Paper presented at the 17th Seoul Conference on Generative Grammar, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, August 5–8].Google Scholar

Yoo, Y. S. (2018). Mobility in syntax: On contextuality in labeling and phases. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut].Google Scholar

Zwart, J. W. (1993). Verb movement and complementizer agreement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 18, 297–340.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.