The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.745-767
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Mar 2020
Received 31 Oct 2020 Revised 10 Nov 2020 Accepted 05 Dec 2020

Labeling via Feature Inheritance and Sharing Meets Freezing Effects

Jaejun Kim ; Myung-Kwan Park
Dongguk University
Dongguk University

Copyright 2020 KASELL
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


This paper deduces the freezing effects from Chomsky’s (2008, 2013, 2015) Labeling Algorithm. According to this Algorithm, when a minimal projection and a non-minimal projection merge, a minimal projection determines the label of the merger. When two non-minimal projections merge, there are two ways of implementing the labeling. One is via the trace convention; traces are ignored for the labeling algorithm. The other is via feature-sharing; the prominent features that are shared by two non-minimal projections also provide a label for the merger. We suggest in this paper that feature sharing is implemented by feature inheritance from a higher head to the head of its complement. Given the Labeling Algorithm, the freezing effects are to be accounted for in this paper. It is widely known that there is an asymmetry in sub-extraction from subject and object. The latter generally allows sub-extraction out of it, whereas the former does not. We argue following the long tradition of previous studies on this topic that when an element is base-merged as the complement of a head, it allows sub-extraction out of it. However, when the element which is labeling-wise unresolved is merged with a non-minimal projection, it disallows sub-extraction out of it. The freezing effects in various constructions follow from the system of labeling via feature inheritance and sharing.


freezing effect, Labeling Algorithm, sub-extraction, feature inheritance, feature sharing


We thank three anonymous reviewers of this journal for constructive comments. We also thank YongSuk Yoo for feedback on an earlier version. All errors are, of course, ours.


  • Boeckx, C. 2003. Islands and Chains: Resumption as Stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. []
  • Boeckx, C. 2012. Syntactic Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. []
  • Bošković, Ž. 1997. The Syntax of Non-finite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Bošković, Ž. 2002. A–movement and the EPP. Syntax 5, 167-218. []
  • Bošković, Ž. 2007. On the locality and motivation of move and agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 589-644. []
  • Bošković́, Ž. 2008. On successive cyclic movement and the freezing effect of feature checking. In J. M. Hartmann, V. Hegedü̋s and H. van Riemsdijk, eds., Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, 195-233. Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland.
  • 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. []
  • Bošković, Ž. 2018. On movement out of moved elements, labels, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 49, 247-282. []
  • Browning, M. 1991. Bounding conditions on representation. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 541-562.
  • Bruening, B. 2010. Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English locative inversion and do-support. Language 86, 43-84. []
  • Cable, S. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-particles, Wh-movement, and Pied-piping. Oxford University Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, eds., Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 1-22. []
  • Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, C. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133-166 Cambridge: MIT Press. []
  • Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 33-49. []
  • Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann and S. Matteini, eds., Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honor of Adriana Belletti, 3-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. []
  • Collins, C. 1994. Economy of derivation and the Generalized Proper Binding Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 45-61.
  • Corver, N. 2017. Freezing effects. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Hoboken, 865-922. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. []
  • Freidin, R. 1992. Foundations of Generative Syntax. MA: MIT Press.
  • Gallego, Á. 2007. Phase Theory and Parametric Variation. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.
  • Gallego, Á. and J. Uriagereka. 2007. Sub-extraction from subjects: A phase theory account. In J. Camacho, N. Flores-Ferrán, L. Sánchez, V. Déprez and M. J. Cabrera, eds., The 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), 149-162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. []
  • Hartmann, J. 2005. Wh-movement and the small clause analyses of the English there-construction. Leiden Papers in Linguistics 2(3), 93-106.
  • Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, USA.
  • Jurka, J. 2010. The Importance of Being a Complement: CED Effects Revisited. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, USA.
  • Kuno, S. 1973. Constraints on internal clauses and sentential subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 363-385.
  • Lasnik, H. and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Lasnik, H. 2001. Subjects, objects, and the EPP. In W. Davies and S. Dubinsky, eds., Objects and Other Subjects, 103-121. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. []
  • Lasnik, H. and M.-K. Park. 2003. The EPP and the subject condition under sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 649-660. []
  • Moro, A. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. []
  • Müller, G. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 35-82. []
  • Nakashima, T. 2019. On the domain of minimal search for labeling. Explorations in English Linguistics 33, 51-84.
  • Nunes, J. and Juan Uriagereka. 2000. Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3, 20-43. []
  • Rizzi, L. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In L. L.-S. Cheng and N. Corver, eds., Wh-movement: Moving On, 97-133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Sabel, J. 2002. A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands. The Linguistic Review 19, 271-315. []
  • Stepanov, A. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10, 80-126. []
  • Takahashi, D. 1994. Minimality of Movement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA.
  • Uriagereka, J. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In S. Epstein and N. Hornstein, eds., Working Minimalism, 251-282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Uriagereka, J. 2004. Spell-out consequences. Ms., University of Maryland. College Park, USA.
  • Wexler, K. and P. Culicover. 1980. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Student, Department of English linguisticsDongguk University30, Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-guSeoul, KoreaTel: 010-6462-5650Email:

Professor, Department of English linguisticsDongguk University30, Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-guSeoul, KoreaTel: 010-9198-3660Email: