Abstract: This paper draws a deep connection between smuggling (Collins, 2005) and labeling (Collins, 2002; Chomsky, 2013, 2015), showing that the movement of the smuggler in a smuggling derivation can be triggered by the labeling algorithm.
https://bioling.psychopen.eu/index.php/bioling/article/view/17229
Reading Group Announcement: Foundations of Minimalist Syntax
Spring 2026
Coordinator: Professor Chris Collins
Level: Graduate students and advanced undergraduate students.
Time: Thursday 2:00pm - 4:00pm
Place: 10 WP 103
Note: There is a credit optional available: directed reading for grads, independent study for undergrads.
Description:
The reading group will focus on reading and discussing as much of Marcolli et. al. 2025 (henceforth MSSM) as possible in one semester.
Marcolli, Matilde, Noam Chomsky and Robert Berwick. 2025.
Mathematical Structure of Syntactic Merge:An Algebraic Model for Generative Linguistics.
MIT Press, Cambridge. [389 pages]
MSSM proposes to formalize minimalist syntax using Hopf algebras. However, it is written in a framework that is unfamiliar and inaccessible to most generative syntacticians. The purpose of the reading group is to provide a space where we can help each other understand the formalism.
Some of the leading questions of the reading group will be the following (in part depending on the interests of the participants):
1. Which papers are important background for understanding MSSM?
2. How do the proposals in MSSM fit into the general evolution of the concept of Merge?
3. Are the proposals of MSSM an integral block, or are some of them better than others?
4. How can the theoretical proposals of MSSM be evaluated empirically?
5. What are the consequences of MSSM for the Ordinary Working Grammarian?
Contact me if you are interested in attending. Participation by Zoom is allowed.
Selected Background Readings:
Andrews, Avery. 2025. Some Prerequisites for Hopf Algebras in Syntax. Ms., ANU.
Blasiak, Paswel. 2010. Combinatorial Route to Algebra: The Art of Composition and Decomposition. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 12, 381-400.
Chomsky, Noam. 2019. Some Puzzling Foundational Issues: The Reading Program. Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special Issue, 263-285.
Chomsky, Noam. 2019. The UCLA Lectures. (https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005485)
Chomsky, Noam. 2021. Minimalism: Where Are We Now, and Where Can We Hope to Go. Gengo Kenkyu 160, 1-41.
Chomsky, Noam. 2023. The Miracle Creed and the Strong Minimalist Thesis. In Matteo Greco and Davide Mocci (eds.), A Cartesian Dream: A Geometrical Account of Syntax. In Honor of Andrea Moro, 17-40. Lingbuzz Press.
Chomsky, Noam, T. Daniel Seely, Robert C. Berwick, Sandiway Fong, M.A.C. Huybregts, Histsugu Kitahara, Andrew McInnerney, Yushi Sugimoto. 2023. Merge and the Strong Minimalist Thesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Collins, Chris. 2017. Merge(X,Y) = {X,Y}. In Leah Bauke, Andreas Blümel, and Erich Groat
(eds.), Labels and Roots, 47-68. De Gruyter Mouton.
Collins, Chris. 2002. Eliminating Labels. In Samuel Epstein and Daniel Seely (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, 43-64. Blackwell.
Collins, Chris and Erich Groat. To Appear. Copies and Repetitions. The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism. (http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003809)
Collins, Chris and Edward Stabler. 2016. A Formalization of Minimalist Syntax. Syntax 19, 43-78.
Seminar Announcement: Inversion
Spring 2026
(Ling GA-3320)
Instructor: Professor Chris Collins
Level: Graduate students and advanced undergraduate students.
Time: T 9:30-12:15
Place: 10 WP 103
Course Description:
Collins and Branigan 1997 (see also Collins 1997) inaugurated the study of quotative inversion into generative syntax. In the interim, there have been many studies engaging with various aspects of their analysis in different languages, including Alexiadou and Anagnostopolou 2001, 2007, Bruening 2016, Gärtner and Gyuris 2014, Murphy 2022, Richards 2010, Suñer 2000, Storment 2024, 2025a, amongst others.
This course will review the existing literature on quotative inversion, and explore a new analysis in the framework of Collins 2024 (‘Principles of Argument Structure’ MIT Press, Cambridge) taking into account the insights of previous work.
Along the way, we will discuss the relation of quotative inversion to other inversion constructions. The choice of topics will depend on the interests of the participants. Some possible topics include (but are not limited to): predicate inversion in copular constructions, subject-object inversion in Bantu, locative inversion in Bantu, French stylistic inversion, presentational inversion (“Here comes John!”), Austronesian VSO and VOS word order, Austronesian voice systems, Heavy XP Shift, there-expletive constructions, word order variation in double object constructions, and related inversion phenomena from a cross-linguistic perspective.
General Theoretical Issues:
Some of the general theoretical issues that will take center stage during the seminar include:
a. Locality of movement (leapfrogging, smuggling, freezing),
b. The nature of Agree (optional Agree in inversion constructions, see Storment 2025),
c. Types of movement (beyond the trichotomy: A, A’, head movement),
d. Principles of argument structure,
e. The syntax of voice.
Students will be given the opportunity to do fieldwork with a consultant during the course of the semester in order to develop their final project.
Auditors are welcome (either in-person or via Zoom). Please contact me if you are interested in attending.
Selected References
Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. The Subject-in-Situ Generalization and the Role of Case in Driving Computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 193-231.
Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2007. The Subject-in-Situ Gener¬alization Revisited. In Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, 31–59. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2016. Alignment in Syntax: Quotative Inversion in English. Syntax 19, 111-155.
Collins, Chris and Phil Branigan. 1997. Quotative Inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 1-41. (https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2020/12/quotative-inversion-collins-and.html#more)
Collins, Chris. 1997. Local Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Collins, Chris. 2024. Principles of Argument Structure: A Merge-Based Approach. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Gartner, Hans-Martin and Beáta Gyuris. 2014. A Note on Quotative Inversion in Hungarian. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 3, 2-30.
Murphy, Andrew. 2022. Parasitic Gaps Diagnose A-Movement in Quotative and Locative Inversion. Snippets 43.
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering Trees. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Storment, John David. 2024. Quotative Inversion as Smuggling: Evidence from Setswana and English. Presented May 3, 2024 at the 55th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Montreal, Québec.
Storment, John David. 2025a. Predicate Nominals in Tshila. Linguistic Variation 25, 375-416.
Storment, John David. 2025b. Projecting (Your) Voice: A Theory of Inversion and Circumvention. Doctoral Dissertation, Stony Brook, New York.
Suñer, Margarita. 2000. The Syntax of Direct Quotes with Special Reference to Spanish and English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 525-578.
Objective: To learn the syntax of unacusative and unergative verbs in English through a hands-on fieldwork activity, conducted during one class period. The material in this exercise comes from Levin and Rappaport 1995.
Methodology: To do this exercise, you should use Google to search the internet for example sentences. But you cannot consult any linguistic sources (e.g., papers, books, websites), nor can you search linguistic terms like “unaccusative” or “secondary predicate”, nor can you use Chatgpt to ask analytical questions. For background on the method, see:
https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2023/03/internet-searches-as-tool-in-syntactic.html
Format: Students break up into small groups of three to four people. All groups will do part 1. Some groups will do parts 2-3, and other groups will do parts 4-6. Each group should designate a scribe to collect their example sentences, which they will send to me after class (include URLs for your examples). When the groups finish, they present their results to the class.
Part 1: Each small group should find three to five example sentences containing depictive secondary predicates and three to five example sentences containing resultative secondary predicates. Each example should have a different secondary predicate. What kinds of generalizations can be made about the secondary predicates found?
Part 2: Find at least one example sentence of each of the following types. What kinds of generalizations can be made?
a. depictive modifying object of transitive verb
b. depictive modifying subject of transitive verb
c. resultative modifying object of transitive verb
d. resultative modifying subject of transitive verb
Part 3: Draw tree diagrams for the sentences from part 2 (four sentences).
Part 4: Come up with a list of 5 unaccusative verbs and 5 unergative verbs. On what basis did you classify the verbs? What kinds of generalizations distinguish the two verb classes?
Part 5: Using some of the verbs from part 4, find at least one example sentence of each of the following types. What kinds of generalizations can be made?
a. depictive modifying subject of unergative verb
b. resultative modifying subject of unergative verb
c. depictive modifying subject of unaccusative verb
d. resultative modifying subject of unaccusative verb
Part 6: Draw a tree diagram for the sentences from part 5 (four sentences).
