Phase Theory

4 - Phase Theory

Inception, Developments, and Challenges

from Part I - The Big Picture

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2026

Irene Fernández Serrano

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

Phase Theory (PT) is a minimalist approach to the strict cyclicity of derivations. This vignette sketches some of the implications of PT, considering its relevance in adopting the core notions of locality and cyclicity within the Minimalist Program. It also highlights the value of PT as a device for understanding phenomena, such as cyclic movement, ellipsis, locality of operations, the agreement/Case systems, and especially when accounting for crosslinguistic variation. At the same time, it identifies some of the theoretical shortcomings of the original formulation of PT that have become especially evident with the exploitation of the theory for providing a more solid crosslinguistic perspective. This leads to adopt a more dynamic perspective on phasehood that strikes a balance between its core foundational properties and the vast linguistic research within the field.

Keywords

phase theory cyclicity locality

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program , pp. 71 - 89

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

Abels, K. (2012). Phases: An Essay on Cyclicity in Syntax. De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110284225CrossRef Google Scholar

Adger, D. (2007). Stress and phasal syntax. Linguistic Analysis, 33, 238–66.Google Scholar

Arregi, K. (2003). Clausal pied-piping. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 115–143.10.1023/A:1024499226731CrossRef Google Scholar

Baier, N. (2014). A survey of anti-agreement effects. Ms. University of California.Google Scholar

Bailyn, J. F., & Rubin, E. (1991). The unification of instrumental case assignment in Russian. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics, 9, 99–126.Google Scholar

Belletti, A. (2018). Locality in syntax. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. (2005). Long-distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23(4), 757–807.10.1007/s11049-004-4136-0CrossRef Google Scholar

Bhatt, R., & Keine, S. (2017). Long-distance agreement. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax (pp. 1–30). Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. D. (2008). Where’s Φ? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Adger, D., Harbour, D., & Béjar, S. (eds.), Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces (pp. 295–328). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0010CrossRef Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2001). Scope reconstruction and A-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 503–48.10.1023/A:1010646425448CrossRef Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2007). Understanding Minimalist Syntax: Lessons from Locality in Long-Distance Dependencies. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bonet, E., Cheng, L., Downing, L., & Mascaró, J. (2019). (In)direct reference in the phonology-syntax interface under phase theory: A response to “modular PIC.” Linguistic Inquiry, 50, 751–777.10.1162/ling_a_00324CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2003). Agree, phases and intervention effects. Linguistic Analysis, 33(1–2), 54–96.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

Bošković, Ž. (2007). On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(4), 589–644.10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589CrossRef Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (2012). Phases in NPs and DPs. In Gallego, Á. J. (ed.), Phases: Developing the Framework (pp. 343–383). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110264104.343CrossRef 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., & Lasnik, H. (1999). How strict is the cycle? Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 691–703.10.1162/ling.1999.30.4.691CrossRef Google Scholar

Bowers, J. (1993). The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 591–656.Google Scholar

Bruening, B. (2006). Differences between the wh-scope-marking and wh-copy constructions in Passamaquoddy. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 25–49.10.1162/002438906775321166CrossRef Google Scholar

Cable, S. (2008). Wh-fronting in Hungarian is not focus fronting. Ms. University of Massachusetts.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 8 (pp. 63–103). University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). Holt, Rinehart and Winston; reprinted 1977: Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax (pp. 71–132). Academic Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language. Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1–52). MIT Press; reprinted 1995: 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. (2001a). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2001b). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20 (pp. 1–52); reprinted 2004: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belleti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (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. (2012). “Foreword.” In Gallego, Á. J. (ed.), Phases: Developing the Framework (pp. 1–9). De Gruyter Mouton.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. (2020). The UCLA lectures. Ms. University of Arizona.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á. J., & Ott, D. (2019). Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 229–261.10.5565/rev/catjl.288CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. Harper Row.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N., Halle, M., & Lukoff, F. (1956). On accent and juncture in English. In Halle, M., Lunt, H. G., McLean, H., & van Schooneveld, C. H. (eds.), For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (pp. 65–80). Mouton and Co.Google Scholar

Chung, S. (1994). Wh agreement and “referentiality” in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 1–44.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. (1980). Extraction from NP in Italian. Journal of Italian Linguistics, 5, 47–99.Google Scholar

Citko, B. (2014). Phase Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139644037CrossRef Google Scholar

Citko, B. (2020). On top but not a phase: Phasehood inheritance and variation in sluicing. In van Craenenbroeck, J., Pots, C., & Temmerman, T. (eds.), Recent Developments in Phase Theory (pp. 35–58). De Gruyter.10.1515/9781501510199-003CrossRef Google Scholar

Cole, P. (1982). Imbabura Quechua. North-Holland.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

Den Dikken, M. (2006). Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001CrossRef 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

Epstein, S. D., & Seely, T. D. (2002). Rule application as cycles in a level-free syntax. In Epstein, S. D. & Seely, T. D. (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (pp. 65–89). Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755662.ch4CrossRef 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

Fernández Serrano, I. (2022). Agreement and optionality: Evidence from Spanish variation. [Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona].Google Scholar

Frascarelli, M. (ed.). (2006). Phases of Interpretation. De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110197723CrossRef Google Scholar

Gallego, Á. J. (2007). Phase theory and parametric variation. [PhD thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona].Google Scholar

Gallego, Á. (2010). Phase Theory. John Benjamins.10.1075/la.152CrossRef Google Scholar

Gallego, Á. (ed.). (2012). Phases: Developing the Framework. De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110264104CrossRef Google Scholar

Gallego, Á. (2014). Deriving feature inheritance from the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Review, 31, 41–71.10.1515/tlr-2013-0021CrossRef Google Scholar

Gallego, Á. (2019). Strong and weak “strict cyclicity” in phase theory. In Barany, A., Biberauer, T., Douglas, J., & Vikner, S. (eds.), Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, Volume 1: Syntax inside the Grammar (pp. 745–763). Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Grano, T., & Lasnik, H. (2018). How to neutralize a finite clause boundary: Phase theory and the grammar of bound pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 49, 465–499.10.1162/ling_a_00279CrossRef Google Scholar

Griffiths, J. (2019). A Q-based approach to clausal ellipsis: Deriving the preposition stranding and island sensitivity generalisations without movement. Glossa, 4(1), 12.Google Scholar

Grohmann, K. K. (ed.). (2009a). Explorations of Phase Theory: Features and Arguments. De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213966CrossRef Google Scholar

Grohmann, K. K. (ed.). (2009b). Explorations of Phase Theory: Interpretation at the Interfaces. De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213959CrossRef Google Scholar

Grohmann, K. K. (ed.). (2009c). Interphases: Phase-Theoretic Investigations of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199541126.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840678CrossRef Google Scholar

Keine, S. (2020). Locality domains in syntax: Evidence from sentence processing. Syntax, 23, 105–151.10.1111/synt.12195CrossRef Google Scholar

Kratzer, A., & Selkirk, E. (2007). Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. Linguistic Review, 24(2–3), 93–135.10.1515/TLR.2007.005CrossRef Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (1999). Pseudogapping puzzles. In Lappin, S. & Benmamoun, E. (eds.), Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping (pp. 141–174). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195123029.003.0007CrossRef Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (2006). Conceptions of the cycle. In Cheng, L. L.-S. & Corver, N. (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving On (pp. 197–216). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Legate, J. A. (2003). Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 506–516.10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506CrossRef Google Scholar

Legate, J. A. (2012). The size of phases. In Gallego, Á. J. (ed.), Phases (pp. 233–250). De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110264104.233CrossRef Google Scholar

Matushansky, O. (2005). Going through a phase. In McGinnis, M. & Richards, N. (eds.), Perspectives on Phases, Vol. 49 (pp. 157–181). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Matushansky, O. (2008). A case study of predication. In Marušič, F. & Žaucer, R. (eds.), Studies in Formal Slavic Linguistics: Contributions from Formal Description of Slavic Languages 6.5 (pp. 213–239). Peter Lang.Google Scholar

McGinnis, M. (2001). Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 1, 105–46.10.1075/livy.1.06mcgCrossRef Google Scholar

McGinnis, M., & Richards, N. (eds.). (2005). Perspectives on Phases. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Miyagawa, S. (2011). Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua, 21, 1265–1282.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.009CrossRef Google Scholar

Murphy, A. (2016). What copying (doesn’t) tell us about movement: Remarks on the derivation wh-copying in German. Replicative Processes in Grammar, 149–188.Google Scholar

Mursell, J. (2020). Long distance agreement and information structure. In Smith, P. W., Mursell, J., & Hartmann, K. (eds.), Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme (pp. 271–305). Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Müller, G. (2004). Phrase impenetrability and wh-intervention. In Stepanov, A., Fanselow, G., & Vogel, R. (eds.), Minimality Effects in Syntax (pp. 289–325). De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197365.289CrossRef Google Scholar

Müller, G. (2010). On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 35–82.10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35CrossRef Google Scholar

Newell, H., & Sailor, C. (2026). Minimalism and the syntax–phonology interface. In Leivada, E. & Grohmann, K. K. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism and Its Applications. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Obata, M. (2010). Root, successive-cyclic and feature-splitting internal merge: Implications for feature-inheritance and transfer. [PhD thesis, University of Michigan].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

Polinsky, M., & Potsdam, E. (2001). Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 583–646.10.1023/A:1010757806504CrossRef Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing Arguments. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Richards, M. (2007). On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 563–572.10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563CrossRef Google Scholar

Richards, M. (2011). Deriving the edge: What’s in a phase? Syntax, 14, 74–95.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2010.00146.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Richards, M. (2012). On feature inheritance, defective phases, and the movement–morphology connection. In Gallego, Á. J. (ed.), Phases: Developing the Framework (pp. 195–232). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110264104.195CrossRef Google Scholar

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

Rizzi, L. (2011). Minimality. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism (pp. 220–238). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sheehan, M., & Cyrino, S. (2018). Why do some ECM verbs resist passivisation? A phase-based explanation. In Hucklebridge, S. & Nelson, M. (eds.), NELS 48: Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (Vol. 3, pp. 81–90). GLSA.Google Scholar

Sheehan, M., & Cyrino, S. (2024). Restrictions on long passives in English and Brazilian Portuguese: A phase-based account. Linguistic Inquiry, 55(4), 769–803.10.1162/ling_a_00482CrossRef Google Scholar

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

Uriagereka, J. (1988). On government. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut]Google Scholar

Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple Spell-Out. In Hornstein, N. & Epstein, S. (eds.), Working Minimalism (pp. 251–282). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, J. (2011). Derivational cycles. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism (pp. 239–259). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, J. (2012). Phase periodicity. In Gallego, Á (ed.), Phases: Developing the Framework (pp. 67–102). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110264104.67CrossRef Google Scholar

Uriagereka, J., & Gallego, Á. J. (2020). Off the chain. Ms. University of Maryland/Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar

van Koppen, M. (2017). Complementizer agreement. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax (pp. 1–40). Wiley.Google Scholar

van Urk, C. (2019). On the Distribution of Successive Cyclicity. University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar

van Urk, C. (2020). How to detect a phase. In van Craenenbroeck, J., Pots, C., & Temmerman, T. (eds.), Recent Developments in Phase Theory (pp. 89–130). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501510199-005CrossRef Google Scholar

Wiland, B. (2010). Overt evidence from left-branch extraction in Polish for punctuated paths. Linguist Inquiry, 41, 335–347.10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.335CrossRef Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, S. (2017). Stripping and topless complements. Linguistic Inquiry, 48, 341–366.10.1162/LING_a_00245CrossRef 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.